Or a lack thereof ...
There are a handful of large email service providers.
There are a handful of large paid search vendors.
There are a handful of large database providers.
There are a handful of large campaign management software providers.
There are a handful of large web analytics providers.
There are a handful of printers.
There are a handful of catalog co-ops.
There are a handful of credible digital agencies.
There are a handful of e-commerce sales solution providers.
There are a handful of attribution vendors telling us "what works". Let that one sink in. We all measure "what works" based on math authored by a hundred or two-hundred people. My goodness.
We've spent nearly 15 years outsourcing our employees to the handful of providers outlined above.
Is it any wonder, then, that so many brands look and feel "the same"?
And in a world where everybody looks and feels the same (you can perform the same exercise for merchandise, for creative, for inventory management, for ERP solutions, for robotics in the warehouse, and on and on and ...), offering practically the same merchandise at the same price, should it surprise us that 30% or more of e-commerce goes to Amazon?
If there were some level of diversity, any diversity, wouldn't there be more non-Amazon winners (and losers)? But since everybody is losing to Amazon in some manner, don't we need more winners? Wouldn't some level of marketing and brand diversity help us compete?
Capitalism is slowly optimizing e-commerce ... and with optimization comes a complete lack of diversity. Our ecosystem is being starved, and we are the ones starving ourselves. We need more brand diversity, more product diversity, more marketing diversity.