What is Enshittification?
Table of Contents: Definition – Phases – Examples – How it works and why is fails – Questions from the field – Notes
Enshittification: When utility shrinks and profit grows
Many digital products launch with a clear promise: they are convenient, affordable, open, useful or particularly easy to use. This is precisely how they win people over, build their reach and become part of everyday life.
Over time, however, the focus often shifts. What initially served primarily to provide practical value is increasingly optimised for revenue, control and profit. Free features are restricted, prices rise, advertising increases, search results or feeds become more heavily commercialised, and services that were once taken for granted disappear behind paywalls. The product still fulfils its original purpose, but noticeably less effectively: it has become more cumbersome, more expensive, more confusing or more intrusive. At the same time, the proportion of value that operators or manufacturers skim off for themselves grows.
The Canadian-British tech writer Cory Doctorow coined the term ‘enshittification’ to describe this pattern. [1] The word combines an English swear word for shit with the suffix ification, which describes a process. It therefore does not refer to a single bad decision, but to a gradual deterioration: A service is first made attractive, then monetised through business customers, and finally optimised in such a way that the operator benefits most of all.
The term became well-known because it describes an experience that many people recognise from their everyday digital lives: platforms, services and products seem helpful at first, but as dependence on them grows, they become worse, more expensive or more intrusive. [2]
The three phases of enshittification
Enshittification rarely happens overnight. It is typically a gradual process in which the platform’s priorities shift. Initially, the focus is on the benefits for users. Subsequently, the reach gained is made usable for business customers. In the final phase, the operator attempts to extract as much value as possible from both sides.
Phase 1: Attracting users
In the first phase, the platform offers particularly high added value. It is cheap or free, easily accessible, fast, convenient and often better than existing alternatives. Features are plentiful, content is easy to find, and barriers to entry are low.
The aim is growth. As many people as possible should try out the service, come back and integrate it into their daily lives. The larger the user base becomes, the more valuable the platform itself becomes. A useful service evolves into a hub where attention, data, content, contacts or purchasing decisions are concentrated.
Phase 2: Attracting business customers
Once enough people are using the platform, this reach becomes attractive to others. Retailers, media organisations, developers, brands, advertisers and service providers want to be visible there because that is where their target audiences can be reached.
The platform now begins to sell access to this user base. Initially, the terms often seem attractive: good visibility, affordable adverts, simple tools, reliable reach. Business customers benefit because they find customers, attention or sales. At the same time, however, the platform’s role changes. It is no longer just a tool for users, but becomes an intermediary, gatekeeper and marketplace for commercial interests.
Phase 3: Exploiting both sides
In the third phase, both sides are sufficiently dependent on each other. Users stay because they cannot simply take their contacts, data, habits or content with them. Business customers stay because they would lose reach, visibility or revenue.
Now the platform can tighten the conditions. Prices and fees rise, organic reach falls, advertising increases, search results become more commercialised, and features that were once free now incur a charge. Users are left with a poorer experience. Business customers have to pay more to achieve the same impact.
The key point is this: the remaining added value is not diminishing by chance. It is increasingly being distributed in such a way that the operator benefits most of all. This is precisely the crux of enshittification.
Examples of enshittification
Enshittification does not manifest itself in the same way on every platform. However, the basic pattern is often similar: a service starts out offering great value, becomes indispensable or convenient, and then gradually changes the rules. What used to be taken for granted is restricted, made more expensive or replaced by adverts.
Search engines
Search engines are actually supposed to help users find the best answer or the most relevant source as quickly as possible. Yet many results pages are now more commercialised than they used to be. Paid adverts, shopping features, dedicated answer boxes or sponsored placements take up space, whilst organic results slip further down the page.
For users, this means they are searching for information but must first wade through commercial content. The actual utility value declines because attention is increasingly tied to advertising space and the platform’s own interests.
Social networks
Social networks often began with a simple promise: to connect people, content and interests. Anyone who followed a person, brand or organisation expected to see their posts.
Over time, this direct connection has weakened. Feeds are increasingly sorted algorithmically, organic reach is declining, and visibility increasingly depends on whether content generates a particularly high level of engagement or is additionally promoted. This makes the feed less predictable for users. Content providers face pressure to pay for reach or to adapt ever more closely to the logic of the algorithm.
Streaming services
Streaming services were initially seen as a convenient alternative to linear television, DVD collections or buying individual titles: one subscription, lots of content, available at any time, often without adverts.
Later, many services changed. Prices are rising, ad-supported plans are being introduced, account sharing is being restricted, and content is disappearing from catalogues or moving to other services. As a result, the promise of a simple flat-rate subscription is fading. Users are paying more, have to compare options more carefully, and do not always have permanent access to the content they originally expected.
App stores and digital marketplaces
App stores and marketplaces initially offer guidance, reach and trust. It is convenient for users to find applications, products or providers in one central location. For developers, retailers or service providers, the platform is attractive because it allows them to reach customers.
However, as dependence grows, the terms and conditions shift. Commissions, visibility rules, search rankings, recommendation algorithms and advertising formats play an increasingly decisive role in determining who is found. Smaller providers have to put in more effort to remain visible. Users do not necessarily see the best offer first, but often the one that best fits the platform’s logic.
Software and digital tools
This pattern can also be observed in software. A tool starts out simple, affordable and powerful. Later on, features are redesigned, free versions are restricted, prices are increased, or services previously included are moved to higher-tier plans.
This is particularly noticeable with software used for professional purposes. When teams, data, work processes or interfaces are already tied to a system, switching becomes a complex undertaking. The provider can then monetise more heavily without customers switching away immediately.
