Chapter 1: Preface

• Background

Indonesia has become one of the most important digital-economy markets in the world, not merely because of its population scale, but because of the speed with which digital services have become embedded in everyday commerce, payments, logistics, entertainment, and MSME activity. By 2024, the country had approximately 221.6 million internet users, equal to an internet penetration rate of 79.5%, giving digital platforms a very large and still-expanding user base. At the same time, Google, Temasek, and Bain continue to identify Indonesia as the largest digital economy in Southeast Asia, while Bank Indonesia has publicly emphasized that e-commerce transactions alone reached around US$65 billion in 2024 and are projected to expand substantially further by 2030.

This matters because Indonesia’s digital economy is no longer a narrow “technology sector.” It is increasingly a cross-sector economic layer that influences retail, wholesale trade, transportation, financial inclusion, social commerce, media, employment structures, and consumer behavior. In practical terms, e-commerce and digital platforms have become infrastructure-like channels through which producers reach buyers, small merchants access national demand, and consumers compare prices, make payments, obtain financing, and receive goods. OECD’s 2024 Indonesia survey highlights digitalization as one of the key drivers of stronger productivity and future prosperity, which means the sector should be analyzed not only as a source of headline growth, but also as a structural enabler of competitiveness.

Indonesia’s case is especially important because it sits at the intersection of several large transitions. First, the country is still moving from an offline-dominant consumer economy toward a hybrid offline-online economy. Second, it is moving from marketplace-led digital adoption toward a more integrated platform economy that includes payments, logistics, advertising, creator ecosystems, and embedded financial services. Third, the country is under pressure to ensure that digital growth is inclusive: between urban and non-urban areas, between large enterprises and MSMEs, and between digitally mature consumers and those who remain excluded by infrastructure, literacy, or trust constraints. The World Bank and OECD both point out that digital transformation in Indonesia creates large upside, but that trust, capability gaps, and uneven adoption remain central policy and market issues.

• Why This Report Is Necessary

A serious report on Indonesia’s e-commerce and digital economy is necessary for three reasons.

First, market narratives are often overly simplistic. Indonesia is frequently described as a “high-growth digital market,” but such a label does not explain what is growing, who captures the value, how sustainable that value is, or where the next competitive battleground lies. Marketplace GMV, payment transactions, logistics density, advertising monetization, and platform profitability do not move in the same direction. A market can grow in users but face margin compression; it can grow in transactions but suffer from regulatory tightening; it can expand geographically while remaining concentrated in a handful of dominant platforms. Therefore, a deeper analytical framework is needed.

Second, Indonesia’s digital economy should not be analyzed in isolation. Competitive norms in Southeast Asia, regulatory standards in the European Union, and platform-scale economics in the United States all influence the strategic direction of Indonesian firms and policymakers. ASEAN provides the closest regional benchmark in terms of demographics, mobile-first behavior, and super-app/platform integration. The EU provides a benchmark for regulation, competition oversight, privacy, and consumer protection. The USA provides a benchmark for platform scale, venture cycles, ecosystem monetization, and technology leadership. Comparing Indonesia against these regions helps distinguish between what is locally specific and what reflects broader global platform dynamics.

Third, this report is necessary because the next phase of Indonesia’s digital economy will be more complex than the first. The initial growth phase was driven by user acquisition, subsidy-supported expansion, and rapid onboarding of merchants and consumers. The next phase will likely depend more on productivity, monetization quality, operational efficiency, trust, regulation, data governance, AI integration, and inclusion beyond the main urban centers. In other words, the key question is no longer simply whether Indonesia’s digital economy will grow, but what kind of growth it will produce and under what constraints.

• Definition of Terms Used in This Report

For clarity, this report distinguishes between e-commerce and the broader digital economy.

E-commerce refers primarily to the buying and selling of goods and services through digital channels, including online marketplaces, brand-owned online stores, social commerce interfaces, and app-based transactions. This includes the transactional layer: discovery, order placement, payment, fulfilment coordination, and post-purchase service. BPS’s e-commerce statistical framework focuses on businesses that use the internet to receive orders or conduct sales of goods and/or services, which provides a practical statistical basis for this report’s treatment of the term.

The digital economy, by contrast, is broader. It includes e-commerce but also the ecosystem that enables, amplifies, and monetizes digital transactions: digital payments, fintech services, logistics technologies, ride-hailing-linked commerce, digital advertising, cloud infrastructure, creator and affiliate ecosystems, platform work, data services, and increasingly AI-enabled business functions. Bank Indonesia’s long-term payment blueprint explicitly links advances in fintech and e-commerce with broader digital-system transformation, while OECD treats digital transformation as a foundation for productivity, innovation, and governance across the economy.

In this report, therefore, e-commerce is treated as the commercial transaction core, while the digital economy is treated as the wider system of digital production, exchange, intermediation, and value capture surrounding that core. This distinction is important because a platform may not be a marketplace in the narrow sense yet still shape the economics of online commerce—for example through payments, logistics, ads, merchant software, or creator-led demand generation.

• Objectives of the Report

This report has six main objectives.

1. The first objective is to provide an analytically grounded picture of Indonesia’s e-commerce and digital- economy landscape, especially using the most recent two years of available market data where relevant. This includes examining demand-side growth, supply-side expansion, platform structures, merchant participation, and infrastructure conditions.
2. The second objective is to identify the principal market forces shaping current industry development. These include mobile internet penetration, digital payments, social commerce, logistics integration, merchant digitization, competitive consolidation, and the transition from growth-at-all-costs toward more disciplined economics.
3. The third objective is to map the major industry players and explain the strategic logic behind their positions. Market share alone is not enough; what matters is the combination of ecosystem control, user habit formation, merchant density, fulfilment capability, payment integration, advertising and take-rate potential, and regulatory resilience.
4. The fourth objective is to assess the structural barriers that may limit future growth or distort value creation. These include trust deficits, digital literacy gaps, infrastructure inequality, high fulfilment costs in an archipelagic geography, regulatory fragmentation, platform dependency for merchants, and pressure on profitability. The World Bank’s analysis is particularly relevant here because it underscores that lack of trust and uneven adoption continue to restrain broader inclusion.
5. The fifth objective is to benchmark Indonesia against ASEAN peers, the European Union, and the United States. This is done not to imply that Indonesia should imitate any one model fully, but to identify where Indonesia is structurally strong, where it lags, and where it may benefit from selective adaptation of best practices.
6. The sixth objective is to formulate a reasoned writer’s opinion on where Indonesia’s e-commerce and digital economy are heading, what strategic opportunities deserve attention, and what policy and business choices are most likely to determine long-run value creation.

• Scope of the Report

This report focuses primarily on Indonesia and covers both consumer-facing commerce platforms and the wider digital economic infrastructure supporting them. The analysis includes online marketplaces, social-commerce dynamics, digital payment enablement, logistics integration, platform ecosystems, merchant digitization, and the broader role of digital platforms in national economic development. It also includes the relationships between large platforms and MSMEs, because Indonesia’s digitalization story is inseparable from MSME participation. OECD and World Bank materials both emphasize that the productivity and inclusion impact of digitalization depends heavily on whether smaller businesses can effectively adopt and benefit from digital tools. The temporal scope is contemporary and policy relevant. Where possible, the report privileges the latest two years of data for market sizing and trend analysis, while also drawing on earlier structural studies when they remain useful for interpretation.

• Methodology and Analytical Approach

This report uses a mixed-source desk research approach based on official institutions, major industry reports, and comparative international references. Priority is given to authoritative sources such as Bank Indonesia, BPS, OECD, World Bank, and major regional market reports with established methodology, particularly the Google-Temasek-Bain e-Conomy SEA reports. This source mix is appropriate because no single institution captures the entire digital- economy picture: official statistical agencies provide rigor and national relevance, central-bank materials provide payments and macro-financial context, and industry reports capture platform-market dynamics more quickly.

The analysis is structured around four layers:

1. Macro context — economic growth, internet penetration, digitization environment, and policy direction.
2. Market structure — size, growth, segments, and role of major platforms.
3. Competitive and operational dynamics — logistics, monetization, trust, inclusion, and merchant behavior.
4. Comparative benchmarking — positioning Indonesia against ASEAN, EU, and US patterns.

Where data sources differ in framing or methodology, this report treats them as complementary rather than mechanically interchangeable. For example, one source may discuss e-commerce in GMV terms, another in transaction value, and another in business-count or survey terms. These measures are related, but they are not identical. As a result, the report will note metric definitions where necessary and avoid false precision.

• Analytical Premise of the Report

The central premise of this report is that Indonesia’s e-commerce and digital economy should be understood as a

scale-rich but friction-heavy growth system.

It is scale-rich because Indonesia has a large population, a huge and rising internet-user base, strong mobile-centric usage patterns, deep social-media engagement, and a merchant landscape in which digitization can still unlock substantial new value. These factors help explain why Indonesia has consistently remained the largest digital economy in Southeast Asia.

It is friction-heavy because scale alone does not eliminate the constraints created by geography, affordability, uneven digital capabilities, trust issues, fragmented logistics, regulatory complexity, and the economics of serving lower-ticket, subsidy-sensitive transactions across an archipelago. The World Bank explicitly identifies trust in digital transactions as a key challenge, while OECD points to the need for broader and more inclusive digital transformation to support productivity.

Therefore, the most useful way to analyze Indonesia is neither to be blindly optimistic nor excessively skeptical. The more accurate view is that Indonesia has already won the first battle—mass digital adoption—but is still fighting the harder second battle: converting adoption into durable, efficient, inclusive, and well-governed economic value.

• Expected Contribution of the Report

This report is intended to be useful for several audiences at once.

For business leaders and investors, it offers a structured way to understand where value is being created in Indonesia’s digital economy, where competition is intensifying, and where apparent growth may conceal weak underlying economics.

For policymakers and regulators, it helps frame the trade-offs between innovation, inclusion, competition, trust, and consumer protection. These trade-offs are becoming more important as digital platforms acquire quasi- infrastructural roles in payments, commerce, and merchant access.

For academics, analysts, and market observers, it provides a synthesized interpretation of diverse sources that are often read separately: statistical publications, central-bank commentary, development literature, and market reports.

For Indonesian firms and MSMEs, the report aims to clarify that digital participation is not simply a matter of listing products online. It increasingly requires capability in branding, pricing, fulfilment, payments, trust-building, and platform strategy. In that sense, digital economy participation is becoming a managerial and strategic challenge, not merely a channel decision.

Chapter 2: Market Trends and Size of Steel Industry in Indonesia

• Introduction

To understand Indonesia’s e-commerce and digital economy properly, market size must be read through more than one lens. The most cited lens is GMV (gross merchandise value) from industry reports, which captures the gross value of transactions facilitated by digital platforms. A second lens is official transaction value from Bank Indonesia, which is especially useful for understanding the scale of e-commerce spending within the national payment system. A third lens is digital-enablement data such as internet access, digital payment usage, QRIS adoption, and the performance of the information and communication sector in GDP. These lenses do not measure the same thing, but together they provide a more complete picture of the market.

The latest two-year period shows that Indonesia’s digital economy remained on a clear expansion path in both 2024 and 2025. Google, Temasek, and Bain estimated Indonesia’s digital economy GMV at US$90 billion in 2024, up 13% from 2023, and projected it to reach nearly US$100 billion in 2025, up 14% year on year. In both years, Indonesia remained the largest digital economy in Southeast Asia.

Within that broader digital economy, e-commerce remained the largest single contributor. The same source estimated Indonesian e-commerce GMV at US$65 billion in 2024, then projected it to rise to US$71 billion in 2025. In other words, the market was not only large; it was still expanding in double digits, even after the first wave of rapid post-pandemic adoption had already passed.

• Macroeconomic and Digital Context Behind Market Expansion

Indonesia’s e-commerce market must be interpreted against the backdrop of a still-growing national economy. BPS reported that Indonesia’s economy grew 5.03% in 2024 and 5.11% in 2025. That matters because digital commerce in Indonesia is no longer growing despite the broader economy; it is increasingly growing as part of mainstream household consumption, merchant activity, and service-sector expansion.

At the same time, the structural digital base continued to widen. BPS reported that 72.78% of Indonesians accessed the internet in 2024, up from 69.21% in 2023. APJII’s separate survey methodology produced a higher estimate for 2024, stating that internet users reached 221.56 million people with penetration at 79.5%. The difference between BPS and APJII should not be treated as a contradiction so much as a reminder that market estimates depend on survey design and definitions. What both sources clearly show is the same direction: Indonesia’s addressable digital population continued to expand.

