Our paper extends prior models in order to bridge this gap between theoretical and empirical work. We (a) define a parameterized recommendation process which allocates visibility based on popularity biases, (b) define two metrics of individual fairness (ex-ante and ex-post), and (c) define a metric for seeker satisfaction. Through an analytical approach we show our process is an absorbing Markov Chain where exploring only the most popular CCs leads to lower expected times to absorption but higher chances of unfairness for CCs. While increasing the exploration helps, doing so only guarantees fair outcomes for the highest (and lowest) quality CC. Simulations revealed that CCs and seekers prefer different algorithmic designs: CCs generally have higher chances of fairness with anti-popularity biased recommendation processes, while seekers are more satisfied with popularity-biased recommendations. Altogether, our results suggest that while the exploration of low-popularity CCs is needed to improve fairness, platforms might not have the incentive to do so and such interventions do not entirely prevent unfair outcomes.