In July 2008, five ECG members were featured to be among the Top 50 Most Influential People by Inside Asian Gaming, the first and leading publication in Asia and a forum for industry players, investors, policymakers and analysts to discuss emerging themes.

From left to right:

Number 1   : Stanley Ho Hung-sun, Chairman and Managing Director (Sociedade de Jogos de Macau)

Number 9   : Kazuo Okada, Chairman (Aruze Corporation)

Number 11 : Efraim C. Genuino, Chairman & CEO (PAGCOR)

Number 25 : Dr. Jack Lam Yin Lok, Chairman ( Jimei Group)

Number 47 : Tony Tong, Chairman & CEO (PacificNet)


In an effort to highlight the achievements of those driving the industry’s dynamism, Inside Asian Gaming created the Asian Gaming 50, with the final rankings derived after tallying votes on thirteen individual criteria by twelve independent panelists from around the region. The methodology and panelists were carefully selected to ensure the Asian Gaming 50 is as representative as possible, spanning various Asian countries and forms of gaming, including the nascent regional online gaming sector and quasi-gaming in the shape of Japan’s massive pachinko industry.
But how exactly did Inside Asian Gaming came up with their ranking of the Asian Gaming 50?

The Inside Asian Gaming’s first attempt to rank the 50 most influential people in Asian gaming was a challenging task. The list is bound to create controversy and lead to charges that it is subjective in nature, despite the application of a rigorous analytical methodology involving voting by a panel of 12 independent gaming industry executives and analysts from around the region to arrive at the results.

Even measuring the objective criteria posed difficulties because many of Asia’s biggest gaming companies remain in private hands, making it difficult—if not impossible—to obtain accurate financial records. Therefore, market share and other business KPIs were estimated after extensive discussions with peers, competitors, suppliers and customers.

Another consideration is that Asia’s gaming sector can often be particularly country specific, so we endeavored to select panelists from not only high profile casino jurisdictions such as Macau, but also emerging gaming markets around the region. We sought feedback from various gaming sectors including pari-mutuels and Japan’s massive pachinko industry—omitting pachinko just because the Japanese government does not technically consider it gambling would, in our view, be a misrepresentation. We also included online operators, who are making an ever greater impact in the region, regardless of the official status of their businesses.

Even though government agencies ultimately control and influence all regulated gaming in Asia, after much discussion we decided to exclude individuals such as Macau Chief Executive Edmund Ho and senior officers of the Culture, Welfare, Sports and Finance Ministries in China, who set out the framework that gaming takes place in. One exception to the exclusion of government officials was made for the Chairman of PAGCOR, however, for reasons explained in his bio.
The twelve panelists were instructed to nominate individuals for the Asian Gaming 50. The initial list of 93 individuals was put through a scoring process to arrive at the final rankings. The panelists gave each of the nominated individuals a score of between 1 and 10 on the following criteria:

1. How well known is the individual within the gaming sector in Asia?

2. How well known is the individual generally in Asia—i.e. outside the gaming sector?

3. How successful has the individual been historically in the gaming sector?

4. How fast has their business grown over the last 5 years?

5. What is their potential for future growth in their current gaming subsector and other gaming sub-sectors in Asia?

6. How successful are they financially (individually and/or company or individual together with company, where relevant)?

7. How influential are they with the government and regulators within their jurisdictions of operations?

8. How influential are they internationally within the gaming industry (individually and/or company or individual together     with company, where relevant)?

9. How much of an innovator within the gaming industry are they?

10.How well are their products and/or services marketed and promoted?

11.How much do they own of their principal business and/or how much control do they have over their company?

12.How well positioned are they to cope with competition within their existing jurisdictions of operation and from      overseas competition?

13.How do you perceive their dominance in their current major markets of operation?

Feedback from the panelists led to each question being given a specific weighting—between 90% and 115%. Further weightings were applied relating to the company the nominated individual either works for or controls. These include the company’s status (public or private), financial performance and size (in terms of both operations and market capitalisation/value), as well as the size/importance of the markets it operates in. Finally, panelists applied a further weighting for each nominated individual with respect to his or her perceived personal integrity, effectiveness in management, overall track record and foresight.

                                                                                                                                                                    « back