pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Microstock content prices decrease despite inflation  (Read 1900 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 20, 2022, 19:15 »
+1
I wonder how everything increase prices, however microstock content decrease price. Maybe , because of for demand and offer law. What do you believe? ;)


« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2022, 00:26 »
+3
Supply and demand. Supply and demand.

« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2022, 00:37 »
+14
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.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2022, 02:59 by Firn »

« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2022, 13:30 »
0
...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

« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2022, 15:05 »
+4
...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.

« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2022, 16:17 »
+3
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.

« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2022, 17:12 »
0
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?

« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2022, 17:32 »
0
...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

« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2022, 17:35 »
+1
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

« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2022, 23:25 »
+1
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?

Shutterstock pays the least in my opinion

« Reply #10 on: July 22, 2022, 01:48 »
+2
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?

cypher,

there are agencies that pay nothing at all and there are contributors who offer their images there anyway.

« Reply #11 on: July 22, 2022, 01:54 »
0
...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

As for the gas stations, you're right, cascoly.

But there are many large discounters here that are in competition with each other. And butter, oil, flour, and many other foods have become more expensive at all of them.

I think that MS agencies and discounters are comparable.

As for boycotting shutterstock, I agree with you.

« Reply #12 on: July 22, 2022, 01:59 »
0
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

Yes, that's right.

Here in Germany, there is a statutory minimum wage. And the government has just increased it.

Nevertheless, many companies will find ways and means to circumvent this minimum wage with a few tricks.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #13 on: July 26, 2022, 21:52 »
0
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?

Shutterstock pays the least in my opinion

Actually the places that don't sell anything and the ones that don't do timely reviews and the ones that require $100 before we get paid, are far worse.

Supply and demand. Supply and demand.


I'd add to that... Supply and Demand:) 

Most of Microstock is an over produced commodity at this point, over abundant and not much top quality production.

Wilm is also right, as long as too many people, keep making too many images and take the terrible minimal returns, nothing will change. Find something else that's new and growing. Microstock as we knew it, is dead. This business, as an artist, is not going to change.

« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2022, 18:25 »
0
yep, we can let existing portfolios coast along passively, while exploring other options (I'm working on 2 alternatives right now) but should definitely discourage newbies from entering the market!

wds

« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2022, 09:27 »
+1
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?

cypher,

there are agencies that pay nothing at all and there are contributors who offer their images there anyway.

That is true. However, the last time I checked those agencies have very little imagery that requires paying models and such. There is a point where people just won't bother to supply content that requires models and higher production costs.

« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2022, 17:35 »
0
The news said that the US went into recession, this is going to make the situation worse in every way and in this microstock.
https://www.efe.com/efe/america/economia/la-economia-de-ee-uu-en-recesion-tecnica-al-caer-el-0-2-segundo-trimestre/20000011-4858490


« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2022, 03:19 »
+1
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.

« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2022, 06:02 »
+4
...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

The FT boycott before that and the IS boycott before that, had no effect. We can work for what agencies offer us or do something else.

« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2022, 10:34 »
+1
"The FT boycott before that and the IS boycott before that, had no effect. We can work for what agencies offer us or do something else."

I am not so sure about that With Istock/Getty hundreds of great photographers left to not return Many went full speed with Stocksy

And with Shutterstock I really wonder if there are any good photographers left at all supplying this agency I don't mean those factories that churn out the same fake smiling people but any creative and surprising photographers I don't think so Just look at what is uploaded Categorizing it is bad is being very generous.

Si yes I think it had a strong effect Will it shut down any agency Not at all They will always get content but that one is an ever repeating with the fact that the return even per shoot get longer and longer and the rip is also peanuts nowadays But still there are many photographers that don't do it for the money and happy to see their images being used low paid or for nothing. Si agencies will struggle to attract quality but quantity no problem for them.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2022, 10:38 by everest »

csm

« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2022, 11:50 »
0
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?

« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2022, 12:56 »
0
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.

« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2022, 13:27 »
+1
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.
In countries like India people could live with few dollars, i think. I live in a third world country Venezuela, and i spent for living two people, for food and medicine only , aprox $400, i live in my own apartment and i have not car, i use Metro.

« Reply #23 on: July 29, 2022, 14:41 »
+1
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

Or conscious photographers that give micros what they deserve: they pay us peanuts, we give them quick snaps.

csm

« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2022, 14:46 »
+2
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.

When people ask about the industry, I reply, "All the agents think about now is how low they can sell an image, and how much of the pie can they keep."

« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2022, 18:42 »
0
The news said that the US went into recession, this is going to make the situation worse in every way and in this microstock..../

more fake news - 2 bad quarters is NOT a recession.

Since 1978 the N.B.E.R. has had a standing group of experts called the Business Cycle Dating Committee, which decides with a lag when a recession began and ended based on multiple criteria, including employment, industrial production and so on. And the U.S. government accepts those rulings. So the official definition of a recession is that it is a period that the committee has declared a recession; its an expert judgment call, not a formula.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/26/opinion/recession-gdp-economy-nber.html


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
14463 Views
Last post January 15, 2010, 10:17
by leaf
41 Replies
7709 Views
Last post May 31, 2011, 22:39
by dk
13 Replies
4606 Views
Last post May 15, 2017, 13:30
by cobalt
17 Replies
2683 Views
Last post August 03, 2018, 06:24
by DavidK
52 Replies
5945 Views
Last post March 14, 2022, 13:14
by cascoly

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle