Konstantins Kuzikovs has been in the media industry since the last century. As the former longstanding CEO of Delfi Latvia, he led Delfi’s transformation into a multimedia platform, expanded its digital subscription business to over 27,000 subscribers, and introduced new initiatives like e-commerce and digital out-of-home advertising. As CEO and later Chairman of the Executive Board at D Screens, a digital out-of-home (DOOH) advertising firm, he expanded its network from 16 to over 100 screens.
In addition to his corporate roles, Kuzikovs has contributed to industry education, serving as a media planning lecturer at RISEBA and a digital marketing lecturer at Riga Business School. He has also been involved in industry organisations, including as a board member of the Latvian Advertising Association and a mentor for the Thomson Reuters Foundation, advising media organisations in Ukraine and Moldova.
Could you briefly introduce yourself? What are you doing now, what have you done before?
Currently, I primarily consult companies and lecture at universities.
As I like to joke, I’ve been in the media industry since the last century working for magazines, radio stations and publishing houses.
For the last 11 years, I was with Delfi. When I joined, Delfi was essentially a single-product company and over time, we transformed it into a multi-product family and reinvented the digital subscription model. In the last five years, we grew our subscriber base to 30,000, reaching 35,000 by December 2024. This was a major achievement, especially since, unlike Estonia, Latvia did not have a strong print media legacy. We had to convince people to start paying for digital content that had previously been free.
We also made significant investments and built a secondary business from scratch: digital out-of-home advertising with D Screens. This business became very popular, and we even managed to outperform Clear Channel here, which I consider a great success.
As the former longstanding CEO of Delfi Latvia, Konstantins led Delfi’s transformation into a multimedia platform
You are also a board member of the Latvian Advertising Association, correct?
Yes, I recently started my second term as a board member of the Latvian Advertising Association, where I am responsible for online media. My work involves various issues related to online media.
Right now, we are focusing on two key initiatives. The first concerns data regulations and cookies. Our Data Inspection Authority is trying to strictly follow legal regulations, but we argue that media and e-commerce businesses should not be treated the same way. We are working to convince them that applying the same rules to both industries is not practical.
The second issue is about getting Google to start paying for content. Latvia and Estonia have a copyright law that allows media companies to demand fair compensation from Google for using their content in search snippets. This is another key area we are working on with media organisations.
Can you describe the business media landscape in Latvia? If someone wants to stay informed about business in Latvia, where should they look?
The business media landscape in Latvia is fragmented, unlike Estonia and Lithuania, where there are dominant business publishers like Äripäev and Verslo Žinios. The situation in Latvia is different, and a lot of it goes back to the influence of oligarchs.
Before the financial crisis of 2008, Bonnier Group, which owns Äripäev and Verslo Žinios, also owned Diena and Dienas Bizness in Latvia. However, they sold Diena and its business division to individuals with ties to oligarchs. It wasn’t officially acknowledged, but everyone knew about it.
This led to a major problem: a loss of trust. Readers stopped believing in these media outlets because they saw them as tools for political influence rather than independent journalism. This primarily affected Diena, but Dienas Bizness suffered as well.
Before the crisis, there was strong demand for B2B advertising—companies were selling tractors, metal, and other industrial goods. But after 2008, that advertising disappeared completely.
Another factor was the shift in Latvia’s economy. Before 2008, the market was more internally focused. But after the crisis, businesses started prioritising exports. I worked at AS Diena Media for a short period and was responsible for advertising sales at Diena, Dienas Žurnāli and Dienas Bizness. Before the crisis, there was strong demand for B2B advertising—companies were selling tractors, metal, and other industrial goods. But after 2008, that advertising disappeared completely.
When we spoke to businesses, they told us, “I now understand that I need to expand abroad. The Latvian market is too small for me.” As a result, the media had to shift its focus. Instead of selling B2B contact opportunities, we had to sell the idea that our audience was wealthy and influential. Consequently, B2C advertising became more prominent in business media.
So what alternatives are there now?
There are three main players in business media today. First, Dienas Bizness still exists, though on a much smaller scale than before.
