Q&A with Evolution Investor Relations
Exclusive insights on competitive moats, regulation and the new communication strategy.
A couple of months ago, I mentioned that Evolution’s IR team kindly invited me to a Q&A session. I circulated a list of topics and questions to Carl Linton, Head of Investor Relations, and this week he got back to me with the responses. It’s worth noting that the questions were submitted in September before the Q3 earnings report, though that timing isn’t especially relevant since they focused on long-term value creation rather than the usual quarterly talking points from sell-side analysts.
The questions ranged from competitive moats to grey market exposure and shareholder communication. The responses shed light on how management views Evolution’s positioning, regulatory challenges, and strategic priorities, while also revealing where the company remains cautious about offering detail.
The Moat
When asked about threats to Evolution’s moat over the next 5–10 years, Linton focused more on internal discipline than external barriers. He acknowledged that “barriers to entry have always been relatively low, while the barriers to success are much higher,” noting the recent exits of competitors who underestimated the difficulty of building first-class live casino products.
The takeaway was clear: Evolution’s advantage is executional, not structural. The company’s moat depends on relentless innovation and an obsessive focus on player experience. “The threat is if Evolution would be complacent and stop pushing the industry forward,” Linton said, framing risk as primarily self-inflicted.
This view is both reassuring and sobering. It reinforces that Evolution operates in a winner-takes-most market where scale and execution drive advantage. Yet it also means the moat is only as strong as management’s ability to maintain its creative and operational intensity.
Online vs. Land-Based
Linton was emphatic that Evolution isn’t competing with Las Vegas-style casinos. “Land-based casinos are a very different type of entertainment than iGaming,” he said, pointing out that physical casinos have changed little in 15 years while online gaming continues to evolve.
More interestingly, he framed Evolution’s real competition as the broader entertainment ecosystem, Netflix, Facebook, TikTok, rather than traditional gaming venues. This helps explain some of Evolution’s product strategy, including its television-inspired game shows and experiments with hyper-casual formats aimed at “a TikTok generation who wants everything faster.”
Whether this framing is entirely correct is debatable, but it reveals management’s product philosophy: entertainment value that transcends gambling, appealing even to non-betting audiences. It’s a vision of iGaming as content-driven entertainment, not just gambling infrastructure.
The Grey Market Elephant in the Room
The most anticipated questions centered on Evolution’s exposure to unregulated markets and the reputational risks that follow. Linton’s responses were notable more for what they didn’t say than for what they did.
He restated Evolution’s standard position: the company is a B2B supplier that doesn’t interact with end users, see player identities, or handle transactions. Regulatory responsibility, he said, rests with operators and their regulators. “It is between the operator and its supervising authority, the regulator, to agree on the terms for which the operator can offer products to end users.”
When asked about balancing short-term revenue from unregulated markets against long-term credibility, Linton offered polished but generic language: “Our goal is to stay ahead of regulatory developments, always doing what is right, while maximising business potential.”
What was missing was quantification of grey market exposure, examples of proactive exits, or discussion of revenue forgone for reputational reasons. While the answers acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue, they offered little transparency.
On management’s previous inability to quantify European black market exposure, Linton clarified terminology: “Unregulated markets do not equal illegal markets,” adding that accessing unlicensed sites isn’t illegal in jurisdictions with open internet access. While technically true, this sidestepped the central question: does Evolution know where its products are being used, and what does that data reveal?
Strategic Focus
Linton was clear about Evolution’s strategic limits. Sports betting? “Not on our agenda for the time being.” Moving into B2C? “We are and will stay a technological content supplier.” That stance is logical, running a B2C casino would demand new capabilities in payments, KYC, customer acquisition, and compliance across multiple jurisdictions. Diversifying would “blur our focus and industry-leading know-how in B2B.”
On U.S. sweepstakes, Linton said it’s “an immaterial part of North American revenues,” stressing regulatory caution over expansion. Evolution operates only where the legal framework is clear. The company sees sweepstakes as “quite popular,” but not a major growth lever.
