The Jevons Paradox: Why Amazon Keeps Getting Harder Even When the Tools Get Better

Why better tools do not make Amazon easier

Amazon has become more efficient for sellers. Products can launch faster, listings can be optimized faster, ads can be automated, and content can be generated almost instantly. But when everyone gets access to those same efficiencies, the baseline moves.

How Jevons Paradox applies to eCommerce

Jevons Paradox originally explained why more efficient coal usage led to more coal consumption, not less. The same principle applies to Amazon. Better tools bring in more sellers, more listings, more ads, more capital, and more competition.

Why progress does not always feel like progress

Your conversion rate may improve. Your listings may get cleaner. Your creative may perform better. Your campaigns may become more efficient. But if the entire category is improving around you, those gains get absorbed into the new competitive baseline.

Why Amazon can feel like Sisyphus pushing the rock uphill

You optimize, improve performance, lower A-Costs, clean up your catalog, and gain ground. Then the market adjusts. Competitors enter, costs rise, Amazon changes rules, reviews shift, and you have to start pushing again. That does not mean something is broken. That is the game.

Why efficiency alone is not an advantage anymore

When everyone has better data, automation, AI tools, and reporting, optimization becomes table stakes. The advantage moves higher into strategy, positioning, creative, offer clarity, margin discipline, audience building, and brand durability.

What Amazon ads reveal about the broader marketplace

Advertising is the clearest example because CPCs, ROAS, DSP, T A-Costs, and lower funnel efficiency show the pressure quickly. But the lesson is bigger than ads. This is about how Amazon, marketplaces, and eCommerce systems mature over time.

Why brands need to build for durability

The question is not how to make Amazon easier. The better question is how to keep winning as Amazon gets more competitive. That requires stronger systems, better margins, clearer positioning, stronger creative, and the discipline to think beyond short-term efficiency.

The bigger takeaway:

Amazon did not get harder because the tools got worse.

Amazon got more efficient, and more people showed up.

That means the next advantage does not come from using the same tools as everyone else. It comes from building a brand that can survive when everyone else becomes more efficient too.

The edge is not in surface-level optimization. It is in durability.

Follow Selling on Giants for operator-level breakdowns on Amazon strategy, marketplace growth, retail media, eCommerce leadership, advertising, AI commerce, and what it really takes to build a brand that holds up as the market gets more competitive.