Second, Delfi entered the business media space by launching Delfi Business. We hired well-known journalists and worked to establish the product in the market.
Third, Bonnier returned to Latvia with a new project called “Investor Club.” However, this platform is more focused on investment news rather than general business coverage.
Overall, due to historical factors and market shifts, Latvia lacks a strong, unified business and B2B media platform like in Estonia and Lithuania.
What about niche publications? In Estonia, for example, there are well-established platforms for marketing and advertising, like Best Marketing, which is owned by Äripäev, and strong content from the Estonian Advertising Association (TULI). When I ask agencies and marketing professionals in Latvia where they get their news about marketing and advertising, they say there is no main channel.
That is absolutely right. Since the financial crisis in 2008, Latvia has been without a strong marketing and advertising publication. We still function without such a platform. Instead, agency professionals produce podcasts, which cover specific industry topics. However, these tend to be narrow in scope, focusing on what interests the individuals creating them rather than providing broad coverage. While there are two or three successful podcasts that professionals follow, there is no dedicated media outlet for marketing or PR in Latvia.
Why do you think this is the case? In most countries, such media exist.
It likely comes down to cultural and structural differences. There are three major distinctions between the Latvian and Estonian markets.
First, everything in Latvia is concentrated in Riga. We often joke that one million people live in Riga, while another million live scattered across the forests. In Estonia, Tartu and even smaller cities like Pärnu have their own niches and fight for economic influence. In Latvia, if you dominate Riga, you dominate the entire country. This reduces the incentive to invest heavily in engaging audiences in cities like Daugavpils or Liepaja.
Second, the sale of Diena by Bonnier Group had a long-lasting impact. Unlike Estonia and Lithuania, which retained international media influence through Bonnier, Latvia lost this external knowledge, journalistic ethics, and investment-driven approach.
Third, political decisions have significantly affected the economy. Unlike its Baltic neighbours, Latvia has often made conservative economic choices, even under liberal-leaning leadership. This has led to situations like the airBaltic case, where scandals surfaced just before its IPO, or Rail Baltica, where stations were built before railway tracks, leaving the project incomplete.
These factors have created a business environment that discourages large-scale media investments. When you visit Tallinn Airport, you see branding at every gate; in Riga Airport, you barely see any advertisements, despite having more passengers.
Once, one Estonian businessman told me that you could open a business in Estonia, and tomorrow half of your customers will be Finns. Lithuanians are eager for new investments and invite all international players to them, but in Latvia, we have only progressed and experienced less corruption than the decade before. While our neighbours are focusing on economy, we are still trying to solve old problems.
So, Latvia still struggles with systemic issues, but from the outside, the country appears strong with brands like airBaltic?
Exactly. From within, there are challenges, but from the outside, Latvia still maintains a positive image.
Estonians are very jealous because your air travel network is so well developed. Riga gets so many direct flights, while in Tallinn, even Ryanair now serves only a handful of destinations. Sometimes it feels like we are at the edge of the world, while Riga is much more of a hub. Then, of course, you have a very famous hockey team that brings pride to Latvia. Now, you even have an Oscar-winning film. So, there are quite a few things we are envious about.
Let’s talk about this jealousy first. Hockey, the Oscar, basketball—these achievements are not due to government support or ministerial initiatives. They happened because of individuals. For example, we have Kristaps Porziņģis in the NBA, who became a champion last year, but he didn’t come from a government-funded program. It was his personal journey.
That’s why we in Latvia often look at our own success with surprise. How do we still have such a strong hockey team when we don’t have a top-tier national league? How did we manage to win an Oscar without a well-funded film industry? These are questions we ask ourselves.
As for airBaltic, I believe its success is logical. Riga is a central location, making it an ideal aviation hub. However, the future of airBaltic remains uncertain. I personally believe we should proceed with an IPO and sell it because Latvian taxpayers can’t keep supporting it. This year, we again hear that airBaltic went from profit to losses and needs millions for investments. It is like a never-ending story.
