Names and aliases
eligible supply exposure coverage, minimum exposure coverage
Formula
eligible_supply_meeting_exposure_floor / eligible_supply × 100%
Metric card
| Unit | % of eligible supply |
|---|---|
| Data source | Eligible-supply snapshots, candidate sets, qualified impressions, positions, and a documented exposure floor. |
| Frequency | By supply cohort and operational matching window. |
| Segments | micro-market, category, geography, quality, price, cohort, ranking surface |
Interpretation errors
- Treating any technical impression as qualified exposure.
- Selecting the exposure floor after inspecting distributions and outcomes.
- Reading low coverage as absent demand without checking candidate eligibility.
Example
Illustrative example: 160 of 200 eligible supply units meet a preregistered exposure floor, producing 80% coverage.
Use
Define a qualified impression, minimum floor, and window before analysis. Report the exposure distribution and concentration beside coverage so broad reach does not hide attention inequality.
Anti-example
One automated impression per listing creates 100% coverage but does not mean that supply had a meaningful opportunity to meet relevant demand.
Limitations
- The floor, discovery surface, and impression quality are platform-specific.
- Exposure creates an opportunity for an outcome but does not establish relevant demand or a match.
Related metrics
unmatched-supply-share, zero-exposure-share, exposure-concentration, qualified-response-rate
Context sources
These works provide two-sided-market context; the formula above remains an author-defined working definition.
- Jun Li, Serguei Netessine. Higher Market Thickness Reduces Matching Rate in Online Platforms: Evidence from a Quasiexperiment (2019).
- Hanna Halaburda, Mikolaj Jan Piskorski, Pinar Yildirim. Competing by Restricting Choice: The Case of Matching Platforms (2017).