By 2025, APJII’s survey portal had already published a 2025 internet survey edition, and third-party reporting based on APJII data stated that internet users had reached about 229.43 million, with penetration at 80.66%. Because this figure is commonly reported from APJII’s 2025 survey release but is less directly visible in the parsed official APJII page, it is best read as a strong directional indicator rather than the only authoritative benchmark. Still, it reinforces the conclusion that the user base supporting digital commerce continued to increase in 2025.

This expanding base was supported by device penetration as well. BPS reported that 68.65% of Indonesians owned a mobile phone in 2024, while household computer ownership was much lower at 18.52%. That pattern confirms the defining character of Indonesia’s digital economy: it is overwhelmingly mobile-first, which shapes everything from marketplace design and payment behavior to content-led commerce and app-based loyalty systems.

• Overall Size of the Digital Economy in 2024–2025

The broadest market-size measure comes from the e-Conomy SEA framework. According to Google, Temasek, and Bain, Indonesia’s digital economy GMV increased from US$80 billion in 2023 to US$90 billion in 2024. Their 2025 update then stated that the market would reach nearly US$100 billion in 2025. This means Indonesia added roughly US$10 billions of digital-economy GMV in 2024 and then nearly another US$9 billion to US$10 billion in 2025, depending on rounding.

That pace is significant for two reasons. First, it shows that Indonesia’s digital economy did not stall after earlier years of subsidy-driven growth and pandemic-era acceleration. Second, it suggests the market is entering a more mature phase in which additional scale is increasingly driven by deeper user engagement, more categories, stronger payment infrastructure, and content-commerce integration rather than pure first-time adoption alone. The 2024 and 2025 reports explicitly connect this next phase to video commerce, digital payments, and AI-enabled business efficiency.

The same 2024 report projected Indonesia’s overall digital economy could reach roughly US$200–360 billion by 2030, showing that current market size still represents only part of the long-term addressable opportunity. The very wide 2030 range also indicates uncertainty: future outcomes will depend on regulation, trust, monetization quality, infrastructure, and how effectively platforms convert traffic into profitable and repeatable transaction activity.

• E-Commerce as the Core of Market Size

• • GMV trend

In 2024, Indonesian e-commerce GMV was estimated at US$65 billion, up from US$59 billion in 2023, according to the Google-Temasek-Bain country report. In 2025, Google’s Indonesia blog reported the sector was projected to grow further to US$71 billion, still the largest contributor to the national digital economy.

This is one of the clearest findings of the chapter: despite the rise of digital finance, online media, travel recovery, and platform diversification, e-commerce remained the anchor sector. In 2024, e-commerce accounted for about 72% of Indonesia’s digital economy GMV if one compares US$65 billion to the US$90 billion total. In 2025, using the “nearly US$100 billion” total and the stated US$71 billion e-commerce GMV, the sector still accounted for roughly seven-tenths of digital-economy value. That makes Indonesia’s digital economy, at its core, still primarily a commerce economy rather than a pure software, ad-tech, or fintech economy. This percentage is an inference from the reported figures.

• Official Bank Indonesia transaction values

Bank Indonesia provides another very important perspective: transaction values within the e-commerce economy. In an October 2025 BI publication, the central bank stated that the value of Indonesia’s e-commerce transactions increased from around Rp205.5 trillion in 2019 to around Rp487 trillion in 2024 and was projected to continue growing toward around Rp738 trillion in 2025.

These BI numbers are not directly interchangeable with the GMV numbers from Google, Temasek, and Bain, because the methodologies differ. GMV is a platform-economy metric used in industry analysis, while BI’s figures sit closer to the official payments and transaction ecosystem. Still, read together, they point in the same direction: by 2024–2025, Indonesia’s e-commerce market was not just “large for Southeast Asia”; it had reached a scale where hundreds of trillions of rupiah were moving through digital commerce channels annually.

A further BI document states that from 2019 to December 2024, e-commerce transactions in Indonesia recorded a CAGR of 32.9% by volume and 17.2% by nominal value. That is especially revealing. It implies transaction count has been growing faster than transaction value, which usually indicates increasing frequency, broader adoption, more low-ticket transactions, or all three at once. This is consistent with the rise of everyday purchasing behavior, fast-moving consumer categories, and content-driven impulse buying on mobile platforms.

• What this says about the market

Taken together, the 2024 and 2025 data suggest that Indonesia’s e-commerce market is now in a phase of high- frequency normalization. Earlier growth was often described in terms of onboarding: bringing users and merchants online. The current phase looks more like behavioral consolidation: consumers are not just trying digital commerce, they are using it repeatedly across more categories and through more integrated pathways such as short video, live commerce, digital wallets, and QR-linked payments.

• Breakdown of Major Digital-Economy Segments

Although e-commerce dominates, the broader market trend becomes clearer when adjacent sectors are also examined.

In the 2024 country report, online travel GMV rose to US$9 billion, online media to US$8 billion, and transport and food to US$9 billion. In the 2025 update, online media was projected at US$9 billion, online travel at US$9 billion, and transport plus food at US$10 billion. This matters because it shows that Indonesia’s digital economy is becoming more diversified, but without displacing e-commerce from the center.

The strongest relative growth in 2024 came from online travel, which Google’s Indonesia blog said grew 24% to US$9 billion, supported by travel recovery. The 2025 update then projected a slower but still healthy 11% growth to the same broad US$9 billion level, indicating that travel was moving from rebound growth into normalization.

Online media became even more important in 2025. Google reported that the segment was projected to grow 16% to US$9 billion in 2025, making it the fastest-growing GMV sector in that year. The significance here is strategic: online media is not separate from commerce anymore. It increasingly feeds commerce through digital advertising, creator content, livestreaming, video discovery, and social-driven purchase intent.

Transport and food delivery remained a stable but meaningful pillar. Google estimated the combined segment at US$9 billion in 2024 and US$10 billion in 2025. This is smaller than e-commerce but still crucial, because it trains consumers into app-based ordering habits, supports wallet usage, and strengthens platform ecosystems that often overlap with commerce and payments.

• Digital Financial Services as a Force Multiplier for E-Commerce

A report on market size would be incomplete without digital financial services, because in Indonesia they function less as a separate vertical than as a force multiplier for commerce. The e-Conomy SEA 2024 report estimated Indonesia’s digital payments GTV at US$404 billion in 2024, up from US$340 billion in 2023. In the 2025 update, Google stated digital payments were projected to reach US$538 billion in 2025, making Indonesia the largest and fastest-growing digital-payments market in Southeast Asia.

This is highly consequential. It means the payments layer has already become several times larger than e-commerce GMV itself, which makes sense because digital payments cover a broader range of use cases than marketplaces alone. For commerce specifically, the implication is that payment readiness is no longer a peripheral issue. It is now one of the central foundations of market size, conversion, trust, and repeat purchase behavior.

Digital lending also continued to expand. The 2024 report estimated the digital lending loan-book balance at US$9 billion in 2024, up from US$7 billion in 2023. In 2025, Google highlighted continued high growth in digital financial services, but also emphasized that trust remains a limiting factor, noting that 46% of Indonesian consumers still trust digital-finance players less than traditional banks. This introduces an important nuance into market-size analysis: not every large digital-finance market automatically becomes a frictionless monetization market. Growth can coexist with trust deficits.

• Payment Infrastructure Trends Supporting Market Growth

Bank Indonesia’s data help show how the infrastructure layer scaled in parallel with commerce.

In January 2024, BI reported that the value of digital banking transactions increased 17.19% year on year to Rp5,335.33 trillion, while electronic money transaction value grew 39.28% to Rp83.37 trillion. In the same month, QRIS transaction value grew 149.46% year on year to Rp31.65 trillion, with 46.37 million users and 30.88 million merchants, dominated by MSMEs.

By November 2024, BI stated that QRIS transaction volume had grown 186% year on year to 689.07 million transactions, with 55.02 million users and 35.1 million merchants. The same release also reported digital banking transaction volume at 2.04 billion and electronic money transaction volume at 1.44 billion for the reporting period.

In 2025, the trend accelerated further. BI reported that digital payment volume in Q1 2025 grew 33.50% year on year to 10.76 billion transactions. By Q3 2025, digital payment volume had reached 12.99 billion transactions, up 38.08% year on year. In Q4 2025, BI reported digital payment volume of 14.26 billion transactions, up 39.21% year on year.

These infrastructure numbers matter for market-size interpretation because they reveal that Indonesian digital commerce is being reinforced by a rapidly thickening transaction environment. E-commerce growth is not happening on top of a static payment system; it is occurring alongside a major increase in digital transaction rails, user familiarity, and MSME merchant acceptance.

QRIS adoption is strategically important. BI stated that as of Semester I 2025, QRIS had reached 57 million users and 39.3 million merchants, with 93.16% of those merchants being MSMEs. This shows that the payments ecosystem increasingly reaches the same merchant base that e-commerce platforms seek to digitize. Even when sales occur off-marketplace or in hybrid online-offline channels, QRIS expansion strengthens the broader digital economy by normalizing digital payment behavior.

• Business-Side Market Development

Official BPS e-commerce publications for 2023 and 2024 show that the government continues to track the sector from the perspective of business units, not only users and transaction flows. The 2023 publication described coverage of business profiles, worker characteristics, business activities, and e-commerce business income during 2023. The 2024 publication expanded this with data on transaction value during 2024, again from the perspective of e-commerce businesses and with provincial estimates.

This is important analytically because it signals a shift in how Indonesia’s e-commerce market should be studied. The sector is no longer just a consumer-tech story; it is increasingly a business-structure story involving formalization, labor characteristics, provincial distribution, and income generation for sellers and firms. The existence of annual business-side surveys suggests that e-commerce has become economically significant enough to require routine official statistical treatment like more traditional sectors.

It also implies that future market-size analysis in Indonesia will likely become more nuanced. Instead of relying only on GMV headlines, analysts will need to combine platform estimates with business census-like data, provincial differences, merchant structure, and transaction composition. That is a sign of sector maturity.

• The Role of Content, Video Commerce, and Creator Activity in Market Expansion

One of the most important developments in the 2024–2025 period is that market growth increasingly came from the fusion of content and commerce. Google’s 2024 Indonesia update said Indonesia was the second-fastest- growing market in Southeast Asia for the number of creator-uploaded videos, with a 16% CAGR from 2022 to 2024. The same report linked large-platform innovation directly to new features such as video commerce.

By 2025, this dynamic had become even more explicit. Google reported that Indonesia had become the largest and fastest-growing video-commerce market in Southeast Asia, with video-commerce transaction volume surging 90% year on year to 2.6 billion transactions, and the number of sellers and online stores increasing 75% year on year to 800,000.

This has direct implications for market size. In earlier years, one might have estimated e-commerce primarily through search, listing, checkout, and logistics flows. In 2025, a growing share of market expansion was clearly being mediated by short video, algorithmic recommendation, live selling, and creator-driven discovery. That changes the competitive basis of the market: growth is no longer only about assortment and price, but also about attention, engagement, conversion architecture, and the ability to collapse entertainment into transaction.

• Regional and Structural Implications of the Market-Size Data

Indonesia’s market-size growth in 2024 and 2025 should not be interpreted merely as the success of a few big platforms. The numbers suggest something broader: digital commerce has become embedded across the country’s consumption system.

1. First, the sheer scale of digital payments and QRIS merchant adoption indicates that the market is broadening beyond the most formal urban retail channels. BI’s merchant figures show tens of millions of acceptance points, overwhelmingly among MSMEs. That means the digital economy’s expansion is increasingly tied to merchant digitization at the small-business level, not only to large corporate retail.
   
2. Second, Google’s reports repeatedly point to growth outside Jakarta and to expansion into smaller cities. This suggests that the next increments of market size are likely to come not only from higher spending per urban user, but also from wider geographical penetration and stronger monetization in non-core metropolitan markets.
3. Third, BPS data on internet access and mobile-phone ownership indicate that the addressable market is large but still not fully saturated. If BPS measured internet access at 72.78% in 2024, then more than a quarter of the population still had not accessed the internet that year under that methodology. Even if APJII’s higher estimate is used, the market still has headroom. That means Indonesia’s digital economy in 2024–2025 was already very large, yet still not mature in the sense of full national saturation.

• Interpreting the 2024–2025 Trend: What Kind of Growth Is This?

The most important analytical conclusion from the latest two years is that Indonesia’s market growth is best described as broad-based but e-commerce-led. It is broad-based because multiple digital segments expanded at once: e-commerce, media, travel, transport and food, and digital finance. It is e-commerce-led because commerce still contributed the largest share of GMV and because adjacent sectors increasingly supported commerce rather than displaced it. Digital payments made checkout easier, online media drove discovery, creator ecosystems stimulated demand, and QRIS widened merchant acceptance.

