You're not taking a vital superstructure element at work here that didn't exist, not in the way it does now, while Marx and Lenin were alive: marketing. American corporate culture has pretty much made it a science, and I know that that's usually a hyperbole but it's dangerously close to real in this case.
Marketing comes into play for a least two reasons. One is simple: as markets for people's needs mostly "plateau" in developed countries, one of the things Porky does is create wants. Whether this want is at all beneficial (e.g. a smartphone) or purely a fad or fantasy (e.g. fidget spinners) doesn't matter, so long as a new market (or a new segment of an old market) has been created.
The second one is more complicated.
Say you want to mass-manufacture something, whether new or old, useful or superfluous, anything really. Any product will have its own economies of scale, the data that tells you how to minimize costs (e.g. buying the amount of raw material that presents the lowest cost per unit) and maximize revenue (e.g. maybe because of the production costs, or speculation, or taxes etc., the highest profit margin may not come with maximum production). These economies of scale, if graphed, will have immensely varying curves, from simple straight lines to ungodly, non-linear scrawls, but as a rule of thumb, the higher the amount being traded (whether it's the final product or its raw materials), the higher the savings. From this, a million tendencies appear: using the same parts for various final products, making these final products near identical anyway etc. beside the usual stuff like using subpar raw material, what said etc. Add all of this, and you have direct material/financial incentive to keep your products bland, unoriginal and same-y. Innovation, originality and creativity can be downright detrimental to your bottom line, so they get quashed.
Further, depending on their material nature, some products can be extremely diversified, or extremely specialized. A juice shop has no trouble catering to the tastes of any demographic on Earth, but a smartphone manufacturer can't. A line of smartphones will have half a dozen models, if that much, that will have to cater to literally the entire world in order to sell. So again, in order to play it safe, the manufacturer wants the products to appeal to as many people as possible, thus they'll tend to be bland, unoriginal and same-y, and innovation, originality and creativity get quashed. Notice this is what happened to AAA vidya this decade; with rising production costs, AAA publishers, porkies that they are, played safer and safer. In other words, stuck to successful formulas. Thus we had a million Brown'n'Bloom Tacticool Shooter, abandoning old fans for the sake of a larger demographic (incidentally, this is one of the roles the clique filled; remember "gamers are dead"?), old IPs being brought back just to be desecrated and sho on *shniff*
Now someone might simply ask: "why not simply make a good product?". First, because as we all know, quality does not necessarily correlate with sales. Second, which stems from the first one, and probably more importantly: suits can't process "quality". It's something that's always at least a little subjective, and in the case of artistic products, 100% so. You can't fit "quality" in a spreadsheet, you can't put it into a formula for projected sales, you can't put it in a Powerpoint presentation so the porkies above you can see it. And more to the point, you can't tell how the consumers will react to it. To put it simply: quality can be risk. When arts are involved, quality is risk. So the suits go with the focus group tests, old sales data and other crap so they can work out the ol' successful formula. The more some data can be reduced to numbers, the better, as far as the suit is concerned.
So then, consumer product manufacturers are incentivized to water down, dumb down, decrease innovation etc. so that the product appeals to as many people as possible. This decreases risk of investment loss, but introduces a new factor: a bland product might be the most appealing one, or it might end up not appealing to anyone. Fortunately, this is an issue that the risk-averse, numbers-loving suit can mitigate with numbers. He can buy ad spaces. He can pay celebrities to use it in front of cameras. He can pay an agency so their employees shill for the product while posing as common consumers. He can organize a million different publicity stunts to convince consumers that his bland product actually seems to be tailor-made for them. Basically, he's hedging his bets by trying to convince as many people as possible to buy his bland crap. In a word: marketing. Modern AAA games are rumored to have half their budget spent on marketing alone. It's ever more present in our lives. Marketers are to late stage capitalism what commissars were in the USSR.