Hardware tied to software
Enshittification is not limited to purely online platforms. Physical products can also be affected if they are controlled via software, accounts, subscriptions or closed ecosystems.
Smart TVs, for example, do not just display an image, but also home screens, recommendations, apps and adverts. Cars may include features that are technically available but can only be used once activated or via a subscription. Printers are sold cheaply, whilst consumables remain expensive due to cartridge lock-in, chips or software controls.
In such cases, the nature of the product shifts: a purchased item becomes a usage system that is under constant control.
Why does enshittification work, and why does it fail in the long run?
Enshittification works because poorer offerings do not automatically lead people to switch immediately. Many platforms and products are deeply embedded in habits, workflows, social relationships or technical systems. Those who are dissatisfied often stay anyway, because switching takes time, puts data at risk, severs contacts or creates new uncertainty.
High switching costs are a key factor. People who have spent years building up contacts, content, reviews, playlists, files, settings or work processes cannot always simply take these with them to another provider. Even if an alternative were objectively better, switching seems inconvenient, risky or simply too much of a hassle.
Added to this are lock-in effects. These arise when people, devices, services, formats or interfaces are so closely tied to an ecosystem that leaving it entails practical disadvantages. People who use a particular system often do so not out of enthusiasm, but because friends, customers, colleagues, apps, data or devices are already there.
Lack of transparency in pricing models also plays a part. When fees rise gradually, features slowly disappear from the basic package, or changes to tariff details and terms and conditions are hidden away, the deterioration isn’t immediately apparent. Each individual step seems minor. It is only when taken as a whole that it becomes clear just how much the original benefit has diminished.
A similar pattern applies to business customers: Retailers, media outlets, developers and advertisers remain on platforms even as reach declines or fees rise. They are there because that is where the users are. The platform thus controls access to attention, visibility and demand.
This is precisely where the model’s short-term strength lies: as long as there is sufficient dependency, an operator can extract more value without immediately losing users or business customers en masse. The product no longer needs to be the best. It just needs to be difficult enough to leave.
In the long term, however, this model is unstable. The more the remaining value shrinks, the more dissatisfaction grows. Trust is lost, the brand is damaged, and loyal users become reluctant users. At some point, convenience is no longer enough to compensate for the loss of quality.
This creates opportunities for alternatives. New providers can step in precisely where established platforms have disappointed their users: with less advertising, simpler pricing, greater control, more open interfaces or a clearer focus on actual benefits. This often marks the start of a new cycle: a service launches again with genuine added value, gains trust and reach, and later faces the same temptation.
Regulation can also limit this pattern. When data portability, interoperability and competition are strengthened, switching costs fall. Users can leave more easily, business customers become less dependent, and platforms must compete more strongly on the basis of quality.
So enshittification does not necessarily fail suddenly. Often, it slowly erodes the very foundations on which it rests: trust, satisfaction and the willingness to accept dependence.
Questions from the field
Here are some practical questions and answers:
Is enshittification always intentional?
In some cases, such deterioration stems from deliberate strategic decisions, such as raising prices, expanding advertising or moving previously free features behind paywalls. Often, however, enshittification is also the result of a multitude of individual optimisations, each of which appears reasonable in its own right: higher revenue per user, rising advertising revenue, better quarterly figures or greater control over one’s own ecosystem.
This development does not, therefore, necessarily have to be planned as an overarching strategy. It can result from key performance indicators, pressure to grow and short-term economic incentives. It is precisely here that the structural significance of the term lies: individual measures appear plausible from a business perspective, whilst the overall effect gradually reduces the benefits for users, customers or business partners.
Does enshittification only affect large platforms?
Large platforms are particularly vulnerable because they bring together large numbers of users, providers and data. However, the underlying pattern can occur anywhere where dependencies arise and switching providers is difficult.
This applies, for example, to industry-specific software, B2B platforms, app ecosystems, devices requiring an account, proprietary file formats or specialised hardware. It is not just the size of a provider that matters, but its control over access, visibility, data, functions or consumables.
How can companies avoid enshittification?
Companies can use enshittification as a warning sign for their own product strategy. Anyone wishing to build long-term trust should not confuse customer loyalty with dependency.
In practical terms, this means: explaining prices clearly, making changes to services transparent, enabling data export, offering open interfaces, and not subsequently devaluing core functions. Internal metrics, too, should not merely measure short-term turnover, but should also take into account customer satisfaction, product quality and long-term value.
Sustainable loyalty arises when customers want to stay, not when they have to.
How can you recognise enshittification?
One possible warning sign is when a service only fulfils its original purpose with greater effort. This includes more adverts, more frequent interruptions, content that is harder to find, rising prices, confusing pricing plans, or features that used to be included but later become chargeable.
A loss of control can also be an indication: the feed no longer reliably shows what you have deliberately subscribed to. Search results seem less helpful. Settings become harder to find. Cancelling a subscription, exporting data or switching providers is unnecessarily complicated.
A single source of frustration is not enough to constitute enshittification. However, if many small deteriorations accumulate whilst, at the same time, the provider extracts more value or gains more control, this fits the pattern described.
Impulse to discuss:
Is enshittification an inevitable final stage for successful platforms, or are there counter-examples that show that growth and lasting value are compatible?
Notes (partly in German):
If you like the article or would like to discuss it, please feel free to share it in your network. And if you have any comments, please do not hesitate to send us a message.
[1] Pluralistic: How monopoly enshittified Amazon
[2] The American Dialect Society chose the term as its Word of the Year for 2023; in Australia, ‘enshittification’ was selected as the Word of the Year for 2024 by the Macquarie Dictionary.
And here you can find more information from our Smartpedia section:
What is the Lock-in Effect?
What is the Kano Model?
What is Bloatware?