Many investors think of Sanoma as a media house, even though 80% of its operating profit comes from Learning. Whenever I’ve mentioned Sanoma to acquaintances, the first thing I hear is about how traditional media is dying.
A split would be the ultimate catalyst. The best option would be the sale of the media business, allowing Learning to get the attention and valuation multiples it deserves.
I don’t really believe in a sale of the media business. That would be somewhat akin to giving up on Erkko’s legacy. On the other hand, Sanoma could spin off Learning into its own company.
Well, be that as it may, I think Sanoma is in a good position right now. It will be really interesting to see the Q3 results. We already saw small signs of growth in the Q2 results, and growth should accelerate during the remainder of the year. The media business should also get a new boost next year from the opening up of the betting business. I strongly believe that the coming quarters will be good for Sanoma.
I believe that Sanoma and other players in the educational materials sector will do well in the coming years. Artificial intelligence and children’s increasing use of technological devices are a huge opportunity for them: an opportunity to create new types of gamified and AI-based learning materials for children who like them (chatbots for language learning?), and an opportunity to also sell more traditional books as adults panic about the changing world and want to ensure that children still learn to read, too.
Still, Sanoma hasn’t really fit into my portfolio lately; I’ve tried a couple of times over the past year. There have always been slightly more expensive selling points, meaning that even though it fluctuates, it does so quite steadily. But maybe I’ll just watch from the sidelines for now.
For almost half a year now, a friend and I have been wondering about Sanoma’s valuation relative to its outlook and analysts’ forecasts… and I’ve been buying aggressively with the little funds I’ve had available in my equity savings account (OST).
I also see Sanoma as offering a moderate amount of risk relative to the potential return; furthermore, the dividend provides a bit of backing against delays and somewhat limits the downside risk. Normally, I don’t like binary risk situations. The good thing about Sanoma is that the can can’t really be kicked down the road, and if this learning material cycle goes wrong, you don’t have to sit around waiting to see if maybe next quarter will be the one. The valuation is modest enough that I estimate the drop resulting from a failure to be relatively small.
Sometimes I wonder if I’m seeing the situation through rose-colored glasses and missing something, since the market hardly cares about the outlook. In Lindex and Valmet, the upside was priced in almost 12 months in advance.
In a way, it brings to mind Nordea last year when the valuation was low and the outlook quite good, but the market was late to follow. Back then, it would have at least paid off to listen to the analysts 
I believe the quietness of the discussion is largely due to the fact that the train is running smoothly on the tracks. I think and hope that if there are any wrinkles in the story, it will spark more discussion. In Sanoma’s case, there seems to be a reasonably good visibility into how the situation is developing and a “clear” deadline.
I also find it a bit strange that Sanoma has stayed below the 10 euro mark for this long, even though they have been meeting their guidance and the latest guidance even promises that better things are yet to come. Last spring, I invested my dividends from Sampo into Sanoma when Sampo started buying back its own shares. The current price levels for both are roughly the same, and Sanoma is already paying a better dividend this year. I have faith that Sanoma’s share price will be higher next spring and its annual dividends larger than Sampo’s, barring any unforeseen moves from either company. Either way, I’m keeping both in my portfolio come what may—I’ve held both in my portfolio for over ten years.
[quote="BeeStreet, post:341, topic:215"]\nArtificial intelligence and children’s increasing use of technological devices is a big opportunity for them: the opportunity to create new types of gamified and AI-based learning materials for children who like them\n[/quote]\n\nThe problem is that in Sanoma’s main market area, the customer base (children) is shrinking steadily. Age cohorts are getting smaller year by year, and no turnaround is in sight. Alongside this clay-footed business, something more solid needs to be invented.
On the other hand, immigration and the educational needs of immigrants will increase, as well as the educational needs of young adults in general. Entirely new types of products can be developed for these markets too. And even regarding children, the amount of learning materials won’t necessarily decrease even if the number of customers drops: more can then be invested in those few.
Sanoma’s Rob Kolkman was presenting his company as an investment. 
\n\nSanoma as an Investment | Equity Investors Week Sept. 9, 2026 - Inderes
Good article from the perspective of a Sanoma owner. Worth reading through!
There has been quite a lot of talk in the industry about the impact of AI, so I’ll share this recent launch from Sanoma here. This is also an indication of how Sanoma can leverage its broad market coverage to capture economies of scale in digital products.
I’m putting together questions for the Q3 management interview. If there’s anything on your mind, there’s still time to get it added to the list.
Personally, I’d be interested to know how Sanoma sees the future of digital vs. paper-based learning materials.
Especially from the perspective that people are gradually starting to realize that going fully digital in schools might not actually be the best solution. Some schools have already gone back to traditional books, paper, and pens so that students face fewer distractions and there is peace in learning again.
Perhaps a poor question to ask the operational management, but I am a bit concerned about the future of the industry. Age cohorts are shrinking in Europe, and sovereign debt levels are rising. Where will growth come from in the future for the industry/company when it comes to learning materials?
If management can speculate on this, what kind of “surprise potential” is there either way regarding the opening up of the betting market, such that estimates for ad sales growth might end up being clearly too low (or vice versa)? Or is the outlook already clear enough that surprises on that front are unlikely?
A few could be these:
You guide Learning “clearly above 23%” and a significant group-level EBIT improvement, but H1 margins were roughly flat and you are carrying M&A integration and tech transformation costs. What specifically bridges that gap — and how much of it is the Spanish curriculum cycle mechanically turning next year?
A fundamental question that I think should always be asked is also the corporate structure. Management never answers this properly and defends the current structure, which is completely wrong. From a value creation standpoint, it is self-evident that Sanoma should be split. Learning is a high-margin, pan-European growth asset; Media Finland is a structurally declining domestic business. Why should they be in the same company? A pure-play European K-12 Learning business would almost certainly command a significantly higher valuation multiple than the combined group today — what is the strategic logic for keeping them together, other than Media’s cash flow?
If I strip out 2026 M&A and curriculum reform cycles in Sweden, Poland, Spain, and Italy, what is Learning’s true underlying organic growth — in volume, not price? The reported growth appears to be driven by reforms, above-inflation price increases, and M&A, and I would like to know what the business does in a year with no reform tailwinds.
You have pushed above-average price increases for several consecutive years. At what point does price turn into churn — are schools already pushing back, delaying adoption, or holding onto older editions for longer?