CUTTHROAT COMPETITION: Educational publishers’ dirty textbook tricks

South Africa's educational publishing sector is experiencing unprecedented competitive pressure as publishers jockey for position in the Department of Basic Education's newly revised Foundational Phase textbook catalogue. Recent parliamentary scrutiny has exposed aggressive market tactics that reveal just how lucrative—and contested—the contract is for supplying materials to the country's early-grade classrooms.

## What triggered Parliament's investigation into textbook competition?

The DBE's 2025 Foundational Phase textbook catalogue review became a flashpoint when stakeholders raised concerns about selection processes, pricing strategies, and alleged anti-competitive behaviour among the major publishing houses. Parliamentary hearings revealed that some publishers had engaged in undiscutting, bundling practices, and aggressive lobbying to secure shelf space in schools across the country. The revelations underscore a market where margins are tight, volumes are massive, and winning a single national contract can transform a publisher's revenue for years.

South Africa's textbook market is estimated at over R2 billion annually, with the Foundational Phase (Grades R–3) representing one of the most contested segments. Schools depend almost entirely on DBE-approved catalogues, making procurement decisions a make-or-break event for publishers. This creates an environment where competition often turns cutthroat.

## Why are publishers willing to bend the rules?

The DBE supplies textbooks free to public schools, but publishers still compete fiercely because adoption at scale generates predictable, government-backed revenue. A single catalogue listing can mean orders of hundreds of thousands of units. Publishers have reportedly deployed strategies including selective discounting to decision-makers, claims of superior pedagogical outcomes without peer review, and pressure on schools to adopt their materials before the official catalogue is finalised.

The competitive intensity is amplified by consolidation in the sector. A handful of multinational education firms (Pearson, Macmillan, Maskew Miller Longman, and smaller independents) control most market share, leaving little room for new entrants. This oligopoly dynamic encourages aggressive tactics to defend or expand territory.

## What are the implications for South African schools and investors?

The parliamentary findings raise questions about whether the best materials are actually reaching classrooms, or whether the most aggressively marketed products are. If publishers prioritise contract acquisition over product quality, learning outcomes—already strained in South Africa's underperforming education system—may suffer further.

For investors, the sector presents both opportunity and risk. Educational technology companies and publishing startups could gain traction by positioning themselves as transparent, ethics-first alternatives. However, breaking into the DBE procurement system requires navigating complex approval timelines, political relationships, and entrenched competitors. International education firms eyeing South Africa should note that reputational risk from association with aggressive tactics can damage brand value in emerging markets where trust in institutions is already fragile.

The DBE has signalled intentions to strengthen oversight of the selection process, potentially introducing stricter criteria around transparency and academic rigour. Publishers investing in genuine curriculum innovation and compliance infrastructure will likely emerge stronger from this reckoning.

---

#