Subscribe to Selling on Giants for weekly insights that go beyond headlines and focus on what actually impacts your business.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Welcome back to the Selling on Giants Podcast. I'm your host, Mr. Will, and today we're talking about a frustration every Amazon operator has felt at some point, which is the strange experience of improving the account while the business still feels harder to grow. You clean up the listings, tighten the campaigns, improve creative, get better data, add smarter tools, and automate more of the work. Then a few months later, clicks are expensive again, competitors are everywhere, margins feel tighter, and the account that looked cleaner suddenly feels crowded. You are doing the work, performance is improving in pieces, and yet the business still feels like it is pushing uphill. That is not because you are crazy, and it is not because Amazon suddenly decided to punish you personally, although I understand why it feels that way some weeks. What you are experiencing is a very old economic idea showing up in a very modern marketplace. It is called Jevon's Paradox, and the concept is simple. When something becomes more efficient, we do not necessarily use less of it. We usually use more. The original idea was tied to coal. As coal became more efficient to use, people assumed society would conserve it, but instead we burned more coal because efficiency made it cheaper, easier, and more useful across more applications. Efficiency did not reduce demand, it expanded it. Now apply that to Amazon because Amazon has never been more efficient. Sellers can launch products faster, listing tools are better, keyword data is easier to access, AI can help write content, automation can manage bids, dashboards are more sophisticated, retail media is more measurable. Agencies and sellers have access to tools that would have felt absurd 10 years ago. So what happens? More sellers enter, more listings go live, more ads flood the auction, more brands get better at the basics, and more capital flows into categories that once looked easier to defend. Efficiency does not make the system easier to win. It makes the system bigger, faster, and more competitive. That is the part sellers miss. They think better tools should make the work easier, and sometimes they do at the individual account level. But when everyone gets better tools at the same time, the baseline moves. What used to be an advantage becomes table stakes. Cleaner listings used to separate strong operators from lazy ones. Now everyone has access to better listing data, AI-assisted copy, keyword research, and creative benchmarks. Better campaign structure used to be a major edge. Now more sellers understand match types, targeting, bid adjustments, and search term harvesting. Better reporting used to create leverage. Now almost everyone has some version of a dashboard telling them what went wrong yesterday. So yes, your account may be improving, but the market around you is improving too. That is why it can feel like you are doing everything right and still losing ground. Your conversion rate improves, but competitors enter. Your cost per click drops, then more advertisers show up and the auction heats back up. Your listings get cleaner, then the whole category starts looking cleaner, your creative gets stronger, then everyone starts testing better images and video, your gains do not disappear. They get absorbed into the new baseline. That is Jevon's paradox playing out in real time. The marketplace feedback loop is pretty straightforward. Tools improve, more brands enter, competition increases, costs rise, differentiation shrinks, and then the cycle repeats. Every improvement expands the system and every expansion resets the baseline. That is why Amazon does not feel easier, even though the tools are objectively better. This is where I think about Sisyphus. In The Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus writes about a man condemned to push a rock up a hill forever. Every time he gets it near the top, it rolls back down, and he has to start again. That is dramatic, but if you have ever optimized an Amazon account, it may also feel a little too familiar. You improve performance, gain ground, lower A costs, tighten search, get the listing converting, fix the storefront, clean up the catalog, and finally feel like the account is in a good place. Then the market adjusts. A competitor drops price, Amazon changes a rule, CPCs rise, reviews shift, a new brand enters with a bigger budget, inventory position changes, the rock rolls back down, and you start again. Most sellers think that means something is broken, but it does not. That is the game. Amazon is not a static system. It is a live marketplace with constantly adjusting incentives. The work does not end because the market does not stop moving. Camus says we should imagine Sisyphus as happy, which sounds ridiculous until you sit with it for a second. He is not happy because the work ends because it never ends. He is happy because he accepts the work. He stops expecting the rock to stay at the top forever. There is a business lesson in that, especially for marketplace operators. The goal is not to reach a point where the account is permanently solved. That point does not exist. There will always be a listing to improve, ad spend to rebalance, content to refresh, margin pressure to manage, reviews to monitor, and competitors trying to take the ground you earned. The goal is not finality, the goal is durability. That is where most brands get it wrong. They try to solve Amazon like it is a one-time puzzle. They want ads fully optimized, listings completely done, and performance stabilized forever. They want a neat little marketplace terrarium where nothing unexpected happens, and the ROAS graph goes up politely while everyone claps. That world does not exist. Every time you improve, the market expands with you. Every time tools make execution easier, more people execute. Every time automation lowers the barrier to entry, more competitors show up with passable campaigns and decent creative. Every time Amazon improves the system for sellers, more sellers use the system. The hill does not flatten, it gets more crowded. I saw this clearly with a toy brand we worked with. The brand was growing fast, roughly 70% year over year, pacing from around $6 million toward close to $13 million in sales. Strong momentum, real traction, and a great brand with real demand. They were not doing much mid-funnel targeting, no meaningful DSP strategy, no real audience building. So from an operator perspective, that looked like an obvious opportunity. We layered in mid-funnel campaigns during the holidays and the results were explosive. It worked exactly the way mid-funnel is supposed to work when the timing, category, and audience are right. The issue was not that the strategy worked. The issue was that the lesson got misread. The takeaway should have been that mid-funnel works as part of the mix. Instead, the takeaway became that mid-funnel was the thing we should focus on. We kept pushing for balance because lower funnel demand capture still mattered. High-intense search