This week, we published the CFI Marketplace 100, a ranking of the largest and fastest-growing consumer-facing marketplace startups and private companies. See the full index and analysis here, and visit a16z.com/marketplace-100 for more marketplace-related content.
From a business standpoint, we know marketplaces are challenging to scale; from a conversational perspective, we’ve come to realize they’re also really hard to explain. A dizzying array of jargon is used to describe the dynamics of such companies, which can make marketplace-focused posts and podcasts feel cryptic and inaccessible. Such terminology exists because there are many subtleties to managing a marketplace business, as evidenced by the Marketplace 100. The marketplace glossary is intended to demystify buzzwords for founders, operators, and tech-savvy readers alike.
Marketplace
Though the semantics have been vigorously debated, we
define a marketplace as any platform that connects the buyers and sellers of
goods or services with each other and provides infrastructure (such as reviews,
payments, or messaging) to facilitate a transaction.
This definition becomes more complicated when marketplaces hold inventory (like Amazon) or employ providers (like Honor). See: managed marketplace, below.
Supply side and demand side
The supply-side provides the product or service; the
demand-side acquires the product or service. In a marketplace, this usually
occurs via a financial exchange from demand to supply.
In our experience, it’s typically easier to jumpstart supply than demand because suppliers are economically motivated. The harder part of scaling a marketplace is figuring out how to aggregate demand. (There’s a wealth of resources and advice on solving this chicken-and-egg problem.)
Liquidity
The ease with which buyers and sellers can find the
right counterpart in the marketplace. In other words, liquidity is the
likelihood that a seller is able to find a buyer, or that a buyer is able to
find the product or service they’re looking for.
Liquidity is the most critical aspect of a marketplace; without it, a marketplace isn’t valuable to buyers and sellers. Most marketplaces fail because they never reach or maintain liquidity. Liquidity can be measured through metrics like fill rate (aka match rate, utilization rate), market depth, and time to find a match.
Network effects
The phenomenon in which a product/service becomes
more valuable as its user base grows. Here’s our primer on
network effects.
Two-sided network effects
Marketplaces have a 2-sided network effect, wherein
the network becomes more valuable as the number of users on the other side of the marketplace increases. For instance, in a
rideshare marketplace, users derive more value when there are more drivers, and
vice versa. Different marketplaces have varying levels of network effects
strength. (Check out our blog post on measuring network effects here.)
Search costs (aka search friction)
The time, effort, and money consumers spend to search
for the best product or service. In a marketplace, higher search costs create
decision fatigue for consumers, as well as lower liquidity. Marketplaces can
implement various features to reduce search costs, including curating or
constraining supply or automating matching.
Matching
The process by which suppliers and consumers find
each other. Some marketplaces (such as Uber and Lyft) automate matching to drive
liquidity. Others seek to reduce search costs by constraining the available
choices—say, dating apps that select and surface a set number of potential
matches per day.
There are various ways that marketplaces architect matching:
Take rate (aka rake)
Take rate is the percentage of the gross merchandise
value (GMV) captured by the marketplace. It usually varies from a low
single-digit percent to the mid-30s, depending on factors like fragmentation,
availability of substitutes, and operational value-add provided by the
marketplace. Managed marketplaces typically have a higher take rate because they
provide more value to users and cover operational expenses.
Managed marketplace
Marketplaces that take on additional activities in
order to better establish trust, especially in high-value or high-stakes
categories. These functions can include verifying product authenticity,
providing pricing guidance, and interviewing and vetting providers to ensure
quality—in some cases, even employing providers.
Managed marketplaces represent an important evolution in marketplace design and can unlock categories that are high-trust and/or -value, such as luxury goods or real estate. On the flip side, managed marketplaces represent greater operational overhead and can be challenging to build into a profitable business.
Vertical marketplace
A marketplace that is hyper-targeted to the needs of
a particular industry, product category, or other group of customers with
specific needs. Vertical marketplaces are often contrasted with horizontal
marketplaces: Craigslist is a horizontal marketplace, while Angie’s List (which
is focused on home services) and Trusted (which targets babysitting) are
examples of vertical marketplaces. There are various degrees of verticalization:
for instance, Slice, an online food ordering platform for independent pizzerias,
is a more verticalized form of Uber Eats.
Vertical marketplaces can offer an experience that is tailored to the unique needs of a particular group of users.
Multi-sided marketplace
Aside from two-sided marketplaces, there are also
N-sided marketplaces. Food delivery marketplaces are a common example of
three-sided marketplaces, in that they are comprised of restaurants, delivery
drivers, and consumers.
