Aydın Tiryaki (2026)
For a consumer or taxpayer to be ignored by the institutions they finance is not merely a commercial error; it is a social rupture. The only way to repair that sense of “betrayal” we feel when we step out of our echo chambers and see the truth is to ensure justice in the distribution of advertising budgets.
One of the greatest dilemmas of modern society is the phenomenon we call “Echo Chambers.” Under the influence of social polarization, every segment has retreated into its own neighborhood. People read only newspapers that align with their worldviews and watch only television channels that appeal to their lifestyles. This situation causes a massive injustice in commercial and public life to go unnoticed—to remain “invisible”—for a long time.
That is, until that “moment of confrontation” when we are forced to step out of that bubble.
The Match Day Confrontation and The Moment of Realization
Most of us have experienced this: We are forced to turn on a television channel that we never watch, whose editorial policy we do not endorse, or perhaps even consider harmful to social peace, simply because an important sports match is being broadcast that evening.
It is at that moment that we face a bitter truth.
The advertisements of the GSM operator whose bills we have paid for years, the bank where we deposit our salaries, and the manufacturer of the appliances in our homes are rotating incessantly on that screen. Yet, these same brands are absent from the newspaper we read every day, the channels we watch, or the digital platforms we follow.
The emotion experienced at that moment is not simple surprise; it is a deep sense of “Betrayal.”
The individual asks themselves: “I am the one fueling this machine. I am the one paying the bill. Yet, with my money, a structure that is completely foreign, perhaps even hostile, to me and my values is being fed. Meanwhile, the media outlets that voice my concerns are condemned to starvation.”
“Forced Sponsorship” and The Crisis of Representation
This situation reduces the consumer/individual to the position of a “Forced Sponsor” against their will.
Whether it is a public institution or a “market maker” private company in telecommunications, energy, or banking; if an institution derives its power from the broad masses, it is obliged to observe the diversity of those masses when distributing that power.
In the current system, brands engage in “unilateral” funding due to political pressures or commercial fears. This not only creates unfair competition in the media but also creates a trauma of “Lack of Representation” in a large segment of society. People feel that the brands they have grown with their money have “turned their backs” on them.
Why Democratic Distribution?
The “Data and Preference-Based Hybrid Distribution Model” we detailed in our previous studies is a necessity to heal this trauma.
- The Right to Be Visible: When a person picks up their morning paper or watches their favorite YouTube channel, they want to see the advertisement of the bank they are a customer of. This means, “The bank sees me, it respects my preferences.”
- Social Peace: Spreading advertisements not just to specific channels but to all colors of society (local press, thematic channels, media with opposing views) breaks that perception of “hostility.” Institutions function as a unifying cement.
- Conscientious Peace of Mind: When a customer knows that a portion of the bill they pay goes to the sports club they support or a news source they trust, they establish an “emotional bond” with that institution. The relationship shifts from obligation to loyalty.
Conclusion: Not a Favor, But Justice
The way the giant players of the public and private sectors distribute their advertising budgets has gone beyond being a marketing strategy. It is now a matter of “Democratic Right.”
No company or institution should have the luxury of pursuing a policy against its customer with its customer’s money. The model we propose will liberate companies from political pressures while elevating individuals from being “passive payers” to “active stakeholders.”
True justice is feeling that you “exist” and “count” not only in courtrooms but in commercial breaks, sponsorship deals, and every aspect of life.
A Note on Methods and Tools: All observations, ideas, and solution proposals in this study are the author’s own. AI was utilized as an information source for researching and compiling relevant topics strictly based on the author’s inquiries, requests, and directions; additionally, it provided writing assistance during the drafting process. (The research-based compilation and English writing process of this text were supported by AI as a specialized assistant.)
Aydın Tiryaki 