It is also a form of growth that appears to be moving from acquisition-heavy expansion toward ecosystem- deepening expansion. Evidence for this includes the rise of video commerce, the acceleration of QRIS and digital payments, the ongoing growth of e-commerce even at large scale, and the increasing statistical attention to business-side e-commerce activity. The market is no longer being built only by adding new users; it is being deepened by increasing the number of ways users, merchants, creators, and payment rails interact.

• Key Findings of Chapter 2

The latest two-year evidence points to several core findings.

Indonesia’s digital economy reached US$90 billion GMV in 2024 and was projected to approach US$100 billion in 2025, preserving its position as Southeast Asia’s largest digital economy.

E-commerce remained the dominant pillar, rising from US$65 billion in 2024 to a projected US$71 billion in 2025. Official BI data complement this by showing e-commerce transaction values of around Rp487 trillion in 2024 and a projection of around Rp738 trillion in 2025.

The enabling base also strengthened materially. BPS reported internet access at 72.78% in 2024, while APJII reported 221.56 million users and 79.5% penetration in the same broad period. Digital payments, electronic money, digital banking, and QRIS all grew rapidly across 2024 and 2025, with QRIS merchant adoption reaching 39.3 million merchants by the first half of 2025.

The character of growth also changed. Video commerce became a major driver of expansion, and the market increasingly reflected the convergence of commerce, content, payments, and MSME digitization rather than the simple growth of online catalog transactions alone.

In conclusion, the 2024–2025 period confirms that Indonesia’s e-commerce and digital economy are no longer emerging in the narrow sense. They are already operating at national economic scale. Yet this scale is not static or exhausted. The market is still adding users, still deepening merchant participation, still expanding digital payment infrastructure, and still evolving toward content-led commerce models. The size of the market is already impressive; the more important insight is that its internal structure is becoming more sophisticated.

Chapter 3: Digital Consumer Landscape in Indonesia

• Introduction

After establishing the macro market size in Chapter 2, the next analytical step is to understand the digital consumer base that makes Indonesia’s e-commerce and digital economy possible. Market size alone does not explain why Indonesia has become such an attractive platform market. The real engine sits in consumer behavior: how many people are connected, how they access the internet, how long they stay online, which platforms dominate attention, and how digital habits translate into discovery, trust, and purchasing behavior. In Indonesia, this matters even more because commerce is increasingly shaped by a mobile-first, social-first, and content-led consumption pattern rather than by desktop web browsing alone.

The evidence from 2024 and 2025 shows that Indonesia’s digital consumer landscape has four defining features. First, the country has a very large, connected population. Second, mobile access dominates digital life. Third, social platforms absorb a significant share of daily attention. Fourth, platform usage is no longer only about communication or entertainment; it increasingly overlaps with product discovery, brand interaction, and transaction pathways. Those four traits are what make Indonesia not just a large internet market, but a uniquely powerful digital commerce environment.

• Population, Connectivity, and the Addressable Digital Consumer Base

At the beginning of 2025, Indonesia’s population stood at 285 million, up by 2.3 million from early 2024, according to DataReportal. In the same report, there were 212 million internet users in Indonesia in January 2025, equivalent to 74.6% of the population. This means Indonesia entered 2025 with one of the world’s largest connected consumer populations, but also with meaningful room for further digital inclusion because about 72.2 million people were still offline.

For 2024, DataReportal estimated 185.3 million internet users and 353.3 million cellular mobile connections, while social media user identities reached 139.0 million. In practical terms, that means the Indonesian digital consumer market in 2024 was already massive, but it expanded further in 2025 on almost every major indicator: population, internet use, mobile connections, and social identities.

Official Indonesian statistics tell a similar story through a different methodology. BPS reported that the share of Indonesians accessing the internet rose from 69.21% in 2023 to 72.78% in 2024, while 68.65% of the population owned a cellular phone in 2024. Because BPS and Data Reportal use different methods and definitions, the levels should not be merged mechanically, but directionally they are consistent: Indonesia’s connected consumer base kept widening through the latest measured period.

• Mobile-First Consumer Behavior

Indonesia’s digital landscape is fundamentally mobile-first. DataReportal reported 356 million cellular mobile connections in early 2025, equivalent to 125% of the population, and noted that 96.4% of those connections could be considered broadband-capable, meaning they connected via 3G, 4G, or 5G networks. This does not mean every connection uses mobile internet actively, but it does show that the country’s consumer digital infrastructure is overwhelmingly built around mobile networks rather than fixed-line access.

The BPS side reinforces this conclusion from the household perspective. In 2024, 68.65% of Indonesians owned a mobile phone, while only 18.52% of households owned a computer and just 0.99% of households had a fixed-line telephone. In other words, Indonesia’s digital consumer economy is not being driven by home-computing culture. It is driven by smartphones as the default gateway to information, social interaction, entertainment, payments, and commerce.

This has deep strategic consequences for e-commerce. A mobile-first consumer behaves differently from a desktop- first consumer. Product discovery happens more often in-app, in short sessions, through feeds and recommendations rather than through deliberate search alone. Checkout must be friction-light. Payment flows must be tightly integrated. Visual presentation matters more. Content-led conversion matters more. Social proof matters more. This is one reason Indonesia’s e-commerce growth is increasingly intertwined with video, live selling, creator activity, and app-native payment systems. That pattern is not incidental; it is an expected result of a market in which the smartphone is the primary digital interface.

• Time Spent Online: Intensity of Digital Consumption

Scale is important, but intensity is what turns connectivity into economic value. Indonesia is not only a country with many internet users; it is also a country where people spend substantial time in digital environments. Secondary summaries based on the Indonesia Digital Report 2025 report that Indonesians spend about 7 hours 22 minutes per day online and around 3 hours 8 minutes per day on social media. Comparable secondary references drawing on 2024 reporting place average daily internet use at around 7 hours 38 minutes and social media use at around 3 hours 11 minutes.

Because these time-use figures are not clearly exposed in the parsed primary DataReportal country page, they should be read as reported summary values derived from the Digital Indonesia reports, not as directly scraped primary table values. Even with that sourcing caveat, the pattern is clear and analytically useful: Indonesians spend a very large share of their day in digital environments, and social media takes a substantial portion of that time. This matters for the digital economy because time spent online is not neutral. It is attention inventory. More attention means more exposure to ads, creators, brands, live commerce, product recommendations, affiliate links, and embedded transactions. In other words, time spent is one of the hidden foundations of platform monetization and commerce conversion.

The strategic implication is straightforward: Indonesia’s digital consumer landscape is not merely “connected”; it is attention rich. In such markets, the winners are often not only those with the largest catalogs or lowest prices, but those that can most effectively capture, hold, and convert attention. That is why content-commerce hybrids have become so powerful in Indonesia.

Table 3.3. Estimated daily digital media consumption in Indonesia

Note: these values are cited from secondary summaries that explicitly attribute the numbers to the Indonesia Digital Report / DataReportal ecosystem, because the parsed primary country pages exposed by web search do not clearly surface the time-use table itself.

• Social Media as a Mass-Market Consumer Layer

At the beginning of 2025, Indonesia had 143 million active social media user identities, equal to 50.2% of the total population. At the beginning of 2024, the equivalent figure was 139.0 million, or 49.9% of the population. DataReportal also noted that in January 2024, 75.0% of Indonesia’s total internet user base used at least one social media platform. These are extremely important figures for the digital economy because they show that social media is not a niche layer sitting on top of internet use; it is one of the core ways Indonesians experience the internet itself.

This means social media in Indonesia should be understood as an economic infrastructure of discovery and influence, not merely as a communication channel. It is where consumers encounter trends, evaluate products, follow creators, compare brands, and receive repeated exposure before purchase. In mature digital-commerce markets, the path to purchase often begins outside the marketplace. In Indonesia, that dynamic is especially strong because of the country’s mobile-first and content-heavy behavior.

The distribution of user identities also matters. Half the population represented in social-media identity metrics means social platforms can serve as mass channels for both broad-reach consumer brands and highly targeted category-specific campaigns. This is one reason why Indonesia remains highly attractive for marketplace advertising, creator commerce, affiliate systems, and performance-led social distribution.

• The Most Used Social Platforms in Indonesia

Among major social platforms, DataReportal’s advertising-based audience data for 2025 show YouTube with 143 million users, Facebook with 122 million, Instagram with 103 million, TikTok with 108 million users aged 18+, and LinkedIn with ad reach equivalent to 11.6% of the population; separate 2024 DataReportal lines show LinkedIn at

26.0 million members in early 2024. These figures are not all directly comparable because some rely on ad reach,

some on registered members, and TikTok’s published number is limited to adults aged 18 and above. Still, they are highly useful for mapping the hierarchy of attention.

For 2024, DataReportal reported YouTube at 139.0 million, Facebook at 117.6 million, Instagram at 100.9 million, TikTok at 126.8 million users aged 18+, and LinkedIn at 26.0 million members. Even allowing for methodology caveats, the same broad picture emerges in both years: YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok dominate the mainstream digital attention layer, while LinkedIn remains meaningful but more specialized.

A 2025 DataReportal social-platform overview also states that YouTube is the most used social media platform at the start of 2025 globally and in its cross-platform analysis. Combined with Indonesia-specific audience data, that strongly supports viewing YouTube as one of the country’s most important mass-reach and content-discovery platforms.

Table 3.4. Major social platforms used in Indonesia, early 2024 vs early 2025

Methodology note: platform figures come from advertising tools or platform planning tools and do not always equal monthly active users; TikTok is reported for adults aged 18+ only; LinkedIn uses “members” rather than active users.

• What Platform Dominance Means for E-Commerce

The platform mixes matters because different platforms perform different roles in the commerce funnel. YouTube and TikTok are especially powerful for awareness, education, demonstration, and repeated exposure through video. Instagram is highly valuable for visual identity, aspiration, and mid-funnel brand consideration. Facebook remains useful for mass-market scale and wide demographic reach. LinkedIn plays a narrower role, more relevant to B2B, professional services, and recruitment-led digital ecosystems than to mainstream consumer commerce.

The strategic significance is that Indonesian consumers are not moving through a simple path of “search product, compare price, buy.” Increasingly, they move through a content-influenced sequence: watch, follow, discuss, discover, trust, then transact. This is why platform dominance in Indonesia cannot be analyzed separately from commerce. The social layer increasingly conditions what is visible, desirable, and trusted in the marketplace layer.

This also helps explain the rise of live commerce, affiliate models, creator ecosystems, and short-video product discovery. In an environment where users spend hours per day on social platforms, commerce becomes more

effective when it is embedded into attention flows rather than waiting for consumers to initiate explicit search. That is one of the defining features of Indonesia’s digital consumer landscape.

• Internet Speed and Consumer Experience

Consumer behavior is shaped not just by access, but by experience quality. DataReportal reported that median mobile internet download speed in Indonesia increased from 24.53 Mbps at the start of 2024 to 29.06 Mbps at the start of 2025. Median fixed internet speed rose from 28.34 Mbps to 32.05 Mbps over the same period.

Those improvements matter because richer digital commerce increasingly depends on video streaming, live content, in-app browsing, and real-time payments. Faster mobile speeds strengthen the viability of precisely the types of consumer behavior now driving Indonesian e-commerce: short-form video discovery, live selling, heavier app sessions, and creator-led recommendations. This is another reason why Indonesia’s market is moving toward more immersive commerce models rather than staying with static product-listing behavior.

Table 3.5. Internet speed indicators shaping consumer experience

• Consumer Behavior, Trust, and Commercial Readiness

A large connected audience does not automatically mean a frictionless digital market. One important feature of Indonesia’s digital consumer landscape is that usage intensity is high, but trust and readiness still vary across categories. The market has clearly matured in social interaction, entertainment, and everyday digital utility, but in finance and higher-value digital transactions there can still be caution. This is consistent with wider digital-economy findings that Indonesia combines high engagement with continuing trust frictions in some areas of digital adoption.

From a commerce standpoint, this means successful brands and platforms must do more than attract clicks. They need to build reassurance through ratings, reviews, visible proof, clear returns, trusted payment flows, creator credibility, and repeated exposure. High usage time makes attention available, but trust is what converts attention into repeat purchases. Indonesia’s digital consumer is therefore not just highly reachable; they are also highly responsive to credibility signals.