still mattered. The shoppers actively in market still mattered, but the strategy started shifting too heavily toward mid-funnel. At the same time, tacos kept getting pushed down from 20% to 15% to 12% and eventually to 8%. On paper, that looked great. Efficient, profitable, clean, and exactly the kind of dashboard that makes everyone feel responsible. But total sales started slipping because we were no longer defending high-intent search the way we should have. Competitors came in and started bidding aggressively on core terms, and we lost ground in the most important part of the funnel. That is a dangerous trade. We had to go into recovery mode, push spend back up, rebuild coverage on high-intent keywords, and make recommendations around pricing so margin could support the effort. It was not that mid-funnel was wrong, it was that the strategy became incomplete. Efficiency in one part of the system created vulnerability in another part of the system. That is the danger of looking at metrics in isolation. Amazon ads are not a reward system, they are an auction. Better performance does not earn you permanently cheaper growth. It often puts you into a category where more capable competitors notice the opportunity and show up. More bidders, better bidders, bigger budgets, smarter creative, and stronger offers all enter the system. Your CPC does not always rise because your account got worse. Sometimes it rises because the market got better. Efficiency creates participation, and participation creates pressure. We see the same dynamic with budget. Performance improves, so budgets increase, and then margins tighten. Everyone is surprised, even though this is exactly how diminishing returns work. There is always a point where the next dollar is less efficient than the last dollar. And our job as operators is to find that point, understand it, and make decisions with eyes open. But it is not as simple as saying spend more or spend less. You need to balance two things at the same time. You need to convert existing high-intent demand efficiently, and you need to build audiences for future demand. If you only focus on the bottom of the funnel, you may look efficient for a while, but you are not building enough insulation against competitors with stronger awareness. We saw that with a niche pet brand. The client was focused on maintaining a $3 ROAS, and for about 18 months it worked. Strong sales, good performance, and a clean lower funnel strategy, but we were not given enough room to build audiences earlier. Most of the focus stayed on immediate return. Then premium well-recognized brands started participating in the category. They had built-in audiences, they were willing to invest in mid-funnel, and they were not afraid to take a hit on short-term ROAS to build position because they understood the category was worth owning. The game changed, and we had to start building audiences late. Building late costs more. Results take longer because now you are not building from a position of strength. You are trying to catch up after the market already moved. Same strategy, different timing, much harder execution. That is why the real question is not whether your Amazon ads are optimized. Everyone is optimizing now. The real question is whether your brand can still win when optimization becomes standard. If efficiency is available to everyone, it stops being an advantage. That should get sellers to sit up a little because tools do not separate brands forever. They compress them. When everyone has better data, better automation, better AI, and better reporting, the gap between average and strong gets smaller. Execution levels rise across the board. Weak operators still lose, but decent operators become more common. So the advantage moves up. It moves into strategy, positioning, creative, offer clarity, conversion infrastructure, portfolio planning, brand trust, customer value, margin discipline, audience building, and the ability to decide when to scale, when to protect margin, when to take share, and when to stop chasing a vanity efficiency metric because it is quietly costing the business market position. Optimization keeps you competitive. It does not make you unique. This is where I want to pause for a second because this is exactly where Bellivix spends a lot of time with brands. Many sellers come in thinking they need a better campaign structure, better keyword strategy, or better reporting. Sometimes they do. But the bigger issue is often strategic. The ad account is exposing a business question, not just a media buying problem. Belovics has helped brands sell over $500 million on Amazon, and we are a verified ad partner. But the real value is not a badge or a dashboard. It is knowing how to interpret what the account is telling us, where the pressure is coming from, and what needs to happen across advertising, content, pricing, inventory, and positioning to keep the brand moving forward. If your brand is optimizing but growth still feels harder, visit Bellovic.com. Now let's bring it back to the core shift. Stop asking how do we make this easier? Because that is the wrong question when the system is not designed to get easier. Every efficiency attracts more participation, every tool creates more competition, every shortcut becomes table stakes once enough people use it. A better question is how do we keep winning as this gets more competitive? That question leads to better decisions. It makes you think about durability, not efficiency alone. It forces you to ask whether your offer is strong enough when competitors copy the basics, whether your creative is memorable enough when everyone has cleaner images, whether your product page converts because it is truly persuasive, and not because the category was underdeveloped, whether your ad strategy is building future demand or only harvesting what already exists, and whether your margin structure can support the competition you are about to invite by proving the category is profitable. Amazon did not get harder because the tools got worse. Amazon got more efficient and more people showed up. That is the game. The brands that win will not be the ones expecting the rock to stay at the top of the hill. They will be the ones with the discipline to push it again, but smarter each time. They will understand that the work never fully ends and they will build teams, systems, margins, audiences, and positioning that can survive the market expanding around them. So the real question is simple. Are you building for efficiency or are you building for durability when everyone else becomes efficient too? Because that is where the next advantage lives. That's it for this episode of the Selling on Giants podcast. If this helped you think differently about Amazon ads, Jevon's Paradox, or why progress does not always feel like progress, share it with a founder, operator, or ad manager who needs to hear it. And if you are getting value from the show, leave a review. It helps us reach more sellers who are trying to build stronger marketplace businesses without getting fooled by surface level efficiency. I'm Mr. Will, host of the Selling on Giants podcast. Thanks for listening and keep moving forward.