Optimove Reports PEN1.04 Million Revenue Uplift From Apuesta Total Pop-Ups

Optimove has published a case study attributing PEN1.04 million in incremental revenue to 44 website pop-up campaigns run by Peruvian gambling operator Apuesta Total since March 2026.

The campaigns used Optimove Orchestrate’s AI Journey Decisioning Agent to respond to player behaviour with targeted on-site messages. Optimove says every campaign outperformed a held-out control group and achieved statistical significance. 

The reported total is approximately $303,000 using the supplied conversion rate of PEN3.427 per US dollar. Optimove’s own case study gives a different dollar equivalent, approximately $280,000, based on August 2026 exchange rates. The underlying reported result is denominated in Peruvian soles.

One Campaign Generated More Than a Quarter of the Total

Across the programme, Optimove reported 354,022 player contacts. Dividing the rounded revenue total by that figure produces approximately PEN2.94 per contact.

Results were concentrated in one activation. A single-day campaign generated PEN288,461, approximately 27.7% of the programme’s total. The remaining 43 campaigns therefore contributed roughly PEN752,000, averaging PEN17,478 each.

The standout campaign produced 16.5 times the average revenue of those other campaigns. Optimove also reported PEN20.18 in incremental revenue per player for that activation, compared with an average of PEN2.21 elsewhere. 

Behaviour Triggers Determine When Offers Appear

The case study describes targeting users browsing the casino section who had never previously played casino games.

One example involved displaying a PEN20 free-spin offer when a logged-in player arrived on the website. The system used live behavioural triggers to deliver the message rather than waiting for a scheduled campaign.

The reported player contacts should not be treated as a count of unique customers, since the case study does not establish that equivalence. 

Revenue Definition and Bonus Costs Remain Unclear

The publication does not specify whether its revenue measure represents GGR, NGR or another financial metric. It also omits the reporting period’s end date, control-group sizes, confidence intervals and whether bonus costs were deducted.

Those omissions limit conclusions about profitability. In particular, the PEN20 offer and the best campaign’s PEN20.18 per-player result cannot establish a return on investment: the case study does not explicitly identify them as the same activation or explain the treatment of promotional costs.

The findings remain vendor-reported campaign results, with control-group testing described but insufficient detail published to reproduce the calculations independently.