“Marketing is needed, but it does not replace the product” – interview with Andrew Shepard

At first glance, the world of ICOs and the online gaming industry has nothing in common. One deals with tokens and smart contracts, the other with entertainment and player retention. But if you dig deeper, it turns out that in both cases, success is built on the same principles. It is about trust, transparency, and the ability to create a product people return to. That is why we decided to speak with Andrew Shepard, Head of Product at Roulette77, whose team works at the intersection of gaming, technology, and user experience. We talked with him about why hype is not enough, how trust works in different markets, and what lessons teams from the crypto sector can learn from iGaming.

When you look at the ICO market, do you feel a sense of déjà vu? What reminds you of the online gaming industry?

Absolutely. I see the same picture as in online gambling ten years ago. A huge number of projects, bold promises, and a constant sense of a “new start”. Back then, everyone wanted to launch their own casino or affiliate site; today, everyone wants to release a token. The only difference is in the technology. The common point is that the market is oversaturated. In both ICOs and iGaming at an early stage, it is difficult for an investor or player to understand who is really able to create a long-lasting product. Success remains with those who know how to build long-term trust, not only sell a nice picture.

In gambling, the product is based on players’ trust. Can we say that in ICOs, investors’ trust plays the same role?

I think even more so. In gambling, trust is formed through experience. For example, a player places a bet, wins or loses, and immediately sees whether the system works honestly or whether there are delays. In ICOs, however, trust is built over a long horizon. An investor invests today but may only see results in a year, two, or more.

That is why projects in the crypto market vitally need transparency tools. This may be a smart contract audit or regular progress reports. In general, everything that reduces the sense of uncertainty helps to hold attention. Players need to be sure the casino is fair, and investors need to be sure the team is really moving along the stated path.

Many crypto startups spend more effort on marketing than on the product itself. In iGaming, this is a common mistake. How dangerous is such an imbalance?

Unfortunately, this is indeed a frequent trap that many iGaming products fall into. Loud marketing gives a short-term spike of interest, but if there is no real substance behind it, the project will not survive. In iGaming, I saw dozens of platforms that invested in advertising but did not care about the quality of the game, the truthfulness of the information provided, or the fairness of the conditions. The result was always the same. Users left, and the product died.

In ICOs, the situation is, in my opinion, even riskier. There is no “instant check” as in roulette. Investors may believe marketing, put in money, and only later realize that there is nothing behind the project. In this sense, an ICO based only on hype is more dangerous than a bad casino, because it can deceive many more people at once.

And here we see the main parallel: marketing is needed, but it does not replace the product. If the team bets only on hype, it may attract attention, but it will not keep trust. And trust is essentially the building material both for games and for blockchain.

In online games, players increasingly want to see transparency and fairness: audits, provably fair mechanics. What parallels do you see with ICOs, where smart contracts and code audits are important?

The parallels are direct. In iGaming, players increasingly ask: “Prove that the result is fair.” In crypto projects, investors say the same: “Prove that your code is safe and that the economy works.” In both cases, it is about trust through verifiability. The difference lies only in the tools. In gambling, it is provably fair systems and independent RNG auditors; in IC, it is smart contract audits and open code repositories.

The player community is the heart of any iGaming product. Can the same principle be applied to crypto startups?

I would say that the community is what distinguishes a live project from a dead one. In games, it is immediately visible. If a community forms around the product, shares strategies, discusses wins, and maintains interest, then the project lives. If the chat is empty and the forum is silent, the product is essentially doomed. The same dynamics apply to ICOs. A strong community not only attracts new investors but also retains old ones. It becomes a source of feedback, a driver of marketing, and even a control tool. People notice if the team starts to move away from the promised course and raise uncomfortable questions.

But there is an important nuance: you cannot buy a community. It can only be built through honest interaction and constant attention. In gambling, this means regular promotions, transparent mechanics, and care for loyal players. In ICOs, it is active communication in channels, open AMAs, and honest reports. Where the team talks with people, trust appears.

In your opinion, what mistakes most often ruin new projects, whether gaming products or ICO initiatives?

The most common mistake is overestimating one’s own strength. In both cases, teams often think: “It is enough to attract attention, the rest will come by itself.” But the market quickly punishes a lack of substance. In gambling, these are products without fair mechanics or with primitive gameplay. In ICOs, these are tokens without real use. In both cases, hype is short-lived.

And finally. If a team came to you at the presale stage and asked for three main pieces of advice from iGaming experience, what would you tell them?

First, build trust from day one. In gambling, this means fair rules and transparent results. In ICOs, it means code audits and clear tokenomics. Without trust, you will not keep an audience. Second, think about long-term value. A gaming product lives for years only if it gives players emotions and brings them back again and again. A token will be valuable only if it is needed within the ecosystem and not just for speculation. Third, communicate with the community. Players like to be heard. Investors do too. If the team closes itself off and disappears for months, interest dies. But if you are open, people will forgive even mistakes, but they will not forgive silence.