• Youth, Families, and the Regulatory Direction of Consumer Protection

The Indonesian digital consumer landscape also includes a growing policy concern around children and younger users. Reuters reported in January 2025 that Indonesian authorities were planning a minimum age framework for social media, citing APJII survey findings that 48% of children under 12 had internet access and that many were already using major platforms. In March 2026, Reuters reported that Indonesia would begin restricting social media access for children under 16 on certain high-risk platforms. Although that rule sits just outside the main 2024– 2025 dataset of this chapter, it is still relevant because it shows that the digital consumer environment is no longer being treated only as a growth domain; it is also increasingly treated as a consumer-protection domain.

This matters for the digital economy because future platform growth in Indonesia will likely occur under closer expectations around age controls, safety, moderation, and responsible design. For businesses, that means digital consumer growth can no longer be analyzed solely through reach metrics. Governance and platform responsibility are becoming part of the market environment too.

• Analytical Synthesis: What Kind of Digital Consumer Is Indonesia Producing?

Taken together, the latest evidence suggests that Indonesia is producing a digital consumer profile with five important traits.

1. First, the consumer base is large and expanding, with internet users above 200 million by early 2025 and broad social-media reach.
2. Second, it is mobile-dominant, meaning behavior happens in apps, feeds, and short-session environments.
3. Third, it is attention-heavy, with long daily digital usage and substantial social-media consumption.
4. Fourth, it is platform-shaped, meaning visibility and preference are influenced by social and video ecosystems before they translate into transactions.
5. Fifth, it is increasingly regulated, especially where minors, safety, and platform harms are concerned.

For e-commerce, this combination is extremely powerful. It creates a market where the commercial battle is not fought only on price or assortment, but on attention capture, trust formation, speed, ease of payment, content quality, and algorithmic visibility. In other words, Indonesia’s digital consumer landscape does not merely support digital commerce; it actively reshapes what successful commerce looks like.

• Key Findings of Chapter 3

The main findings of this chapter can be summarized as follows.

Indonesia had 212 million internet users and 356 million mobile connections at the start of 2025, confirming both scale and deep mobile penetration. BPS data support the same trend, with internet access reaching 72.78% of the population in 2024 and mobile-phone ownership reaching 68.65%.

Consumer behavior is highly digital-intensive. Reported secondary summaries based on the Indonesia Digital Report place average daily internet use at roughly 7 to 7.5 hours per day and social-media use at roughly 3 hours per day, confirming that Indonesia is an attention-rich market.

Social platforms form a mass-market layer of consumer life. Active social-media identities reached 143 million in 2025, and the most powerful platforms by audience size remained YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, although platform metrics require caution because methodologies differ.

The consumer journey is increasingly content led. Improvements in mobile speed, high platform usage, and strong social penetration together make Indonesia especially favorable for video commerce, creator-led discovery, affiliate models, and mobile-native checkout flows.

Chapter 4: The Rapid Growth of Market Place and Digital Platforms

• Introduction

Indonesia’s e-commerce expansion cannot be explained only by rising internet access or growing consumer demand. The real engine of scale has been the rapid growth of marketplaces and digital platforms that organize demand, aggregate merchants, standardize payments, compress logistics friction, and increasingly convert attention into transactions. In other words, Indonesia’s digital economy did not grow as a loose collection of online shops.

It grew because platform models became the dominant architecture of commerce. The latest official and market data show that by 2024–2025, this platformization had reached a high level of concentration, with a small number of large players capturing most traffic, GMV, and monetisation opportunities.

This chapter argues that the growth of marketplaces in Indonesia should be understood through four linked dynamics.

1. First, platforms solved real structural problems in a geographically complex archipelago: trust, payments, fulfilment, and merchant discovery.
2. Second, they scaled through mobile-first user behavior and increasingly through social and video-led discovery.
3. Third, they moved from pure growth strategies toward more disciplined monetisation strategies such as take-rate expansion, advertising, fulfilment services, and financial services integration.
4. Fourth, their growth increasingly produced a concentrated competitive structure in which leadership is not just about traffic, but about ecosystem control.

• Why Marketplaces Grew So Fast in Indonesia

Marketplace growth in Indonesia was accelerated by the fact that the country’s retail environment had large pre- existing inefficiencies. Indonesia’s population is large, geographically dispersed, and served by a retail system with uneven product availability, highly variable price transparency, and substantial logistics complexity. A successful digital platform therefore creates value not only by digitizing retail, but by reducing search costs, widening assortment access, standardizing payment, and coordinating fulfilment. That is why platforms in Indonesia took on quasi-infrastructural roles rather than functioning merely as online storefronts. This structural explanation is consistent with the World Bank’s broader treatment of digital platforms as inclusion tools and with Indonesia’s own payment-system strategy, which emphasizes integration between commerce, finance, and digital infrastructure.

The second driver was mobile and app-centric adoption. As shown in Chapter 3, Indonesia’s digital consumers are mobile-first, highly social, and deeply exposed to short-form content. In such an environment, marketplaces grow faster when they are embedded into everyday digital habits rather than requiring deliberate desktop-based shopping behavior. Indonesia’s platform leaders benefited from this environment by integrating app notifications, live commerce, affiliate systems, gamification, vouchers, and algorithmic recommendations into the shopping experience. This made commerce more frequent, lower-friction, and increasingly impulse-friendly.

The third driver was payments and merchant enablement. Bank Indonesia’s public materials show that digital payments, QRIS, and merchant digital acceptance expanded rapidly through 2024–2025. This matters for marketplace growth because platforms do not scale efficiently if users cannot pay easily or if merchants cannot operate in digitized ways. The rapid growth of digital transaction rails reduced one of the biggest historical constraints on e-commerce in Indonesia.

• From Marketplace to Platform Economy

The most important conceptual shift is that the leading players in Indonesia are no longer just marketplaces. They are multi-layer digital platforms. A traditional marketplace mainly connects buyers and sellers. A platform economy player, by contrast, creates and monetizes multiple layers at once: traffic, payments, fulfilment, seller tools, advertising, consumer financing, loyalty systems, and increasingly creator-driven distribution. The difference matters because the second model is much more defensible. It generates more revenue streams, more data advantages, and stronger user lock-in. Shopee is the clearest example of this platform logic. Sea’s 2024 results show that its e-commerce segment is monetized through a sizable take rate and major marketplace revenue, not simply through raw transaction volume.

Tokopedia’s evolution also illustrates this shift, though in a different way. Following the completion of the TikTok transaction in early 2024, Tokopedia and TikTok Shop Indonesia were combined under PT Tokopedia, with TikTok committing to invest over US$1.5 billion over time in the enlarged entity. This was not just a corporate restructuring. Strategically, it represented a merger between a marketplace layer and a content-distribution layer, making Indonesia one of the most visible examples of commerce converging with algorithmic media.

Blibli also fits the platform-economy logic, but via an omnichannel route. Its revenue is not derived only from pure third-party marketplace activity; it combines first-party retail, institutions, and ecosystem linkages, which broadens revenue sources and positions it differently from a pure marketplace player. This is one reason smaller traffic share does not automatically imply weak strategic relevance.

• Market Concentration and Competitive Structure

Indonesia’s marketplace industry in 2024 was clearly concentrated. Momentum Works data reported by Databoks estimated total Indonesian e-commerce GMV at US$56.5 billion in 2024, with Shopee controlling 46%, Tokopedia 23%, TikTok Shop 11%, Bukalapak 10%, Lazada 7%, and Blibli 4%. That means the top two players alone accounted for roughly 69% of the market, while the top three accounted for about 80%. This is not a fragmented field. It is a leader-led market with a strong front-runner.

This concentration is reinforced by traffic data. Semrush data reported by Databoks for May 2025 showed Shopee Indonesia at 138.6 million website visits, Tokopedia at 69.8 million, Lazada at 35.2 million, and Blibli at 15.9 million. The ratio between Shopee and Tokopedia traffic was roughly 2:1, while Shopee had nearly four times Lazada’s traffic and almost nine times Blibli’s. Traffic is not equal to transacting users, but such large gaps usually indicate powerful differences in repeat engagement and conversion opportunity.

Table 4.1. Estimated marketplace market share in Indonesia, 2024

Implied GMV values are arithmetic estimates based on published market size and shares.

Table 4.2. Marketplace website traffic in Indonesia, May 2025

Traffic refers to site visits, not unique monthly active users.

• Shopee: The Strongest Marketplace Flywheel

Shopee’s growth in Indonesia reflects the strongest combination of scale, monetisation, and ecosystem discipline among the major players. Sea reported that its e-commerce business achieved US$100.5 billion in GMV and 10.9

billion gross orders in FY2024, alongside US$12.4 billion in GAAP revenue and an overall e-commerce take rate of 12.4%. It also disclosed US$10.9 billion of GAAP marketplace revenue, showing that Shopee’s commercial engine is not just large in volume but substantial in revenue capture. Although these are regional figures rather than Indonesia-only figures, they matter because Indonesia is one of Shopee’s largest and most strategic markets.

Shopee’s strategic strength lies in its flywheel. High traffic feeds merchant demand: merchant density supports assortment and price competitiveness; high order frequency supports logistics scale; logistics density supports delivery quality; and the full system enables stronger advertising and seller-service monetisation. Reuters also reported in September 2024 that YouTube partnered with Shopee to launch YouTube Shopping in Indonesia, allowing purchases through integrated links from videos. This shows that Shopee is not defending its position only inside the marketplace app; it is also expanding its commerce surface into external content ecosystems.

Shopee’s disclosed take rate is especially significant for industry analysis. A 12.4% take rate indicates a mature ability to capture value from GMV, whether through transaction fees, commissions, advertising, logistics services, or other monetisation layers. This matters because a platform with large GMV but weak monetisation may still struggle economically. Shopee’s public numbers suggest that it has moved further than many peers from “growth at all costs” toward commercially disciplined scale.

• Tokopedia and TikTok Shop: The Convergence of Marketplace and Content

Tokopedia’s historical strength in Indonesia came from brand trust, local relevance, and broad merchant presence. However, the strategic landscape changed when TikTok completed its transaction and combined Tokopedia with TikTok Shop Indonesia under PT Tokopedia in February 2024. TikTok committed to invest more than US$1.5 billion over time into the enlarged entity. This effectively created a hybrid model that joins Tokopedia’s commerce infrastructure with TikTok’s discovery engine.

From a growth perspective, this matters enormously. Traditional marketplaces depend heavily on consumers already having purchase intent. Content platforms can generate that intent natively, especially in mobile-first markets where short-form video, influencer recommendations, and live shopping are powerful. Indonesia is particularly fertile ground for such a model because of high social usage and content-led discovery. The combined Tokopedia–TikTok structure therefore represents one of the most important strategic developments in Indonesia’s marketplace evolution.

However, this structure also complicates financial analysis. GoTo deconsolidated Tokopedia from February 1, 2024, so Tokopedia no longer appears as a standard consolidated segment in GoTo’s financial reporting. Instead, GoTo disclosed that it earned Rp690 billion gross, or Rp622 billion net excluding VAT, in Tokopedia service fees during 2024, representing 11 months of service fees. For 4Q24 alone, it disclosed Rp204 billion gross, or Rp183 billion net excluding VAT. These numbers are meaningful, but they are GoTo’s fee economics, not Tokopedia’s standalone marketplace revenue.

This creates an important analytical point: Tokopedia remains highly relevant in market share and traffic, but its standalone revenue visibility has become weaker in public disclosures. In a way, that itself reflects the platform transition. Tokopedia is no longer best understood as an isolated marketplace. It is part of a commerce-content partnership structure whose value lies in strategic integration rather than in simple legacy marketplace reporting.

• TikTok Shop and the Rise of Video Commerce

TikTok Shop’s 11% share of Indonesia’s 2024 e-commerce GMV is strategically significant because it proves that video commerce has already become material, not experimental. Reuters reported in September 2024 that TikTok Shop had achieved US$16.3 billion GMV in Southeast Asia in 2023, making it the region’s second-largest e- commerce player after Shopee. Indonesia, given its social media intensity and TikTok’s importance in local consumer behavior, is one of the key markets behind that rise.

What distinguishes TikTok Shop from traditional marketplaces is its growth logic. It does not rely primarily on users navigating toward product listings. Instead, it inserts products into entertainment and recommendation flows. In high-attention markets such as Indonesia, this can be a structurally powerful model because conversion starts from engagement, not just search. As a result, TikTok Shop’s importance in Indonesia extends beyond its current market share. It represents a competitive forcing function that pushes all marketplaces toward stronger content integration.

