Interference in the exhibition and distribution of radically unconventional, non-commercial, or “problematic” artworks can be seen to be precipitated more explicitly by economic forces upon which the individual artist has little control. These forces include not only the practical considerations of supply and demand (inherent in any conception of a self-regulating market) but also, frequently, the systems of classification and ratings that have come to replace regulative vertical censorship of film in Western liberal democracies. Classification practices do not merely compound the effects of supply and demand, they also interact with and shape these effects in significant ways, namely by generating demand for content that is intended for as large a consumer base as possible.

What exacerbates the effects of classification processes is the increased privatization (more specifically corporatization and oligopolistic patterns) of the distribution channels by which consumers can potentially access artworks. As John Keane writes:

A particularly telling example of market censorship comes from the American music industry, which in the mid-1990s instituted “Parental Advisory” labels for albums containing what were goadingly referred to as “explicit” lyrics. Like contemporary film ratings, these labels were designed to inform consumers (particularly parents) as to the “severity” of the lyrical content of albums, thereby directing adults and children away from “inappropriate” products and toward others, for which they could be presumed to form a “suitable” audience. However, when, in keeping with the company's public image of family-friendliness Wal-Mart categorically refused to carry albums bearing the provocative “Parental Advisory” label, the result was de-facto censorship, in that the music was simply unavailable for purchase in many areas, particularly more rural communities where Wal-Mart had forced the closure of local record retailers unable to compete with the multinational company.