Quote from: Firn on July 21, 2022, 00:37

...It's the agencies that decide the price and they aren't the ones who have higher porduction costs, so they see no reason to raise prices for end products as, unlike contributors they have no financial loss due to rising production costs.

That's the whole problem. In microstock producers can't decide their prices. We can't forward our rising expenses to customers and microstock agencies don't have high enough morality standards to do it for us.

i agree with your analysis, except (of course) another reason ms dont raise prices is competition - if one agency raises prices, they're at a competitive disadvantage w other agencies

But they all do - only the microstock agencies don't. Why not? Because we put up with it. From my point of view, it's as simple as that.

One more sentence on the subject: Companies usually pass on such enormous cost increases to their customers, not to their employees. Passing on costs to employees usually only happens when companies are on the verge of insolvency and then ask their employees to pass on this insolvency by foregoing wages in their own interests.

Quote from: Wilm on July 21, 2022, 15:05

But they all do - only the microstock agencies don't. Why not? Because we put up with it. From my point of view, it's as simple as that.

So, which agencies are currently paying the least per download? How many images and how many contributors do those agencies currently have?

Quote from: Wilm on July 21, 2022, 16:17

One more sentence on the subject: Companies usually pass on such enormous cost increases to their customers, not to their employees. Passing on costs to employees usually only happens when companies are on the verge of insolvency and then ask their employees to pass on this insolvency by foregoing wages in their own interests.

it also happens in profitable industries when labor has little influence - eg, large labor pool, weak/non-existent unions, entangling non-compete clauses.  in the US worker income has failed to keep up with either inflation or corporate profits

Quote from: Wilm on July 21, 2022, 15:05

Quote from: cascoly on July 21, 2022, 13:30

Quote from: Firn on July 21, 2022, 00:37

...It's the agencies that decide the price and they aren't the ones who have higher porduction costs, so they see no reason to raise prices for end products as, unlike contributors they have no financial loss due to rising production costs.

That's the whole problem. In microstock producers can't decide their prices. We can't forward our rising expenses to customers and microstock agencies don't have high enough morality standards to do it for us.

i agree with your analysis, except (of course) another reason ms dont raise prices is competition - if one agency raises prices, they're at a competitive disadvantage w other agencies

cascoly,

I don't follow your argument, because the same laws apply to MS agencies as to the rest of the free economy. If your argument was, true, no gas station would raise prices, no craftsman, no parcel service, no fast food chain, no supermarket, etc. because of competitive disadvantage.

But they all do - only the microstock agencies don't. Why not? Because we put up with it. From my point of view, it's as simple as that.

in most of those cases you cite,  they're near monopolies; also, many have prices that can easily be raised / lowered (sometimes of a daily basis) - eg, without explicit coordination, most gas stations raise prices immediately when oil prices increase, but only slowly decrease when oil does.  if a major portion of the suppliers don't participate, prices revert. 

MS don't have that option as their market is both more muddled, less structured & less correlated - the market is splintered- it's also not as easy to change prices, to test the response of other agencies. so, when one agency raises prices, the others gain a competitive advantage by keeping prices low

as far as "Because we put up with it.", that has near zero effect, as the SS boycott showed - the number of suppliers is huge and constantly increasing, so there's not been any way to get a co-ordinated reaction from a critical mass

It is quite simple actually:

Right now inflation for most products is simply caused by production costs rising: The material to produce a product costs more, so do transportation and energy costs.
In 99% of all cases the person/company that produces the product gets to decide the price for which they sell them to end-customers and retailers. Their production costs have risen, so in order to keep the same profit, they sell their product for more.

But Microstock is one of the few industries where the producer - the person who now has higher production costs, for example by higher fuel prices when driving to shooting locations or higher prices for gear -  does not get to decide the price. It's the agencies that decide the price and they aren't the ones who have higher porduction costs, so they see no reason to raise prices for end products as, unlike contributors,  they have no financial loss due to rising production costs.

That's the whole problem. In microstock producers can't decide their prices. We can't forward our rising expenses to customers and microstock agencies don't have high enough morality standards to do it for us.

Sorry to be harsh but the quality from micros has gone from mediocre to garbage The only ones that supply to micros nowadays are bad photographers that do not find any demand of their images from no clients and amateurs that they really don't care if they make a few hundred or a few thousand a year

But as a pro endeavor any field in pro photography is much much more lucrative than stock photography or video. It is what it is.

Quote from: csm on July 29, 2022, 11:50

Quote from: Firn on July 21, 2022, 00:37

It is quite simple actually:

Right now inflation for most products is simply caused by production costs rising: The material to produce a product costs more, so do transportation and energy costs.
In 99% of all cases the person/company that produces the product gets to decide the price for which they sell them to end-customers and retailers. Their production costs have risen, so in order to keep the same profit, they sell their product for more.

But Microstock is one of the few industries where the producer - the person who now has higher production costs, for example by higher fuel prices when driving to shooting locations or higher prices for gear -  does not get to decide the price. It's the agencies that decide the price and they aren't the ones who have higher porduction costs, so they see no reason to raise prices for end products as, unlike contributors,  they have no financial loss due to rising production costs.

That's the whole problem. In microstock producers can't decide their prices. We can't forward our rising expenses to customers and microstock agencies don't have high enough morality standards to do it for us.

I've often thought that.

Train fares go up like clockwork every year, normally by 5 - 10% in the UK.

Petrol has been known to fluctuate by 10% in a week.

Even fast food chains are raising their prices.

Meanwhile MS agents have been terrified to raise prices for years.

How can the price be fixed for so long.

Why is the price the same across the world and not reflect costs in different locations?

not only do prices not go up, they keep going down - or at least the amount the photographer gets keeps going down.

Sorry to be harsh but the quality from micros has gone from mediocre to garbage The only ones that supply to micros nowadays are bad photographers that do not find any demand of their images from no clients and amateurs that they really don't care if they make a few hundred or a few thousand a year

But as a pro endeavor any field in pro photography is much much more lucrative than stock photography or video. It is what it is.