Transparency in governance is also an issue—there are always questions about why they made certain purchasing decisions. Political influence on the company has been an ongoing concern. Running an airline is a tough business. As the joke goes, “If you’re a billionaire and you want to become a millionaire, buy an airline.”
And what about export success stories?
Looking at Estonia, you have Bolt, you had Skype, and then the so-called “Skype Mafia” that led to many digital startups. Latvia, in contrast, has not been as strong in digital assets but more in physical products.
One example is Aerones, which produces industrial drones for wind turbine maintenance. Their technology allows you to clean and inspect wind turbines without needing human climbers.
Then there’s the chemical industry—though I don’t follow it closely, we have strong exports there. Another major sector is glass manufacturing with players like Groglass. This unique product was developed in Latvia over many years, but now conquers the world and is used in world-known museums.
Overall, Latvia’s biggest bets seem to be on tangible goods rather than digital services.
When you worked at Delfi, you must have analysed global media trends. How do Baltic markets compare to places like the UK or the US?
There are huge differences even within the Baltics. In Lithuania and Latvia, television still dominates advertising, whereas in Estonia, online and print media have more influence.
In Estonia, two of the biggest online media brands are owned by publishing houses, whereas in Latvia and Lithuania, digital-only media and traditional publishing are completely separate businesses.
When comparing Baltic media to international markets like the UK, digital adoption is different. The Baltics are highly digital, but the business models don’t always align with what works in larger economies.
So essentially, different countries have unique media consumption habits?
Exactly. You can’t just copy-paste strategies from the UK or Germany and expect them to work in the Baltics. Our markets follow their own rules.
In Latvia and Lithuania, digital-only products and publishing houses are completely separate businesses. They aren’t connected at all. But when we look at international markets, like the UK, digital platforms, including local portals, Facebook, and Google, dominate.
In the UK, around 65-70% of all advertising revenue comes from digital products. In contrast, in the Baltic markets, TV still holds a significant share—about 35% of advertising money in Latvia and Lithuania still goes to television, with online in second place.
This is a big problem because local digital media companies are being overshadowed by Facebook, Google, and other global platforms. Competing against them is extremely difficult.
There was recently a big debate in Estonia. The new press secretary of the Reform Party, the leading party, suggested that it’s better to share opinions on social media and boost the posts rather than publishing them in traditional media outlets like Postimees or Delfi. His argument was that the coverage is greater on social media, and he even implied that in the future, politicians might avoid mass media altogether. What’s your take on that?
Politicians who believe that they should only use social media and abandon traditional media are making a huge mistake. This is actually a serious threat to democracy.
First of all, social media platforms operate on targeting. If a minister posts something, the first people who see it are their supporters—the people who already agree with them. Over time, the algorithm narrows their audience even further, creating an echo chamber. The politician's message only reaches those who support them, while those with opposing views are excluded.
If politicians only use platforms like X (formerly Twitter) or Facebook, their ideas will never reach the opposing side. This leads to extreme polarisation. We see this in the United States—supporters of one party are actively telling people, “If you support Trump, unfollow me.” That’s a huge mistake.
With traditional media, however, the audience is broader. Even within a single publication, you will find supporters and critics. That creates a space for debate.
If politicians only use platforms like X (formerly Twitter) or Facebook, their ideas will never reach the opposing side. This leads to extreme polarisation. We see this in the United States—supporters of one party are actively telling people, “If you support Trump, unfollow me.” That’s a huge mistake.
And now we also see Trump avoiding mainstream media, only inviting friendly outlets to press conferences, and posting everything on Truth Social or X, while skipping CNN and AP.
The U.S. is starting to resemble Ukraine, where every presidential election pits an eastern candidate against a western candidate, often leading to political instability and even protests.
There was a study from the 1960s on political debates. Back then, when one candidate spoke, the opposing candidate would often respond by saying, “I think he’s right on some points.” Today, political debates have become hostile. The mentality is, “I want to destroy my opponent.”
This is dangerous. It leads to divided media ecosystems and fragmented societies, where one side never listens to the other.