At the same time, the Tokopedia-TikTok deal and subsequent regulatory scrutiny show that this model also raises market-structure questions. Reuters reported in June 2025 that Indonesia’s competition authority conditionally approved TikTok’s acquisition of a 75.01% stake in Tokopedia, imposing conditions including maintaining open payment and logistics systems and avoiding predatory pricing. This suggests that the growth of content-commerce platforms in Indonesia will remain subject to competition concerns, not only commercial opportunity.

• Lazada: Scale Without Leadership

Lazada remains one of the major marketplace brands in Indonesia, but the evidence suggests it has not translated regional scale into domestic leadership. In Indonesia’s 2024 GMV-share estimates, Lazada held 7%, while its May 2025 traffic was 35.2 million visits, well below Shopee and Tokopedia. This indicates that Lazada remains relevant but not central to the market’s current power structure.

One reason Lazada is harder to evaluate is disclosure. Alibaba’s public reporting does not provide a clean Indonesia- only Lazada revenue line in the cited materials, which makes direct financial comparison difficult. Strategically, however, Lazada still matters because challenger platforms can exert pricing and seller-side competitive pressure even without leadership share. Yet the current public evidence points to a platform that is present and meaningful but not setting the tempo of Indonesia’s marketplace evolution.

• Blibli: A Smaller but More Differentiated Model

Blibli’s position in Indonesia is smaller by GMV and traffic, but its business model is more differentiated than a simple marketplace ranking may suggest. The company reported FY2024 consolidated net revenue of Rp16.716 trillion, up 14% year on year, and a take rate of 6.9%, up from 5.1% in FY2023. These figures indicate a clear monetisation improvement.

Blibli’s relative strength is not raw audience dominance. It is model diversity. Because it operates across retail, institutions, and travel-linked services, its revenue structure is broader than that of a pure third-party marketplace. This reduces direct comparability with Shopee, but it also gives Blibli a more varied commercial base. A platform does not necessarily need to win the broadest mass market to remain strategically relevant if it can build defensible economics in specific customer and channel segments.

Its smaller traffic base—15.9 million visits in May 2025—means Blibli is not competing on the same scale of consumer reach as Shopee or Tokopedia. But its rising take rate and growing revenue suggest that platform growth can also come from quality of monetisation, not only absolute user volume.

• Bukalapak: A Case Study in Competitive Pressure

Bukalapak is important not because it currently leads, but because it demonstrates how harsh Indonesia’s platform competition has become. Reuters reported in January 2025 that Bukalapak would stop selling physical goods on its marketplace and refocus on virtual products, after mounting competition from larger players. Reuters also noted that the company posted a Rp593.23 billion loss in the first nine months of 2024.

This is a critical reminder that marketplace growth at the industry level does not mean all incumbents benefit equally. As competition intensifies and leaders strengthen their traffic, payments, logistics, and advertising flywheels, weaker or less differentiated platforms may struggle to justify continued participation in lower-margin, physical-goods competition. Bukalapak’s retrenchment suggests that Indonesia’s marketplace growth phase is now

also a selection phase, in which scale, monetisation depth, and ecosystem integration matter more than simple brand recognition.

• Revenue Models and Take-Rate Logic

To understand rapid platform growth, one must understand how platforms make money. In earlier marketplace development stages, revenue often depends on limited commissions and subsidized user acquisition. In a more mature stage, revenue becomes multi-layered: commissions, seller fees, advertising, logistics, payment services, credit, and software-like merchant tools.

Sea’s disclosure of a 12.4% e-commerce take rate and Blibli’s 6.9% take rate show that Indonesian marketplace- related businesses are increasingly judged not only by GMV, but by how much revenue they can extract per unit of commerce.

This is why ARPU is not the best cross-platform metric here. Most Indonesian marketplaces do not disclose standardized Indonesia-only monthly active users, transacting users, and local revenue simultaneously. Without those inputs, any ARPU estimate would be fragile. Take rate is more meaningful because it connects monetisation directly to transaction value. That makes it a better indicator of platform maturity.

• Platform Growth and the Role of External Ecosystems

A major reason for the rapid growth of Indonesian marketplaces is that they no longer grow only inside their own apps. They increasingly plug into external ecosystems. The clearest example is the YouTube–Shopee partnership launched in Indonesia in 2024, which allows users to buy products featured in YouTube videos through Shopee links. Strategically, this means the commerce layer extends into content environments where users already spend time. It also suggests that the boundary between marketplace traffic and media traffic is becoming thinner.

Tokopedia’s integration with TikTok is the other major example. In that case, the marketplace and content layers are not just partnered; they are structurally fused. This has two implications. First, growth can accelerate because discovery and transaction are closely linked. Second, competitive pressure rises for traditional marketplaces that still depend more heavily on app-entry and search-based behavior.

In both cases, the lesson is clear: the next phase of platform growth in Indonesia will likely come not only from better marketplace operations, but from stronger integration with creator ecosystems, media surfaces, and attention channels.

Chapter 5: Major Players in the Industry

• Introduction

Indonesia’s e-commerce and digital-platform industry is shaped by a small number of dominant firms, but they are not all competing with the same model. Some operate as high-scale horizontal marketplaces, some combine marketplace with content distribution, some pursue omnichannel or category-led strategies, and some have retreated from direct physical-goods competition after struggling to keep pace. Therefore, a useful chapter on major players should not merely list brand names. It must explain each player’s strategic position, scale indicators, monetisation approach, strengths, and structural constraints.

Based on the latest available public evidence, the core players that matter most for Indonesia’s e-commerce structure are Shopee, Tokopedia, TikTok Shop, Lazada, Blibli, and Bukalapak. Among these, Shopee is the clear market leader by GMV share and traffic; Tokopedia remains the largest local-origin marketplace brand and now sits inside a TikTok-linked commerce structure; TikTok Shop is the main force accelerating content-commerce; Lazada remains relevant but is no longer setting market tempo in Indonesia; Blibli is smaller but more differentiated; and Bukalapak has become the clearest example of strategic retreat under intense competitive pressure.

• Shopee

Shopee is the single most important marketplace player in Indonesia today. Momentum Works data reported by Databoks estimate that Shopee captured 46% of Indonesia’s e-commerce GMV in 2024, making it the clear leader. Separately, Semrush data reported by Databoks show Shopee Indonesia’s website drew 138.6 million visits in May 2025, roughly double Tokopedia’s traffic and far ahead of Lazada and Blibli. These two metrics together matter because they show that Shopee leads both in transaction weight and in consumer attention.

The financial side reinforces this leadership. Sea reported that its e-commerce business generated US$100.5 billion GMV in FY2024, 10.9 billion gross orders, US$12.4 billion in GAAP revenue, US$10.9 billion in GAAP marketplace revenue, and a 12.4% GAAP take rate. Sea also reported positive adjusted EBITDA for the e-commerce segment in 2024. While these are regional Shopee/Sea e-commerce figures rather than Indonesia-only figures, they are still highly relevant because Indonesia is one of Shopee’s largest markets and because they demonstrate the maturity of Shopee’s monetisation engine.

Shopee’s strength lies in the fact that it is not just a high-traffic marketplace. It is a full commerce flywheel. High user traffic attracts merchants, dense merchant participation supports assortment and price competition, strong order volume improves logistics density, and logistics density improves customer experience and order frequency. On top of that, advertising and seller services expand monetisation. This is why Shopee is difficult to attack directly: challengers are not just competing with a shopping app, but with a deeply integrated commercial operating system. This is an analytical inference from Shopee’s traffic leadership and Sea’s monetisation disclosures.

A final point on Shopee is that it is also expanding through partnerships outside its own app. Reuters reported that YouTube partnered with Shopee in Indonesia in 2024 for YouTube Shopping. This shows Shopee is trying to own not just checkout, but also commerce embedded in creator and video ecosystems. That is strategically important because Indonesia’s future e-commerce growth is increasingly content-driven.

• Tokopedia

Tokopedia remains one of the most important names in Indonesian e-commerce, even though its corporate structure has changed. Momentum Works data reported by Databoks put Tokopedia at 23% market share by GMV in 2024, placing it second behind Shopee. Databoks also reported 69.8 million website visits in May 2025, which is still very large in absolute terms even if it trails Shopee by a wide margin.

The challenge in analyzing Tokopedia is not relevance, but disclosure. GoTo announced that it deconsolidated Tokopedia effective February 1, 2024, after the transaction that combined Tokopedia and TikTok Shop Indonesia under PT Tokopedia. As a result, Tokopedia no longer appears in public disclosures as a conventional standalone consolidated marketplace segment in the same way it once did. Instead, GoTo disclosed the service fee it receives from Tokopedia-related activity: Rp690 billion gross, or Rp622 billion net excluding VAT, in 2024, with Rp204 billion gross in 4Q24 alone. Those figures are useful, but they are not the same thing as Tokopedia’s standalone revenue.

This makes Tokopedia strategically important but financially less transparent than Shopee or Blibli. Nonetheless, Tokopedia’s importance should not be underestimated. It remains one of the two largest commerce infrastructures in the country and now sits at the center of one of the most consequential platform combinations in Indonesia: the integration of a large marketplace with TikTok’s content-discovery engine. That makes Tokopedia’s role less that of a standalone legacy marketplace and more that of a core commerce layer inside a broader ecosystem.

Tokopedia’s long-term position now depends less on acting like a classic marketplace and more on how effectively it can combine transaction infrastructure with content-driven demand. In a market like Indonesia, that could be a major advantage. But it also increases regulatory attention, especially where market concentration, open logistics, and pricing conduct are concerned.

• TikTok Shop

TikTok Shop deserves to be treated as a separate major player because it changes the logic of competition, even though in corporate structure it is now tied to Tokopedia in Indonesia. Databoks, citing Momentum Works, estimated TikTok Shop had already reached 11% of Indonesia’s e-commerce GMV in 2024. That is a large enough share to matter on its own, especially given that TikTok Shop’s model is not just a clone of marketplace commerce, but a hybrid of content, recommendation algorithms, creators, and transactions.

TikTok Shop’s strategic importance exceeds its current share because it represents a new pathway to commerce. Traditional marketplaces depend heavily on users arriving with shopping intent. TikTok Shop can generate shopping intent within entertainment flows. In Indonesia’s mobile-first, social-heavy environment, that is a powerful structural advantage. Its presence also forces older marketplaces to strengthen video commerce, live selling, creator partnerships, and affiliate mechanics. In that sense, TikTok Shop is not only a competitor; it is a market-shaping force. This is an inference from the market-share data and the structure of the TikTok-Tokopedia combination.

Reuters reported that Indonesia’s competition authority gave conditional approval in June 2025 to TikTok’s acquisition of a 75.01% stake in Tokopedia, with requirements to maintain open payment and logistics systems and avoid predatory pricing. That is revealing. It means regulators view this player not as a niche experiment, but as a structure significant enough to affect competition conditions in Indonesia’s e-commerce market.

The main limitation in public analysis is that TikTok Shop does not provide a clean, standardized Indonesia-only revenue, MAU, and ARPU package in the cited public sources. That means its importance must be judged more from market share, structural influence, and regulatory attention than from classical listed-company transparency.

• Lazada

Lazada remains one of the recognized major platforms in Indonesia, but the evidence suggests it currently occupies a challenger rather than leadership role. Databoks reported Lazada held 7% market share by GMV in 2024, and Semrush-based data placed Lazada Indonesia at 35.2 million website visits in May 2025. This is large enough to matter, but not enough to define market direction in the way Shopee or the Tokopedia-TikTok nexus does.

Lazada’s core issue is not absence, but relative momentum. It still has substantial scale, still benefits from regional backing, and still has broad consumer recognition. However, compared with Shopee’s much stronger traffic and monetisation profile, and compared with TikTok Shop’s disruptive content-commerce push, Lazada appears to occupy the middle ground: too large to ignore, but not the platform dictating the new rules of Indonesian e- commerce. This is an inference from relative market-share and traffic positions.

Another limitation is disclosure. In the cited materials, there is no clean, public, Indonesia-only revenue line for Lazada comparable to Sea’s disclosure for Shopee or Blibli’s local public filings. That weakens financial benchmarking even though Lazada remains commercially relevant.

• Blibli

Blibli is smaller in scale than Shopee, Tokopedia, or Lazada, but it is one of the most analytically interesting players because it has clearer local financial disclosure and a differentiated model. Databoks estimated Blibli held 4% of Indonesia’s e-commerce GMV in 2024, while Semrush traffic data put the platform at 15.9 million website visits in May 2025. On raw scale, this places Blibli well behind the top tier.

