Interview objective: Replace advertised catalogue size with a reproducible measure of usable coverage.
Put this to: Jan Kovac, a publisher’s catalogue lead and the supplier’s content-operations manager.
Why it matters to buyers: Slots Launch markets a large demo catalogue but also explains that some providers restrict access from particular countries. The desk’s inference is that an advertised total cannot, by itself, establish the usable catalogue for a specific publisher and audience. (slotslaunch.com)
Draft framing — a good answer should cover:
- A dated export with stable game identifiers and a declared treatment of variants.
- The publisher’s essential studios, titles, mechanics and editorial priorities.
- A repeatable sequence: advertised records → distinct games → relevant games → documented eligibility → passed launch tests.
- Separate reporting of known exclusions, unknown permissions and untested titles.
- An explanation of overlapping exclusions so the same game is not subtracted repeatedly.
Sharp follow-up: “Give us the title-level reconciliation, not only the final percentage. Which must-have games remain unresolved?”
Buyer output: A catalogue waterfall and a prioritised gap list.
Suggested desk measure: Assign editorial weights before comparing suppliers, then calculate the share of that weighted requirement covered by eligible, tested games. This is a proposed buyer-specific measure, not an industry benchmark. Retain the underlying title list so a large collection of low-priority games cannot conceal missing essentials.
Expert quote — awaiting interview: [Approved quotation and attribution.]