Management reporting
Several casino brands · One comparable view
Bring multi-brand casino reporting into a comparable BI view. Align GGR, NGR, bonus costs, currencies and reporting periods before reviewing the portfolio result.
AskDataAnalyticsPortfolio / Comparable reporting
Which brand is behind the change in NGR?
Compare the management total, inspect the brand movement and keep the revenue definition beside the result.
In AskData
The owner gets a portfolio answer with the brand-level detail needed for the next review.
The starting point
A portfolio review brings together reports prepared by different teams or systems. One includes bonus activity, another uses a different day boundary, and the currency conversion happens at a different stage. Summing the files produces a number without resolving those differences.
AskData Analytics connects the portfolio question with a comparable brand view. The reporting setup aligns definitions and preserves the route back to each brand’s records.
Connect the records
A small, explicit data contract keeps the source, scope and reconciliation rule attached to each management figure.
| Record | Required context | Check |
|---|---|---|
| Brand identity | Brand ID, source and effective dates. | Each record belongs to the intended reporting scope. |
| Gaming activity | Stakes, payouts, status, event time and currency. | Period totals reconcile with the operational source. |
| Incentives | Issued, consumed, expired and reversed records under defined rules. | No mismatch between bonus and real-money scope. |
| Costs and conversion | Cost category, charging basis and currency method. | The same cost is not deducted twice. |
The analysis workflow
Casino reporting automation starts with a repeatable contract: the same metrics, complete period and reconciliation each time. Agree the refresh and review schedule, the data-readiness rules and who investigates an exception.
Agree the formula, population, event time and included costs for each management indicator. Preserve differences required by local accounting or contracts.
Maintain brand identifiers and a record of their source. Align currency rules, period boundaries and transaction status.
Compare the analytical result with its source total. Record incomplete periods and unexplained differences before adding brands together.
Start with the portfolio view, then make brand, period and relevant activity breakdowns available for investigation.
Keep source completion, reconciliation status and reporting ownership with each period. Agree delivery and escalation requirements as part of the implementation.
What this enables
A consistent review lets an owner locate where the result moved and decide which brand or activity needs attention. It also gives the team a place to flag a reporting difference that is still unresolved.
The same definitions support the management summary and a deeper question in Analytics. The metric definition guide explains the working register in more detail.
The casino reporting automation guide explains how recurring reports, KPI monitoring and AI follow-up questions fit together.
After implementation
Agree a baseline before changing the reporting process. Check operational improvement separately from any later business decision.
| Measure | How to check it |
|---|---|
| Preparation effort | Time spent producing the same agreed management review before and after the change. |
| Reconciliation coverage | The share of indicators and periods matched to source totals, with unresolved differences listed. |
| Review completeness | Whether a reader can trace a reported movement to the relevant brand, period and definition. |
Tell us about your casino and the decisions you want to understand.