However, Blibli’s public financial disclosures show notable monetisation progress. PT Global Digital Niaga Tbk reported FY2024 net revenue of Rp16.716 trillion, up 14% year on year, and a take rate of 6.9%, up from 5.1% in FY2023. It also indicated take rate reached 7.6% in 4Q24. These numbers matter because they show Blibli is improving monetisation even without broad mass-market leadership.

Blibli’s strategic difference lies in its broader model. It is not only a third-party marketplace. Its disclosures describe growth across segments including institutions and retail, and its ecosystem is broader than a single horizontal marketplace narrative. That makes direct comparison with Shopee imperfect, but it also means Blibli may be competing on quality of economics and segment fit, not only on raw traffic.

Blibli’s main strength is therefore not leadership in volume, but a potentially more defensible position in select segments and a clearer path to measured monetisation. For investors and analysts, that makes it a useful contrast case to the larger traffic-led platforms.

• Bukalapak

Bukalapak is important because it shows that not every early e-commerce brand can remain competitive in the same way once market concentration intensifies. Databoks still estimated Bukalapak held 10% of Indonesian e- commerce GMV in 2024, which is not trivial. Yet Reuters reported in January 2025 that Bukalapak would stop selling physical goods on its marketplace and shift focus on virtual products, after competitive pressure mounted from Shopee and TikTok-owned Tokopedia. Reuters also reported the company posted a Rp593.23 billion loss in the first nine months of 2024.

This makes Bukalapak the clearest illustration of how Indonesia’s marketplace expansion has also become a process of competitive elimination or repositioning. A platform can remain historically important and even still show residual share in market estimates, while no longer being viable as a broad physical-goods marketplace competitor. That is exactly what Bukalapak’s strategic retreat suggests.

Bukalapak’s case is analytically important because it shows that industry growth alone is not enough. The real question is whether a player has enough traffic, monetisation, differentiation, or ecosystem depth to survive in an increasingly concentrated market. Bukalapak’s answer, at least for physical goods, appears to have been no.

• Active Users, Traffic, and the ARPU Problem

The user asked specifically for active users and ARPU where possible. This is the point where public-market transparency becomes uneven. A consistent Indonesia-only comparison would require at least three things for each platform: standardized monthly active users or transacting users, Indonesia-only revenue, and ideally transaction activity for the same period. Those figures are not uniformly disclosed by the major players in Indonesia. As a result, a clean cross-platform ARPU table cannot be constructed responsibly from public sources alone.

For that reason, the best public proxies are:

• GMV share for transaction weight,
• website visits for consumer reach and shopping intent,
• take rate for monetisation quality,
• segment revenue where disclosed,
• and profitability trajectory where available.

This is more rigorous than forcing weak ARPU estimates from incompatible data. In this report, it is better to be precise about what is knowable than to provide a misleading pseudo-ARPU benchmark.

This is a methodological conclusion based on the public disclosures cited in this chapter.

• Comparative Assessment of the Major Players

A deeper comparison shows that each major player occupies a distinct strategic lane.

Shopee is the scale-and-monetisation leader. It leads traffic and market share and has the strongest disclosed take rate and revenue engine. Tokopedia is the infrastructure incumbent under transformation. It remains deeply important, but its public financial picture is obscured by restructuring while its strategic role expands through TikTok integration. TikTok Shop is the behavioral disruptor, making content-to-commerce conversion central to the market. Lazada is the challenger without leadership momentum. Blibli is the differentiated economics player, smaller in reach but clearer in disclosure and monetisation improvement. Bukalapak is the retrenchment case, showing the cost of insufficient competitive depth in a concentrated market.

• Key Findings of Chapter 5

The evidence supports several central findings.

First, Indonesia’s e-commerce market is led by a very small number of firms, with Shopee as the clear leader in both GMV share and traffic. Shopee’s position is reinforced by the strongest publicly visible monetisation model among major players.

Second, Tokopedia remains indispensable to the structure of Indonesia’s market, but it now must be understood through its TikTok-linked ecosystem rather than as a purely standalone marketplace. Its strategic importance remains high even though public financial comparability has become weaker.

Third, TikTok Shop has become systemically important because it changes how transactions are generated, not merely where they are fulfilled. Its role in Indonesia shows the growing centrality of content-commerce.

Fourth, Blibli and Lazada remain relevant but occupy secondary positions, and Bukalapak’s retreat shows that the market’s rapid growth has also produced a harsh competitive sorting process.

• Closing Paragraph for Chapter 5

In conclusion, the major players in Indonesia’s e-commerce industry are not simply brands competing for online shoppers. They are structurally different platform models competing for control over traffic, merchants, payment flows, logistics, and increasingly attention itself. Shopee leads on scale and monetisation, Tokopedia remains strategically central through its hybrid commerce role, TikTok Shop accelerates the shift toward content-led transactions, and the rest of the field illustrates how difficult it is to survive without either scale, differentiation, or both. This naturally leads to the next chapter, because once the main players are mapped, the next question is what challenges and barriers could limit future growth for the industry.

Chapter 6: Potential Issues and Challenges

• Introduction

Indonesia’s e-commerce and digital economy have achieved impressive scale, but scale does not eliminate structural friction. In fact, as industries grow, their constraints often become clearer. The next stage of Indonesian digital commerce will not be determined only by how many users come online or how many transactions pass through marketplaces. It will also be shaped by the industry’s ability to overcome trust deficits, logistics costs, infrastructure inequality, regulatory uncertainty, platform concentration, merchant capability gaps, and monetisation pressure. These are not minor operational issues. They are the real barriers that determine whether digital growth becomes sustainable, inclusive, and economically productive.

This chapter argues that Indonesia’s barriers can be grouped into seven broad categories. First, there are infrastructure and connectivity barriers, especially outside major urban centers. Second, there are logistics and geographic barriers rooted in Indonesia’s archipelagic structure. Third, there are trust and consumer-protection barriers, which affect willingness to transact and to adopt higher-value digital services. Fourth, there are merchant capability barriers, especially among MSMEs. Fifth, there are platform concentration and competition barriers, which affect market openness and bargaining power. Sixth, there are regulatory and policy barriers, especially in areas where rules are evolving faster than business models. Seventh, there are profitability and monetisation barriers, since not all growth is value accretive.

• Connectivity and Digital Infrastructure Gaps

Indonesia’s digital market is large, but it is not evenly connected. BPS reported that 72.78% of Indonesians accessed the internet in 2024, which means a meaningful share of the population was still offline. The same publication also showed that mobile-phone ownership reached 68.65% in 2024, while household computer ownership remained much lower at 18.52%. These figures show progress, but they also reveal structural unevenness: Indonesia is digitally connected enough to sustain major platforms, yet still far from universal digital readiness.

The government’s own digital-economy strategy documents highlight this problem directly. A Ministry of Trade policy paper on Indonesia’s digital economy notes that gaps in digital infrastructure and unequal internet quality remain obstacles to broader digital participation, particularly outside major economic centers. This matters because e-commerce is highly sensitive not only to whether consumers have access, but to whether that access is stable enough for browsing, payments, livestreaming, and app-heavy commerce behavior. Weak or inconsistent connectivity directly lowers conversion, digital literacy development, and merchant participation.

The challenge is not merely national coverage, but quality-adjusted inclusion. A consumer with unstable mobile access, limited data affordability, or weak digital confidence is not economically equivalent to a consumer with robust broadband access and app fluency. Similarly, a merchant in a second- or third-tier city may technically be “online” but still face weaker network quality, slower digital adoption, and less reliable logistics integration. This is why raw penetration figures can overstate true commercial readiness. That conclusion is an inference based on the gap between internet-access figures and broader structural constraints discussed by BPS and government policy documents.

• Logistics Costs and Archipelagic Geography

One of Indonesia’s deepest structural barriers is geography. Digital platforms may be borderless in interface, but commerce is still physical when goods must be delivered. Indonesia’s archipelagic geography raises the cost of fulfilment, warehousing, delivery coordination, reverse logistics, and delivery-speed consistency across regions. The Ministry of Trade’s digital-economy policy paper explicitly notes logistics and infrastructure constraints among the barriers to stronger e-commerce development.

This is not a trivial issue. Indonesia consists of thousands of islands, with large economic concentration on Java but significant consumer and merchant populations outside it. As a result, the cost structure of serving the “next user” is not uniform. Platforms can achieve very high efficiency in dense urban corridors, but much lower efficiency in peripheral geographies. This creates unequal service quality and affects merchant competitiveness. A seller located far from major logistics corridors may face higher shipping costs, longer delivery windows, and greater difficulty winning price-sensitive marketplace competition. That logic is consistent with the country’s geography and the policy literature, even where a single source does not quantify each operational consequence separately.

Logistics also affect trust. In e-commerce, late delivery, damage, unclear return processes, and variable fulfilment quality all undermine repeat purchase behavior. Therefore, logistics in Indonesia should be seen not only as a cost issue, but also as a consumer confidence issue. Platforms that can reduce this friction gain a significant competitive advantage, while the market remains constrained by the cost of scaling reliable physical commerce nationwide.

• Trust, Fraud Risk, and Consumer Protection

Indonesia’s digital economy is large, but trust remains a major barrier in several categories of digital activity. The World Bank’s Beyond Unicorns report specifically highlights that lack of trust in digital systems remains one of the major obstacles to broader digital adoption in Indonesia. It notes that users may worry about fraud, misuse of data, and uncertainty about digital systems, which reduces the speed and depth of digital uptake.

Trust is especially important in e-commerce because the consumer cannot fully inspect the product before purchase. This means digital commerce depends heavily on ratings, review systems, refund frameworks, payment protections, and platform enforcement. When counterfeit goods, misleading listings, delivery failures, or poor after-sales support become widespread, the effect is larger than one bad transaction: it degrades confidence in the marketplace model itself. The problem becomes even more serious in high-value categories, cross-border goods, and newer social- commerce formats where consumer-protection norms may be less familiar. This is a reasoned inference consistent with the trust concerns raised in the World Bank and government materials.

Consumer protection is also becoming more important from a policy standpoint. Indonesia has already shown willingness to regulate social commerce and children’s access to online platforms, which suggests that digital growth will increasingly be judged not just by economic scale, but by safety and fairness. The more commerce moves into algorithm-driven content feeds, influencer-led promotion, and short-video conversion environments, the more difficult it may become to maintain transparent consumer information and consistent enforcement.

• MSME Capability and Merchant Readiness Barriers

Indonesia’s digital economy is often described as an engine for MSME inclusion, and that is partly true. But inclusion is not automatic. The World Bank’s Beyond Unicorns report emphasizes that Indonesian firms, especially smaller firms, still face constraints in digital capability, management quality, and the ability to use technology productively. OECD also stresses that digital transformation must work for all, including smaller firms, if it is to boost productivity broadly.

In practical terms, many MSMEs can open marketplace stores or accept QRIS, but that does not mean they are equipped to compete effectively. Success in e-commerce increasingly requires high-quality product presentation, pricing strategy, ad optimization, promotion calendars, fulfilment discipline, response speed, customer service, inventory management, and content capability. A merchant with weak digital skills may technically participate in the platform economy yet capture very little value from it. This is why marketplace presence should not be confused with digital competitiveness. That conclusion is an inference supported by OECD and World Bank discussions of business capability gaps.

This creates a second-order barrier: dependency without empowerment. Small merchants may become dependent on large platforms for traffic, payments, and discovery, but remain too weak operationally to build durable brand equity or margin control. That dynamic can be useful in the short term for platform-driven inclusion, but if left unresolved it may reduce the long-run productivity benefits of e-commerce participation.

• Competition, Concentration, and Platform Dependency

As shown in earlier chapters, Indonesia’s e-commerce market has become highly concentrated. Databoks, citing Momentum Works, estimated that in 2024 Shopee held 46% of Indonesia’s e-commerce GMV, Tokopedia 23%, and TikTok Shop 11%. This means the top three platforms accounted for about 80% of market GMV. Concentration is not automatically harmful, but it creates structural risks: bargaining asymmetry, platform dependency, barriers to entry for new challengers, and pressure on merchants who lack alternatives.

Indonesia’s competition authority has already signaled concern over these issues. Reuters reported in June 2025 that the KPPU conditionally approved TikTok’s acquisition of a 75.01% stake in Tokopedia, requiring the combined entity to keep payments and logistics open and to avoid predatory pricing or self-preferencing. That is highly relevant because it shows that regulators view e-commerce not only as a growth sector, but as a market structure requiring safeguards.

For merchants, concentration can create dependency in several ways. Platform fee changes, algorithm shifts, ad- price inflation, changing fulfillment rules, or sudden policy updates can materially affect merchant performance. The larger and more integrated the platform, the harder it becomes for merchants to diversify away. This does not mean concentration is inherently bad—large platforms also bring efficiency, trust systems, and demand aggregation—but it does mean that the health of the industry depends partly on whether platform power remains contestable and rule-governed. This final point is an analytical inference supported by the market-share data and KPPU intervention.