There was a great article in The Economist about a New York Times opinion editor who was fired because he allowed a Republican to publish a piece. The newsroom revolted, arguing that their publication should only represent liberal America—even though America is much more diverse. This is the problem: when social media dominates, people stop encountering opposing views.
Let’s shift to B2B marketing. In London, I attended a B2B marketing expo and saw hundreds of specialised agencies. In contrast, the Baltics barely have any dedicated B2B marketing agencies. Why is that?
Let’s flip the question—why do markets like the UK have so many B2B agencies? It’s historical.
In Latvia, when a company develops a product and decides to expand internationally, they need expertise. However, there are very few local experts available, so companies often build their own in-house teams instead of relying on agencies.
Take Printful (now Fyul), for example. They have over 100 people in their marketing team. Bolt is the same. When you have so many marketers on staff, why would you need an external agency?
These teams are also global. If Printful wants to expand into Georgia, they will hire a local marketer from Georgia rather than relying on a Latvian agency. If they exit the market, they simply let that person go. The same applies to translation and localisation—companies handle it internally.
Additionally, B2B marketing in the Baltics is event-driven. Businesses acquire international clients through industry events rather than mass advertising.
Speaking of digital innovation, I assume you are familiar with AI developments?
I wouldn’t say I’m an expert, but I know enough to have an opinion.
In marketing, we hear AI “gurus” saying that AI will eliminate jobs—copywriters, salespeople, ad creators. They claim that AI can now handle outreach on LinkedIn, generate email campaigns, write ad copy, and even create ads themselves. But when I look at the results, they often seem quite generic, sometimes even poor in quality.
I think AI is a lot like Bitcoin. Ten years ago, people thought Bitcoin would replace cash. Now, we see that it hasn’t replaced traditional payment systems, but instead, it is treated like digital gold—an asset rather than a currency. Similarly, AI was initially seen as a tool that would fully automate marketing and replace creative professionals.
However, we are now realising that AI is more of a support tool rather than a full replacement. It can improve efficiency and automate repetitive tasks, but it still struggles with true creativity and human intuition.
So, AI is not eliminating marketing jobs; it is changing them. Instead of writing from scratch, marketers now spend more time refining and personalising AI-generated content. Instead of mass outreach, sales teams use AI to filter and prioritise leads more effectively.
AI can generate ideas, but people make those ideas powerful.
But in the end, the best campaigns, the most compelling messages, and the strongest brands still require human creativity. AI can generate ideas, but people make those ideas powerful.
The way ChatGPT and other AI models function is like talking to a child. When you ask a child a question, they will give you an answer—but it may not be the answer you were looking for. It’s about how well you frame the question. I remember once asking my younger daughter about her speech therapy sessions at school. I asked, “When do you have your lessons?” I was expecting a day and time, but she replied, “I go when they call me.” That was a completely logical answer based on how I asked the question, but it wasn’t what I wanted to know.
This is exactly how AI works. It provides answers based on the input it receives, but if the person using it lacks knowledge, they may not know how to refine their questions or assess the quality of the responses. Over the last few months, I have been consulting different companies on growth strategies, and I openly tell them that I use ChatGPT as part of my workflow. But the real value comes when you have experience, domain knowledge, and the ability to challenge AI’s responses.
It’s like in Marvel movies—when Iron Man interacts with his AI assistant, he doesn’t do the manual work but rather instructs it: “Prepare these reports for me.” However, his real power is knowing how to merge and interpret different pieces of information. AI can assist, but human insight is irreplaceable.
So basically, if you give AI peanuts, you’ll get monkeys?
Exactly! And this is the problem—most people who try ChatGPT end up disappointed because they don’t know how to use it effectively. It’s not about getting an answer; it’s about asking the right question.
That’s where critical thinking and business knowledge come into play. If you have those skills, AI becomes an incredibly useful assistant—whether it’s free, costs $20, or $200 per month. But if you don’t know what you’re doing, it won’t add much value.
I’ve also read that AI could eliminate junior-level IT positions because AI can automate basic tasks. However, mid- and senior-level professionals will become even more valuable because they know how to work without relying entirely on AI.
