Names and aliases
supply without demand, unused eligible supply
Formula
eligible_supply_without_qualified_demand / eligible_supply × 100%
Metric card
| Unit | % |
|---|---|
| Data source | Eligible-supply availability snapshots, exposure events, qualified demand, and match events. |
| Frequency | By supply lifecycle, monitored in cohorts based on availability date. |
| Segments | micro-market, category, geography, price, quality, supply cohort |
Interpretation errors
- Keeping supply eligible after expiry, sale, or loss of availability.
- Confusing no exposure with no demand.
- Inferring seller quality from the absence of a match alone.
Example
Illustrative example: 40 of 200 eligible supply units receive no qualified demand; the share is 20%.
Use
Show exposure coverage and quality alongside the measure. Unmatched supply may have been unseen, irrelevant, uncompetitive, or located in a saturated micro-market.
Anti-example
Do not conclude that supply is excessive when the allocation system gave new supply no meaningful opportunity to be seen.
Limitations
- The measure depends on exposure, position, price, and availability rules.
- Without additional cuts, it cannot separate saturation from allocation failure.
Related metrics
unmet-demand-share, exposure-coverage, listing-quality, seller-activation-rate
Context sources
These works provide two-sided-market context; the formula above remains an author-defined working definition.
- Geoffrey G. Parker, Marshall W. Van Alstyne. Two-Sided Network Effects: A Theory of Information Product Design (2005).
- Mark Armstrong. Competition in Two-Sided Markets (2006).