Azerbaijan.US
In recent weeks, Turkey has seen an intense public and expert debate over the growing dominance of global digital platforms in the national media and advertising market. Several studies and analytical reports showed that the bulk of advertising spending now flows to foreign digital platforms, leaving traditional media outlets without stable revenue.
In Turkey, this trend is no longer viewed solely as an economic issue. It is increasingly framed as a matter of digital and information security, involving control over advertising flows, user data, and public discourse.
This naturally raises a broader question: how applicable is Turkey’s experience to Azerbaijan? And should Azerbaijan draw the same conclusions?
This article argues that while the warning is relevant, Azerbaijan’s media reality is fundamentally different – and requires a different response.
Turkey: A Shock to a Competitive Media Market
Turkey’s media market developed within a largely competitive, market-driven environment. Thousands of advertisers, a diversified private sector, and fierce competition for audience attention forced media outlets to survive on quality, speed, and credibility.
In this context, the redirection of nearly 75% of advertising budgets to global digital platforms delivered a direct blow to the sustainability of the sector. Revenue generated inside the country effectively moved abroad – without taxes, long-term commitments, or accountability to Turkey’s media ecosystem.
This is why Turkey’s alarm is understandable. The issue goes beyond lost revenue. It concerns control over information flows, public attention, and data.
Azerbaijan: A Different Media Reality
Azerbaijan’s media market operates under very different conditions.
Unlike Turkey, it does not function as a fully competitive advertising market. The overall advertising sector is relatively small, the economy remains closed in several key industries, and monopolization reduces incentives for businesses to actively invest in media advertising.
As a result, a significant share of Azerbaijani media outlets:
do not compete for advertisers in the classical market sense;
operate in a narrow and limited advertising environment;
rely partially or fully on state subsidies and institutional support.
This is not a judgment – it is a structural reality.
The Core Difference
If global platforms in Turkey are crowding out national media from a competitive market,
in Azerbaijan they are largely filling a vacuum created by the absence of a robust advertising ecosystem.
This distinction matters. Simply copying Turkey’s policy tools – such as taxing platforms or imposing administrative restrictions – does not address the root of the problem.
Money Left, but the Market Never Formed
Since 2019, digital platforms have overtaken traditional media in advertising share in Azerbaijan as well. Local media advertising revenues have declined by roughly 50%, with most of that money flowing to foreign platforms.
However, unlike in Turkey, these funds were not redistributed within a competitive national media market. Instead, they moved directly to platforms that already controlled the infrastructure of attention.
The paradox is clear:
content is produced domestically;
audiences are formed domestically;
but the monetization of attention happens abroad.
Not a Question of Bans, but of Strategy
The challenge posed by digital platforms is not limited to economics. Their algorithms prioritize engagement over quality, turning attention into a commodity and shaping emotions, agendas, and public sentiment.
Yet bans and blockages are not a solution. They create an illusion of control while leaving structural weaknesses intact.
A sustainable response lies elsewhere:
developing a genuine advertising market;
increasing economic competition;
creating incentives for businesses to advertise through national media;
supporting quality journalism through economic mechanisms rather than administrative control.
The Bottom Line
Turkey’s warning is important. It shows what happens when media sovereignty erodes in a competitive market environment. But Azerbaijan’s case requires a more sober and structural approach.
The problem is not only global platforms. It is the reality that media sovereignty cannot be protected administratively in the absence of a competitive economy and a functioning advertising market.
Today, the information space is as critical to national security as physical borders. And it is defended not by slogans or restrictions, but by economics, competition, and trust.