One theory is that AI levels the playing field—if everyone has access to the same tool, doesn’t that mean everyone will get the same results? Where is the competitive edge?
Are you sure about that? Let’s take an example. If you and I both ask ChatGPT to write a LinkedIn post, our posts will still be different. Why? Because we have different backgrounds, different ways of writing, and different styles of communication. Even with the same tool, personal experience makes a difference.
People think AI eliminates uniqueness, but the reality is that if 100 people ask the same question, they will still receive different answers based on how they phrase it, what context they provide, and how they refine the response.
I always edit AI-generated content because the language tends to sound too corporate. Sometimes, I even add mistakes on purpose—otherwise, it reads like something a lawyer wrote.
Some people even tell AI to generate content at a “B+ level,” rather than perfect A-level writing, to make it more relatable.
But then you see LinkedIn gurus saying, “Write at a 5th-grade level to make it more accessible.” Personally, I have two master’s degrees—I don’t want to read content designed for a 5th grader.
It depends on your audience. If you’re writing for executives, they probably don’t want oversimplified content. But if you’re targeting a broad audience, clarity is key.
With AI making content creation so easy, there’s an avalanche of LinkedIn posts. I could generate a post every 10 minutes if I wanted. How do you stand out when content is so abundant?
We will soon see a clear distinction between AI-generated content and human-created content. One way to stand out will be through video. Video content provides proof of authenticity—if you’re showing yourself on camera, people know it’s real.
Anyone can write text, but video still feels more human. There’s also another issue—I personally know some people on LinkedIn, and when they post something, I can tell it’s not their voice. It doesn’t sound like them at all.
For example, despite hosting a weekly investment broadcast, I don’t push out content constantly. But when I do, I see massive engagement. The key is not to post frequently but to focus on quality. That way, people trust that when you do post, it’s worth their time.
I recently saw an experiment on LinkedIn where someone posted two versions of the same content—one written by AI and one written by themselves. The AI-generated post performed much better, which made them feel disappointed.
There are two possible takeaways. First, if AI content performed better, maybe the person can learn from it—what structure or clarity made it more engaging? The real challenge is whether they can adapt and improve their writing to match that effectiveness.
Second, Philip Kotler once said that big markets follow the same rules, but small markets are unique. For example, television advertising is still dominant in the Baltics, while digital has overtaken it elsewhere. That’s because our market is small, and small markets behave differently.
What are your recommendations for business and marketing resources? Books, podcasts, or websites?
Surprisingly, despite teaching digital marketing at universities, I wouldn’t recommend a specific marketing source. Instead, I suggest two things:
Follow bloggers who specialise in AI. Many people don’t even realise what AI tools like ChatGPT can do. AI can be a translator, a fitness coach, or even a brainstorming assistant. If you understand how to use AI effectively, you can free up time for more valuable tasks.
Focus on learning how to think critically. Read business case studies—how Sony was built, how Samsung made key decisions, how Apple evolved. Books like Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson provide more insights into business thinking than any marketing textbook. The key is to train your mind to analyse decisions rather than blindly follow trends.
Looking back at your career, what’s the biggest lesson you’ve learned? Is there a decision you would change?
I stayed at my previous job for 11 years—I should have left after 8.
There was a discussion in the Baltic Corporate Institute where Flemming Lindeløv, former CEO of Carlsberg said, “You can only be an independent board member for 8 years. After that, you start defending the status quo instead of pushing for growth.”
Another lesson is that nothing lasts forever—neither good times nor bad times. One mistake I made was investing heavily after a hugely successful year, expecting the same results the next year. Instead, revenue plateaued, and we had over-hired based on overly optimistic projections.
It’s the same with small businesses. When you’re a solo entrepreneur, you make money. When you expand and hire staff, profits drop. Then you cut back, and profits recover. AI might help with this problem, but businesses also need financial patience—to survive two years, not just three months.
Ultimately, failure is part of business. The key is to fail small and fail fast. If you stop experimenting after 8 years, you’re no longer innovating.
Interviewed by Hando, edit by Ann-Kristin