This strategic conservatism is arguably a strength. Evolution has thrived by doing one thing exceptionally well rather than chasing adjacencies. The risk is that the company might miss opportunities if the market shifts dramatically.
Capital Allocation
With its capital-light model generating strong cash flow, capital allocation matters. Linton reaffirmed Evolution’s framework of balancing dividends and buybacks to suit shareholder preferences, a pragmatic if unspectacular approach.
More intriguing was a question about Evolution’s long-term identity: by 2035, will it look more like the AWS of iGaming (infrastructure) or the Netflix of iGaming (content)? Linton declined to choose, suggesting instead that “I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw completely different types of distributors of our games in 2035 than what we have today.”
It’s an answer that hints at uncertainty about how the industry will evolve, while maintaining confidence in Evolution’s adaptability. Whether that confidence proves justified again depends on execution.
Communication Strategy
One of the most significant updates was the creation of a new Communications department aimed at “taking a more proactive stance in positioning Evolution and what we stand for.” Linton said media coverage has been “too unbalanced and tilted to the negative,” citing the Playtech/Black Cube report and the Georgia strike as cases where “people have not been critical enough about the source when they have read accusations on Evolution.”
The company’s historical approach hasn’t served it well in an environment where perception drives reality. Linton noted that Evolution holds “more than 500 investor meetings per year,” showing strong institutional engagement.
For private investors, however, that statistic underscores rather than resolves the information gap. Hundreds of closed-door meetings with institutions, with little public disclosure, create a two-tier environment. While Linton was right that “answering every question on X would require a different type of organisation and budget,” the asymmetry between institutional and retail access remains stark.
The key question is whether this new department will close that gap or simply refine messaging. Publishing conference transcripts, increasing IR website content, or hosting periodic public calls would be low-cost ways to level the playing field and improve transparency, if management is willing.
What I Learned (and Didn’t)
The Q&A provided useful insight into management’s mindset: confidence in execution, discipline around adjacencies, and recognition that communication must improve. The formation of a dedicated Communications department signals that management understands reputational damage has real costs.
What was missing was depth on the issues investors care most about, data on grey market exposure, examples of regulatory exits, or a framework for assessing when short-term revenue isn’t worth the long-term risk. On those points, the responses were polished but evasive.
For investors, the core tension remains: can Evolution sustain its edge while navigating regulatory complexity and rebuilding trust? Management believes the answer is yes. Whether execution matches that belief remains to be seen.
Finally, I want to thank Carl and the IR team for their time and thoughtful responses. As a private investor, I believe engagement with management shouldn’t be reserved for institutions. With technology enabling greater access, private investors will continue to play a growing role in capital markets and it’s encouraging to see Evolution recognise that.
If you’d like to support the work of an independent analyst, you can buy me a coffee. The proceeds will contribute to covering the annual running costs of the newsletter.
Join the community of informed investors – subscribe now to receive the latest content straight to your inbox each week and never miss out on valuable investment insights.
The Chat is a space designed to facilitate, real-time discussions, share knowledge and debate ideas with fellow investors. Join the conversation.
If you found today’s edition helpful, please consider sharing it with your friends and colleagues on social media or via email. Your support helps to continue to provide this newsletter for FREE!
Happy investing
Wolf of Harcourt Street
Contact me
Twitter: @wolfofharcourt
Email: wolfofharcourtstreet@gmail.com
HI Wolf, while I appreciate the effort from both sides, I cant help but feel these answers are quite underwhelming and really lack depth.
Not much new was learned and the real tough issues still unaddressed.
Not taking anything away from your efforts, again much appreciated!
Just hoped for, and expected, a bit more new insights here.
Thanks for sharing!
I haven't really followed this one but holding so many meetings with investors is a red flag to me. If excellence in execution is their 'moat', then what about their culture makes you believe that this lead can be maintained?