Newspapers rarely agree on anything. They can’t even agree if Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela was “captured” or “seized” or “abducted”.
But on January 5, several Malayalam newspapers set aside the seemingly irreconcilable differences on multiple fronts and marched in lock step, acting in perfect and synchronised unison: they stepped into the brave, new world of double-digit pricing.
Most Malayalam newspapers raised their cover price by Re 1, which means each copy will now cost Rs 10 on weekdays and Rs 10.50 on Sundays.
Like death, price increases are unavoidable. But the uncanny “coincidence” of several newspapers that are supposed to be sworn enemies in their crusade to protect democracy, liberty, gender rights and what not increasing their cover price on the very same day stirs one question: does it fall under cartel action?
Of course, most newspapers would quote chapter and verse from precedents, of which there are numerous, to prove how “normal” such concerted price action is.
They are right, which is why I could not write about the issue until now. When I was editor, too, the same template, over which journalists and newsrooms had no say, was followed. Poorly drafted and unconvincing price rise announcements would be handed out to editors who would faithfully pass them on to news editors who will flag the notice on Page 01. Almost always, the announcements would blame rising input costs — as is the case this time too — for raising the cover price.
Now, freed of professional responsibilities, I can discuss this issue. My doubt whether such concerted pricing action falls into cartel action persists. Let us look at the meaning of cartel action although I am not a legal expert on the the subject. Perhaps, newspaper management can enlighten us on the subject.
According to a booklet issued by the Competition Commission of India, “‘cartel’ includes an association of producers, sellers, distributors, traders or service providers who, by agreement amongst themselves, limit, control or attempt to control the production, distribution, sale or price of, or, trade in goods or provision of services. Cartels are agreements between enterprises (including a person, a government department and association of persons / enterprises) not to compete on price, product (including goods and services) or customers”.
The January 5 newspaper action invites questions on whether it meets two (not all) characteristics of cartel action, such as “usually cartels function in secrecy” and that “the members of a cartel, by and large, seek to camouflage their activities to avoid detection by the commission”.
Without senior executives of the newspapers communicating with one another, it is inconceivable that multiple newspapers can raise their price on the same day. A probable defence would be that different newspapers made the price rise announcements on different days and hence they came to know of each other’s intention from the public domain. But ethically, don’t they need a more convincing reply on how notices with identical pricing and similar reasons were published in a matter of days without any coordination?
Of course, in defence of the newspapers, it can be said that their action does not meet the “objective” of a cartel: that is to raise prices above competitive levels, resulting in injury to consumers and to the economy. Newspapers still sell below their cost of production to readers, the balance met through advertisements and other promotional campaigns. But the fact remains that concerted price action undermines one of the components that help readers make a choice.
The professed reason for the price hike (across varied ideologies and readership, Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi and Deshabhimani and others have cited the same compulsion for raising the cover price) needs more elaboration from the newspapers. The principal reason cited is an increase in input costs, including that for newsprint that accounts for a big share of expenses to produce a newspaper.
Wouldn’t it have been better had the newspapers listed more information on how newsprint prices have moved since the last newspaper hike? They could have cited the percentage by which the newsprint price went up since then. The costs of other inputs, too, beg the same questions: what is the rate by which the price of ink has gone up, what are the percentages by which staff salary has gone up…?
Such information assumes significance because compared with 2024, global newsprint prices experienced some fluctuations but generally remained stable, according to information synthesised with the help of AI from a variety of market intelligence reports, industry trade publications and news archives specialising in the paper and media sectors.
Overall, the prices have softened from the peak levels seen in 2022, though some recent reports indicate slight upticks in certain regions. Newsprint prices peaked at around $950–$1,050 per tonne in 2022 due to supply chain disruptions and mill closures. By late 2023, prices had corrected significantly, settling in the range of $500–$600 per tonne. Through much of 2024 and into early 2025, prices have largely remained stable within that corrected range, with some reports mentioning a marginal 5% decline in prices in certain markets. However, in mid-2024 and early 2025, some sources reported prices crossing $600 per tonne, indicating minor increases in specific regions or due to factors like increased freight costs, according to information sourced from the segments mentioned earlier.
I do not know how reliable the figures cited above are. That is why it is all the more important for newspapers to provide clarity and transparency, which they demand from the three other pillars.
A common element in two announcements (by market leader Manorama and CPM mouthpiece Deshabhimani) has been their appeal to the readers to continue to be their “support and shelter (both newspapers that rarely miss a chance to take swipes at each other have used the identical words “thaangum, thanalum”). That is a gracious acknowledgement.
But shouldn’t it be symbiotic? Shouldn’t newspapers be the “support and shelter” for their readers, too?
I have always advocated pricing that ensures the economic freedom of newspapers. Without economic freedom, a newspaper cannot publish what it feels should be published. But I wish the newspapers that raised the cover price after issuing a boiler-plate announcement did so with greater gravity and more transparency. I believe that they do have a strong case for further raising the price for those who can afford it and offer relief to those less fortunate. Cross-subsidised pricing, under which affluent readers pay more so that others can buy at a lower price, is a concept that many newspapers have been resisting on the ground of an “accounting nightmare”. But I am not sure if modern accounting software and the possibilities of AI have been explored on this count.
I wish the newspapers had used this chance to have a wider debate on the state of the media, whether the model of “invitation pricing” that made news cheap (not too many things can be bought for Rs 10) eventually hurt the industry and the absolute importance of resources in ensuring “quality journalism”.
That lifeblood — an unequivocal promise to ensure “quality journalism” — was missing from the price-rise announcements I read.
I know I should have asked for the views of the newspapers before writing this note. But the issue is complex and I do not think the management of any newspaper can address it through a simple email response. I hope the publisher of this note would also agree to publish any rejoinders and rebuttals.
Newspaper pricing, indeed, is a complex issue and I do not have adequate expertise to lecture the management on what their price should be. The sole purpose of this note is to question the manner in which the cover price was raised on the same day and without providing adequate information. If an industry that specialises in communication is unwilling or unable to communicate with its stakeholders, how can it act as an effective watchdog?
