[bluetonium]

I disagree, I think the photography prices here are a good example of markets working as intended.

Prices reward people who do work that there is an unmet demand for in society. If society already has an oversaturation of professional photographers (so much so that clients feel they do not have to compete at all), the low price of $0 for professional photography work will hopefully encourage some of these glut of professional photographers (and others looking to enter the field) to pursue another profession where they can add more value.

If Netflix's contractor here has set the price too low, well then no one will apply, and they will have to set the price higher.

[setr]

It might be fruitful to look at the inverted — Netflix is doing the selling here. They’re selling the intangible product of publicity (exchanged for labor) to a group of people who are struggling to evaluate the “real” value of the product. And the argument is of course that the product in fact has no real value — it’s a trick.

The problem then is the same as snake oil; the demand exists only because the consumers lack information. And then keeping in mind that market principles only produce efficient economies when information is available and known.