Multi-sided marketplaces are often harder to get off the ground because they need to acquire and retain additional sides of the marketplace. However, as a result they are also more defensible.
Local vs. global marketplaces (or local vs. global network effects)
The geographic scope wherein the marketplace has
network effects. Global marketplaces have global network effects: an additional
supply around the world creates additional value for a user in a different
country. Local marketplaces are ones in which an additional user is only
relevant and valuable to other users in that particular geography—i.e., they
have local network effects.
B2B, B2C, and P2P (aka C2C) marketplaces
These terms describe the supply and demand users in
the marketplace: businesses or consumers. A B2B marketplace matches businesses
with businesses, such as Faire (a wholesale marketplace connecting retailers to
brands), while B2C marketplaces connect businesses to consumers (like, say,
DoorDash). P2P, or peer-to-peer, marketplaces have individual consumers on both
sides, such as Airbnb.
This distinction can get more complicated as the line between business and consumer blurs. a professional Airbnb host, for instance, may be a “B” (business) or a “C” (consumer). At a high level, describing a marketplace as one of these categories helps to convey the dynamics of acquiring different sides of the marketplace. B2B marketplaces are typically constrained by sales, while P2P marketplaces are constrained by trust, general awareness, and category creation.
Fragmentation and Concentration
Marketplace fragmentation and concentration refers to
the degree to which the volume in the marketplace is made up of a smaller number
of players (concentrated) or large number of players (fragmented).
Typically, fragmentation is desirable. The risk of a highly-concentrated marketplace is that an individual buyer or seller can exert outsize influence over the marketplace in terms of pricing, gross merchandise value (GMV), etc.
Homogeneity vs. Heterogeneity
The degree to which there is variety among supply in
a marketplace. A company can design a marketplace to increase or decrease
homogeneity as a product choice. For
instance, Uber buckets the drivers available into a small number of tiers in
order to reduce search costs. Other marketplaces surface heterogeneity among
suppliers: for example, Outschool—a live online children’s education
platform—highlights the unique attributes of each course and teacher.
Commoditization
(verb: to
commoditize)
Relatedly, commoditization is the degree to which the
marketplace diminishes the variation between suppliers. Commoditized goods and
services are relatively indistinguishable from the rival offerings of another
supplier. Amazon, Facebook (with regards to media companies on the Newsfeed),
and other aggregators are often described as commoditizing their suppliers,
meaning every product is displayed in the same way, in a manner that detracts
from brand differentiation.
To avoid overwhelming consumers with a deluge of options, every marketplace needs to commoditize its suppliers to some extent—that is, to standardize the infinite variation between products and services and to expose the relevant aspects for consumers.
Disintermediation (aka leakage)
This occurs when a platform’s supply-side and
demand-side users utilize the marketplace for discovery, but then complete the
transaction outside of the platform (e.g., finding and messaging a service
provider on the marketplace, then transacting offline).
Disintermediation can be motivated by price sensitivity (users trying to bypass marketplace fees), convenience (for monogamous transactions, it can be convenient to move the transaction offline), or by necessity (marketplaces such as Craigslist, for example, may not provide the infrastructure needed to complete the transaction on-platform).
Disintermediation is undesirable for marketplaces because it stymies growth and suppresses monetization. A number of blog posts outline tactics to reduce and prevent disintermediation.
Managed marketplaces combat disintermediation because they offer greater value in facilitating the transaction.
Multi-tenanting (aka multi-homing)
When users (either demand or supply) use multiple
platforms to list or search. For instance, an employer might post a job opening
on multiple job search websites, or a host could list a property on multiple
travel websites.
Multi-tenanting reduces the strength of the marketplace’s network effects.
Monogamous vs. Polygamous
These terms are used to describe the relationship
between supply and demand. If transactions happen repeatedly between the same
supply-side user and the same demand-side user, the transactions or relationship
is described as monogamous in nature. Certain categories are also often
described as monogamous—home cleaning or babysitting, for example—in which
buyers typically prefer to work with the same provider repeatedly after
establishing trust and familiarity. Other categories are more polygamous,
meaning the user has repeated, different matching needs across transactions,
such as travel accommodations or food delivery.
Polygamous transactions are better suited to marketplaces because users are compelled to return to the marketplace on an ongoing basis for future transactions. In contrast, monogamous categories heighten the risk of disintermedation.
Li Jin