Skip to main content
Catalog
M020
Markets

Aggregator Theory Endgame

HIGH(80%)
·
February 2026
·
3 sources
M020Markets
80% confidence

What people believe

“Aggregators win by owning demand and create lasting value for all participants.”

What actually happens
+100-167%Platform take rate
Critical dependencySupplier revenue dependency
DiminishingConsumer price benefit
Near-impossibleMarket entry barriers
3 sources · 3 falsifiability criteria
Context

Digital aggregators (Google, Amazon, Uber, Airbnb) win by owning demand and commoditizing supply. The theory says aggregators create value by reducing transaction costs and improving matching. Initially this is true — consumers get better prices and selection, suppliers get access to customers. But as aggregators achieve dominance, the dynamic inverts. Suppliers become dependent and lose pricing power. Consumers face reduced choice as the aggregator optimizes for its own margins. The platform that started by serving both sides begins extracting from both sides, and switching costs make escape nearly impossible.

Hypothesis

What people believe

“Aggregators win by owning demand and create lasting value for all participants.”

Actual Chain
→
Suppliers become dependent on aggregator for demand(70-90% of revenue from single platform)
└
Supplier margins compressed as platform takes larger cut
└
Suppliers lose direct customer relationships
└
Platform can change terms unilaterally
→
Take rate increases over time(15% → 30%+ over 5-10 years)
└
Quality of supply degrades as margins shrink
└
Suppliers cut corners to maintain profitability
→
Consumer choice narrows despite appearance of abundance(Algorithm favors platform economics)
└
Sponsored results displace organic quality
└
Private label products compete with suppliers using their own data
→
Innovation stalls as aggregator optimizes extraction(R&D shifts from product to monetization)
└
New entrants cannot compete without aggregator access
└
Entire industries restructure around aggregator constraints
Impact
MetricBeforeAfterDelta
Platform take rate15% at launch30-40% at maturity+100-167%
Supplier revenue dependencyDiversified70-90% single platformCritical dependency
Consumer price benefitSignificant savingsEroding as take rates riseDiminishing
Market entry barriersLow (pre-aggregator)Extreme (must go through aggregator)Near-impossible
Navigation

Don't If

  • •You're building a business entirely dependent on a single aggregator for demand
  • •You assume the aggregator's current take rate will remain stable

If You Must

  • 1.Build direct customer relationships in parallel from day one
  • 2.Diversify across multiple platforms to reduce single-platform dependency
  • 3.Track take rate trends and model profitability at 2x current rates

Alternatives

  • Direct-to-consumer channels — Own the customer relationship, even if growth is slower
  • Protocol-based marketplaces — Decentralized alternatives with capped take rates
  • Cooperative platforms — Supplier-owned aggregators that align incentives
Falsifiability

This analysis is wrong if:

  • Aggregator take rates stabilize or decrease as platforms mature
  • Suppliers on dominant platforms maintain or improve margins over 5-year periods
  • New market entrants successfully compete without aggregator platform access
Sources
  1. 1.
    Ben Thompson: Aggregation Theory

    Original framework for understanding digital aggregator dynamics

  2. 2.
    Lina Khan: Amazon's Antitrust Paradox

    Legal analysis of aggregator market power and consumer harm

  3. 3.
    ILSR: Amazon Marketplace Report

    Documents Amazon's rising take rate from 19% to 34% over a decade

Related
M010M016
Tags
aggregator-theoryplatform-economicstake-ratemarket-powersupplier-dependency

This is a mirror — it shows what's already true.

Want to surface the hidden consequences of your market assumptions?

Try Lagbase