Blog

Most marketplace teams focus their optimization efforts on internal best-sellers.

It feels logical. These products already convert. They generate volume. Small improvements appear to deliver quick wins. Better ranking, sharper pricing, improved content. Incremental gains are measurable and reassuring.

But this is often a defensive decision.

Optimizing what already performs well protects existing GMV. It rarely creates structural growth.

Internal best-sellers are visible, monitored and frequently updated. But their marginal upside is limited: these products are already close to their performance ceiling.

Meanwhile, blind spots remain elsewhere in the catalog:

• Categories with high demand but weak assortment depth
• Emerging brands not yet onboarded
• Long-tail searches with poor coverage
• Repeated search queries returning limited or irrelevant results

These gaps represent unaddressed demand. They are harder to measure, but far more strategic.

Marketplace growth rarely comes from squeezing an extra 2% conversion rate on existing winners. It comes from expanding relevance: capturing demand that currently leaves the platform.

Most marketplaces believe they have a traffic problem.

When growth slows, the default reaction is predictable: invest more in acquisition, optimize paid channels, renegotiate partnerships, push promotions. The assumption is simple — "If we had more traffic, we would sell more."

But in many cases, the real constraint sits elsewhere.

The real issue isn't traffic. It's assortment relevance.

The critical question is not "How do we bring more visitors?" but: What percentage of existing demand goes unmet because the right products or brands are not present on the platform?

Marketplaces rarely have a precise view of what they don't sell.

Not just out-of-stock items. Not just underperforming SKUs. But structurally missing assortment relative to demand signals.

Traffic is visible. Marketing spend is measurable. Without proper tracking, demand gaps stay invisible.

Back from the show.

Marketplace is no longer a side bet. It is becoming the core growth engine of retail.

Across conversations with execs:

• 30% to 80% 3P growth in 2025, mostly in the FR market
• 25% to 60% of digital GMV already marketplace-driven
• In many cases, 50%+ of total growth coming from 3P

Yet most orgs are still structured around old 1P reflexes.

Another signal: AI is everywhere (onboarding, attribute gen, pricing, cat matching) — but the real bottleneck is no longer supply. It is decision speed under complexity.

When 10% of sellers drive most of the GMV, but time and resources are spread evenly, growth slows down.

Amazon just launched "Buy for Me" (in test).

And if you think this is about checkout convenience, you are missing the point.

This is not a marketplace feature. This is a selection gap engine.

Translation: Selection no longer needs to live on your platform to be exploited.

What this really means:

• Catalog size is no longer the moat
• Seller onboarding speed is now secondary
• Owning the selection gap signal is everything
• Marketplaces that miss their gaps early become execution backends

Amazon now sees, in real time:

• What customers want but cannot find
• Which products convert outside Amazon
• Which categories underperform by country
• Which sellers should be pulled cross-border

All of this before the marketplace even reacts.

The next competitive advantage in marketplaces is not better dashboards or more sellers.

It is one question only: Which selection gaps are worth filling, and which are not?

2 years ago, a major marketplace told me:

They burned a shitload of money chasing internal credit.

But they could not see the sellers.
They could not see the breakout products.
Competitors did.
GMV leaked fast.

2 years later, they became a customer.
But in a far tougher market.