• Regulatory Uncertainty and Policy Friction

One of the defining barriers in fast-moving digital industries is that regulation often evolves reactively. Indonesia has already experienced significant policy shifts around social commerce, digital competition, consumer protection, and platform governance. This is understandable in a market that is changing rapidly, but it creates uncertainty for businesses planning long-term investment.

The Ministry of Trade’s digital-economy policy paper frames regulation as part of the enabling environment, but also implicitly shows that policy must balance multiple goals: consumer protection, MSME support, fair competition, tax collection, and digital innovation. Those goals do not always align perfectly. A rule that protects small merchants may reduce platform efficiency; a rule that encourages content-commerce innovation may raise fair-competition concerns; a rule that tightens compliance may raise barriers for smaller sellers. The key issue is not simply whether regulation exists, but whether it is stable, coherent, and predictable enough to support investment and innovation.

This is especially important for cross-border commerce, social-commerce integrations, and fintech-adjacent services. These segments often evolve faster than the legal categories used to regulate them. As a result, Indonesia’s digital economy may face periodic friction whenever business-model innovation outruns formal regulatory clarity. That is an inference from the documented interventions and policy evolution in the sector.

• Profitability Pressure and the Quality of Growth Problem

A major barrier for the industry is that rapid growth does not guarantee durable profits. Indonesia’s e-commerce history includes long periods of subsidy-heavy competition, aggressive voucher use, free-shipping support, and user-acquisition spending. As the market matures, investors and public markets increasingly focus on the quality of growth rather than raw GMV alone. Sea’s 2024 results showed positive adjusted EBITDA in e-commerce and a 12.4% take rate, which suggests Shopee has moved further than many peers in converting scale into economic capture. By contrast, Reuters reported that Bukalapak posted a Rp593.23 billion loss in the first nine months of 2024 before retreating from physical goods. These two cases show that platform growth can lead to very different economic outcomes.

Profitability pressure creates several downstream barriers. Platforms may raise seller fees, reduce subsidies, push more paid ads, or tighten commission structures. Those moves may improve platform economics but also squeeze merchants. At the same time, if platforms do not improve monetisation, they may struggle to sustain infrastructure investment, customer service quality, or ecosystem innovation.

The tension is therefore real: Indonesia needs platforms strong enough to invest, but not so extractive that merchant value creation is weakened. This is an analytical inference grounded in the contrast between platform monetisation data and weaker players’ losses.

• Human Capital, Talent, and Digital Literacy

The digital economy also depends on people, not only platforms. OECD’s survey of Indonesia emphasizes that for digital transformation to support productivity broadly, capability and skills matter. This applies at several levels: consumers need digital literacy and fraud awareness; merchants need digital business capability; and firms need skilled workers in logistics, data, software, marketing, compliance, and platform operations.

Indonesia’s market size can sometimes obscure this issue. A very large user base does not automatically produce a very large pool of high-skill digital operators. If talent supply grows more slowly than platform complexity, firms face rising costs and execution bottlenecks. This affects not just startups, but also MSMEs trying to professionalize their online commerce operations. The result can be a market where participation grows faster than productivity. This is a reasoned inference from OECD’s emphasis on inclusive capability-building and the broader structure of Indonesia’s digital economy.

• The Inclusion Problem: Growth Without Equal Value Capture

Perhaps the most important barrier is that digital expansion does not automatically generate inclusive value capture. The World Bank’s Beyond Unicorns report argues that Indonesia must harness digital technologies for inclusion, not just for headline valuation or platform scale. That means the real test of the digital economy is whether smaller firms, peripheral regions, and lower-income users can participate meaningfully and benefit economically.

In practice, the risk is that Indonesia develops a very large digital economy that is still uneven in who gains from it. Large platforms may capture most of the monetisation; leading merchants may dominate visibility; Java-based logistics hubs may outperform outer regions; and digitally sophisticated sellers may benefit far more than first- time MSMEs. None of these outcomes are inevitable, but all are plausible if inclusion is treated as automatic rather than strategic. This is one of the main reasons policy and platform design matter so much in Indonesia.

• Analytical Synthesis: Which Barriers Matter Most?

Not all barriers matter equally. For Indonesia’s next digital-economy phase, the most important constraints are likely to be the ones that affect quality of growth rather than raw growth. Connectivity will continue improving, but uneven quality still matters. Logistics will remain structurally difficult because geography does not change. Trust and merchant capability may become more central as the market matures and low-friction user acquisition becomes less important than retention and productivity.

A useful way to think about this is to separate first-wave barriers from second-wave barriers. First-wave barriers are basic adoption constraints: internet access, payment readiness, onboarding users and merchants. Indonesia has made substantial progress there. Second-wave barriers are more difficult: monetisation fairness, merchant productivity, regulatory coherence, logistics efficiency, and inclusive value capture.

Chapter 7: Benchmark and Common Practices

• Introduction

Indonesia’s digital economy is large enough that it should no longer be benchmarked only against its own past. It now needs to be compared against three external reference groups: ASEAN peers, because they share regional consumer and platform dynamics; the European Union, because it represents a more regulated and mature digital- commerce environment; and the United States, because it remains the clearest benchmark for platform scale, monetisation depth, and ecommerce institutional maturity. Each comparison answers a different question. ASEAN shows where Indonesia stands in regional scale and growth. The EU shows what a more rules-based and consumer- protection-heavy digital market looks like. The U.S. shows what a very large, highly monetized ecommerce ecosystem looks like when infrastructure, digital trust, and capital markets are more mature.

The key conclusion of this chapter is that Indonesia is regionally dominant in scale, globally strong in growth potential, but still structurally behind the EU and U.S. in market maturity, institutional quality, and monetisation efficiency. That does not mean Indonesia is weak. It means it occupies a different stage of development: larger and more dynamic than most ASEAN peers, but still more friction-heavy than the most mature digital markets.

• Benchmarking Framework

A fair comparison requires looking at more than headline GMV. This chapter compares Indonesia and other regions across five dimensions:

1. Scale — How large is the digital economy or ecommerce market?
2. Penetration and usage — How widely do people shop online?
3. Platform structure — Is the market fragmented, concentrated, or ecosystem-led?
4. Regulatory and institutional maturity — How developed are consumer-protection, competition, and digital- governance frameworks?
5. Quality of growth — How strong are monetisation, merchant productivity, and trust conditions?

This matters because a country can lead on one dimension and lag on another. Indonesia, for example, clearly leads Southeast Asia in digital-economy GMV, but that does not automatically mean it leads in ecommerce penetration, regulatory sophistication, or merchant productivity. Likewise, the EU may be more mature institutionally while growing more slowly, and the U.S. may be stronger in monetisation and logistics even if its ecommerce growth rate is less explosive than in emerging markets.

• Indonesia vs ASEAN

• Indonesia’s regional position

Google’s 2025 e-Conomy SEA update stated that Indonesia’s digital economy was expected to reach nearly US$100 billion GMV in 2025, keeping it the largest in Southeast Asia. The same Google material referenced Thailand at US$56 billion, Malaysia at US$14 billion, and the broader Southeast Asian digital economy at over US$300 billion in 2025. Bain’s 2025 summary similarly said the ASEAN digital economy was poised to surpass US$300 billion GMV in 2025. That means Indonesia alone represented roughly one-third of Southeast Asia’s digital economy, which is extraordinary regional weight. This last ratio is an inference from the reported numbers.

Thailand appears to be the clearest regional runner-up by size. Google’s Thailand reporting said the Thai digital economy was expected to reach US$56 billion GMV in 2025, still well below Indonesia but materially larger than several other ASEAN peers. Malaysia, by contrast, is much smaller in absolute GMV, at US$14 billion in the Google Indonesia summary. This means Indonesia’s main regional strength is not just that it leads; it leads by a very large margin.

Table 7.1. ASEAN benchmark snapshot

Sources: Google e-Conomy SEA 2025 country/regional materials; Bain press release.

• How Indonesia compares with ASEAN peers

Indonesia’s biggest ASEAN advantage is scale plus headroom. It has the largest population, the largest ecommerce base, and one of the strongest platform ecosystems in the region. This gives it unusually strong demand aggregation and makes it the natural priority market for regional players. At the same time, Indonesia still has room for further internet and merchant inclusion, which means it combines existing scale with future expansion potential. Many smaller ASEAN economies are either too small to match Indonesia in absolute volume or more mature but less expandable.

However, Indonesia does not dominate every ASEAN comparison. Some regional markets, especially Singapore, tend to be stronger on digital sophistication, institutional efficiency, and purchasing power, even if they are much smaller. Thailand also appears highly developed in ecommerce use and remains the second-largest digital economy in the region. In earlier Google reporting, Thailand’s ecommerce adoption rate was described as among the highest in Southeast Asia, which suggests that Indonesia’s leadership is more about aggregate scale than uniform superiority on every maturity metric.

So, within ASEAN, Indonesia’s relative position can be summarized like this: it is the largest, one of the most strategically important, and likely the most consequential platform battlefield, but not automatically the cleanest, simplest, or most institutionally mature market in the region.

• Indonesia vs the European Union

• The EU benchmark

The EU is not the right benchmark for scale competition in Southeast Asia, but it is the right benchmark for institutional maturity. Eurostat reported that in 2024, EU enterprises generated 19.49% of their total turnover from e-sales, including web/app sales and EDI-type sales. Eurostat also reported that in 2025, 78% of EU internet users bought online, while 94% of surveyed individuals aged 16–74 had used the internet within the previous 12 months. Those are high maturity numbers. They suggest a digital economy in which online purchasing is already mainstream and deeply normalized.

The EU also provides a benchmark for consumer-protection and market-governance standards. Eurostat reported that 35.4% of online shoppers in the EU encountered problems with website or app purchases in a 2025 survey. At first glance that sounds negative, but analytically it is also a sign of measurement maturity: the EU systematically tracks user problems, online-buyer behavior, and enterprise e-sales. Indonesia is growing fast, but it does not yet have the same degree of harmonized region-wide statistical and regulatory visibility.

• How Indonesia differs from the EU

Compared with the EU, Indonesia is more growth-oriented and platform-concentrated, but less mature institutionally. The EU market is broader in terms of business digitalization standards, cross-border consumer protections, and harmonized statistical frameworks. Indonesia, by contrast, is more dynamic in user growth, more platform-centric, and more exposed to friction from logistics, infrastructure inequality, and merchant capability gaps.

A second big difference is the nature of ecommerce itself. In the EU, enterprise e-sales include a significant mix of both website/app orders and EDI-based sales, reflecting deep business process integration. Indonesia’s ecommerce narrative is much more centered on consumer marketplaces, mobile apps, and platform ecosystems. In other words, the EU benchmark highlights that Indonesia’s digital economy is currently more consumer-platform heavy, while the EU is more deeply integrated into enterprise-level digital commerce systems.

Table 7.2. Indonesia vs EU: structural comparison

Sources: Eurostat; prior Indonesia chapters for structural interpretation.

The key benchmark lesson is that Indonesia is not behind the EU in relevance; it is behind the EU in system maturity. That includes the consistency of rules, the integration of ecommerce into enterprise operations, and the predictability of digital governance.

• Indonesia vs the United States

• The U.S. benchmark

The United States remains the best benchmark for ecommerce monetisation and operational maturity. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that total U.S. retail ecommerce sales for 2025 were US$1.2337 trillion, up 5.4% from 2024, and that ecommerce accounted for 16.4% of total retail sales in 2025, up from 16.1% in 2024. The fourth quarter of 2025 alone saw ecommerce account for 18.3% of total retail sales.

These figures are far above Indonesia in absolute market size, but the U.S. benchmark is most useful for another reason: it shows what ecommerce looks like when the ecosystem is deeply institutionalized. In the U.S., ecommerce is not just a high-growth digital story; it is a large, stable share of total retail. That means infrastructure, payments, logistics, warehousing, and consumer trust have been developed to a much more mature level.

• How Indonesia differs from the U.S.

Indonesia differs from the U.S. in at least four major ways.

First, Indonesia is more mobile-first and marketplace-centric, while the U.S. has a more diversified ecommerce structure that includes large marketplace players, direct-to-consumer brands, omnichannel retailers, and strong nonstore retail categories. Second, the U.S. has a much deeper logistics and warehousing base, which reduces

friction in fulfilment and returns. Third, consumer purchasing power and institutional trust are generally stronger in the U.S. Fourth, the monetisation architecture in the U.S. is more mature, supported by stronger ad markets, better digital infrastructure, and more developed enterprise systems. These last three points are reasoned inferences from the maturity of the U.S. ecommerce share and broader market structure reflected in Census reporting.

Indonesia’s advantage relative to the U.S. is not maturity, but growth runway. The U.S. ecommerce market is very large and still growing, but it is growing from a much more saturated base. Indonesia’s lower structural maturity means it also retains greater room for inclusion, merchant digitization, and new behavior shifts such as video commerce and embedded social discovery.

Table 7.3. Indonesia vs U.S.: structural comparison

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; earlier Indonesia market-size evidence.

• Common Practices and Benchmark Lessons

The point of benchmarking is not only to compare size, but to identify common practices that stronger or more mature markets tend to institutionalize.

In ASEAN, the main common practice is ecosystem-led digital commerce: platforms bundle payments, logistics, marketplace activity, and increasingly media or creator ecosystems. Indonesia fits this pattern very strongly, perhaps more strongly than any other market because of Shopee’s scale and the Tokopedia-TikTok structure.

In the EU, the stronger common practice is rules-based market development. Statistical visibility, online-buyer measurement, enterprise e-sales tracking, and consumer-protection orientation are more institutionalized. The lesson for Indonesia is not to copy the EU wholesale, but to strengthen governance predictability, cross-sector policy coherence, and measurement quality.

In the U.S., the strongest common practice is operationalization at scale. Ecommerce is deeply embedded into retail systems, fulfilment networks, and revenue measurement. The lesson for Indonesia is that long-run value comes not only from traffic or GMV, but from operational efficiency, supply-chain depth, and monetisation quality.

Table 7.4. Benchmark lessons for Indonesia

This table is a synthesis based on the cross-region evidence cited in this chapter.

• SWOT Analysis — Indonesia’s E-Commerce and Digital Economy

The most useful benchmark insight is that Indonesia is not a “smaller version” of the EU or U.S. It is a different type of digital economy: bigger and more volatile than most ASEAN peers, more friction-heavy than the EU, and less operationally mature than the U.S., but still capable of becoming one of the world’s most strategically important platform-commerce markets.

Chapter 8: Writer’s Opinion

• Overall View

Indonesia has already proven that it can become the largest digital economy in Southeast Asia, with total digital- economy GMV projected to approach US$100 billion in 2025. That is a major achievement. E-commerce is already deeply embedded in daily life, platform usage is strong, and mobile-first consumer behavior gives Indonesia a very powerful digital foundation. However, Indonesia’s next challenge is no longer about size. It is about quality. The country has already built scale, but it still needs to improve efficiency, trust, merchant capability, logistics performance, and the fairness of value distribution across the ecosystem. Without that, Indonesia may continue to grow in GMV but still underperform in long-term economic quality.

• My View on the Industry Structure

Shopee as the strongest current operator in Indonesia because it combines scale, traffic, and monetisation discipline better than any other major player. Its public disclosures show a platform that is no longer relying only on growth, but also on stronger take-rate and revenue capture. At the same time, The Tokopedia–TikTok combination may be the most important long-term structural shift in the market. Shopee is the strongest marketplace today, but TikTok-linked commerce may shape the future because Indonesia is a highly social, content-heavy, mobile-first market. In such an environment, commerce driven by video, creators, and recommendation engines can become more powerful than traditional search-led shopping.

This is why Indonesia’s digital economy is entering a new phase: from marketplace-led growth to content-commerce- led competition. That shift could benefit not only large platforms, but also brands, creators, agencies, and MSMEs— if they are able to adapt.

• What Indonesia Still Needs to Fix

The biggest concern is that platform growth is moving faster than ecosystem quality. Indonesia still faces the same structural issues identified earlier in this report: logistics complexity, uneven infrastructure, trust gaps, and weak merchant capability in many parts of the market. OECD and World Bank materials suggest clearly that digital adoption alone is not enough; productivity gains only come when firms and users can operate effectively inside the system.

Because of that, Indonesia should focus on five practical priorities:

1. Improve logistics efficiency so nationwide ecommerce becomes more reliable and less expensive.
2. Strengthen merchant capability, especially for MSMEs, so they can compete on more than price alone.
3. Build stronger trust infrastructure, including better dispute handling, fraud control, and consumer protection.
4. Create more predictable regulation, so innovation can continue without excessive uncertainty.
5. Increase domestic value capture, so more of the digital economy benefits Indonesian merchants, creators, service providers, and supporting industries.

• Final Opinion

Indonesia does not need to become much bigger to prove itself. It needs to become much better. The country already has the consumer base, the platform scale, and the regional leadership. What it needs now is stronger execution quality. If Indonesia can combine its existing scale with better logistics, better merchant productivity, stronger governance, and broader inclusion, then it will not only remain the biggest digital economy in ASEAN but also become one of the strongest and most important platform-commerce markets globally.

Chapter 9: Conclusion

Indonesia’s e-commerce and digital economy have now moved beyond the “early opportunity” stage and entered a phase of structural importance. By 2025, Indonesia’s digital economy was projected to approach US$100 billion GMV, keeping it the largest in Southeast Asia, while e-commerce remained the dominant contributor to that total.

This confirms that Indonesia is no longer just a promising market; it is already the central digital-commerce arena in ASEAN. Its scale is supported by a very large population, a mobile-first internet culture, and a platform ecosystem that has become deeply embedded in daily consumption behavior.

The report also shows that Indonesia’s strength is not only its size, but the nature of its consumer behavior. The country combines high mobile penetration, strong social-media engagement, rising digital payments usage, and growing comfort with marketplace-led consumption.

That combination creates a very favorable environment for digital commerce because discovery, trust, and transactions increasingly happen inside connected ecosystems rather than through isolated retail channels. In practical terms, Indonesian consumers are not merely “online”; they are participating in a broader platform economy where shopping, media, payments, and recommendation systems increasingly overlap.

However, one of the clearest conclusions of this report is that scale and maturity are not the same thing. Indonesia leads ASEAN in digital-economy size, but it still faces structural barriers that limit the quality of that growth. Internet access is expanding, yet not fully even. Merchant participation is rising, yet capability gaps remain wide.

Platforms are becoming more efficient, yet logistics costs and geographic complexity continue to create friction. Trust and consumer protection are improving, but they remain central constraints in a market that is becoming more content-driven and algorithmically mediated. In other words, Indonesia has already built a large digital market, but it is still in the process of building a fully mature digital system.

Shopee As the Market Leader

A major finding from the report is that the competitive structure of Indonesian e-commerce is now highly concentrated. Shopee holds the strongest overall position because it combines leading GMV share, traffic dominance, and the clearest public monetization profile among the major players.

Tokopedia remains strategically important, especially after its integration into the TikTok-linked structure, while TikTok Shop itself has become highly influential because it changes how demand is

generated. This means the market is no longer shaped only by catalog scale or delivery speed. It is increasingly shaped by who controls attention, recommendation, merchant tools, and the flow between content and transaction. That is a major shift in the structure of commerce.

This shift toward content-commerce is, in my view, one of the most important long-term conclusions of the report. Indonesia’s digital economy is moving from a marketplace-led growth model toward a media-commerce convergence model. Short video, live selling, creator recommendations, affiliate loops, and platform-led discovery are becoming more important in shaping user decisions.

This gives Indonesia a strategic advantage because its consumer behavior is already highly compatible with that format. But it also introduces new risks: weaker transparency, higher dependence on platform algorithms, and greater need for competition oversight and consumer-protection enforcement. The same force that can accelerate growth can also deepen concentration if not managed well.

Another important conclusion is that Indonesia’s next development challenge is no longer basic adoption alone. The country has already achieved mass-market digital participation at a meaningful level. The more difficult challenge now is to improve productivity and value capture. OECD’s 2024 Indonesia survey and the World Bank’s work on digital inclusion both imply that digitalization only delivers broad economic benefits when firms, especially smaller firms, can use digital systems effectively.

This means Indonesia’s long-run success will depend not only on how large Shopee, Tokopedia, or TikTok Shop become, but on whether MSMEs can improve branding, fulfilment, pricing, analytics, and customer retention inside these ecosystems. If merchant capability remains weak, digital growth may continue while economic power becomes increasingly concentrated.

Indonesia as the Scale Leader in ASEAN

Benchmarking against ASEAN, the EU, and the U.S. sharpens this conclusion. Within ASEAN, Indonesia is the undisputed scale leader. Yet compared with the EU, Indonesia still trails in institutional maturity, measurement quality, and policy coherence. Compared with the U.S., it trails in logistics depth, fulfillment efficiency, and the extent to which ecommerce is integrated into the broader retail system.

The EU demonstrates what stronger digital governance and enterprise-level ecommerce integration look like, while the U.S. shows what a more mature ecommerce economy looks like when online retail exceeds US$1.2337 trillion and reaches 16.4% of total retail sales in 2025. Indonesia therefore does not need to imitate those markets fully, but it does have clear benchmarks for where improvement is needed.

The strategic implication is that Indonesia’s digital future should not be judged only by whether GMV doubles again. A more meaningful standard would be whether the market becomes more efficient, more trustworthy, and more inclusive. Efficiency means lower logistics friction and stronger merchant operations. Trust means stronger consumer protection, dispute handling, and platform transparency.

Inclusion means that the benefits of digital growth are spread more widely across regions, merchants, creators, and support industries rather than being captured too narrowly by a handful of dominant platforms. If Indonesia can improve on these dimensions, then its digital-economy scale will become much more economically powerful than it is today.

Digital Economy has become one of Indonesia’s backbones to GDP

The final judgment of this report is therefore balanced but optimistic. Indonesia has already achieved something highly significant: it has built the largest digital economy in Southeast Asia and established itself as one of the world’s most important mobile-first commerce markets. That alone is a major accomplishment. But the next stage will be judged by a different standard.

The question is no longer whether Indonesia can grow; it clearly can. The real question is whether it can turn that growth into a more productive, better governed, and more broadly shared economic system. If it can, then Indonesia will not only remain ASEAN’s largest digital economy but could emerge as one of the most strategically important digital-commerce markets globally.

Sources

1. Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS). Statistik Telekomunikasi Indonesia 2024. Jakarta: BPS, 2025.
2. Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS). Telecommunication Statistics in Indonesia 2024. Jakarta: BPS, 2025.
3. Google, Temasek, and Bain & Company. e-Conomy SEA 2025. Google e-Conomy SEA portal, 2025.
4. Google Indonesia Blog. “e-Conomy SEA 2025: Ekonomi digital Indonesia mendekati GMV US$100 miliar.” Published November 13, 2025.
5. Sea Limited. Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2024 Results. Singapore: Sea Limited, March 4, 2025.
6. Eurostat. E-commerce Statistics. European Commission, updated 2026.
7. Eurostat. E-commerce Statistics for Individuals. European Commission, 2026.
8. U.S. Census Bureau. Quarterly Retail E-Commerce Sales Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, March 10, 2026.
9. U.S. Census Bureau. Monthly Retail Trade / Retail E-Commerce Data. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 2026.
10. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECD Economic Surveys: Indonesia 2024. Paris: OECD, 2024. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2024, Volume 1. Paris: OECD, 2024.
11. World Bank. Beyond Unicorns: Harnessing Digital Technologies for Inclusion in Indonesia. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2021.
12. Bank Indonesia. Blueprint Sistem Pembayaran Indonesia 2030. Jakarta: Bank Indonesia, 2023.
13. Bank Indonesia. Laporan Perekonomian Indonesia 2024 and related payment-system releases used for QRIS, digital payments, and ecommerce transaction developments. Jakarta: Bank Indonesia, 2024–2025.
14. Kementerian Perdagangan Republik Indonesia. Policy paper and background materials on Indonesia’s digital economy and ecommerce ecosystem. Jakarta: Ministry of Trade, 2024–2025.
15. Pangsa pasar Shopee, Tokopedia, TikTok Shop, Lazada, Bukalapak, dan Blibli di Indonesia 2024,” based on Momentum Works market estimates. 2025.
16. Databoks pengunjung situs Shopee, Tokopedia, Lazada, dan Blibli Mei 2025,” based on Semrush traffic estimates. 2025.
17. PT Global Digital Indonesia FY2024 Earnings Release. Jakarta, 2025.
18. GoTo Group. Pres materials on Tokopedia deconsolidation, service fees, and TikTok partnership structure. 2024–2025.
19. Reuters. Coverage on organization’s approval, Bukalapak’s retreat from physical goods, and regional ecommerce developments. 2024–2025.