The following was written by, and is use with the kind permission of John Fisher
FACES
3938 North Miami Avenue
Miami, Florida 33127
Voice: (305) 438-9930
Fax: (305) 438-9931
http://www.johnfisher.com
Commercial Modeling
Commercial modeling is a huge field, encompassing most forms of print modeling (modeling for photographers), and modeling which doesn't involve photography. I will start with the non photographic modeling:
1) Promotional modeling which includes
convention type events.
At conventions or trade shows, models are used as greeters at booths, they hand out
literature, handle promotional items such a hats, t-shirts, key chains (one booth I went
to a year ago, a model handed my a yo-yo, great item, we still play with them at the
studio!), and sometimes answer basic questions such as when seminars or demonstrations are
scheduled. Yes, the girls are sometimes eye-candy, but any good planner will tell you that
the right model can increase traffic through a booth substantially. One of the most
successful models in the Washington market works two or three convention/trade shows a
month, and develops contacts with the marketing people who work the booths to get print
work. She has favorite clients and virtually all her print work comes from these contacts,
she has learned the customers product lines and is now considered an invaluable asset,
often traveling (at corporate expense) to major cities for these companies when they are
participating in a trade show. While most trade shows pay $100 to $300 a day, she now
commands $500 a day plus expenses with her best customers. Promotional modeling also
includes passing out samples at cosmetic counters (often during the Christmas buying
season) during special promotions arranged by the companies, and events like beer or
liquor promotions at local watering holes (Bud Girls, Miller, or TQ Hot, a spicy Tequila).
You must be 21 in most jurisdictions for these jobs.
2) Tea room modeling.
Not a cat walk, but a fashion show usually arranged by a local department store where
clothes are shown in an informal atmosphere for select customers at the store or sometimes
at a nice restaurant. Sometimes the models are expected to be able to answer simple
questions like how comfortable the fabric feels, price points, even cleaning instructions.
Contacting the local stores will allow a model to find out if these events occur in your
area, and how you arrange to be considered for the work. Some of the major stores have
teen boards, where local high school age models are used for local fashion shows. A good
way to get started, if you like fashion runway. Now the areas of commercial modeling that
involve photography:
Commercial Print is what is says, models used in photographic advertising. Models can be
any size, age or type. They must just be appropriate for the ad that is being shot. While
the vast majority of print models look like models (attractive), I worked in a print ad
campaign where the art director told me they needed a thug, and I looked like a thug! Go
figure. I also wound up in a movie because the roll called for a big, dumb, bald, white
guy. Turns out they are hard to find at your local agency. I qualified for SAG and they
wanted to get me an agent. (I turned them down as the type of romantic leading rolls I am
constantly offered are so boring.)
Commercial print includes catalog modeling, beauty products, life style (such as models
who appear in health club ads, vacation layouts, et al), fashion ads (even those famous
models doing Versace ads are doing commercial print, not editorial work), anything where a
model is used in an ad to sell a product or a service. Most glamour print modeling such as
swimsuit calendars, posters, etc. are a form of commercial print work. The Sports
Illustrated Swimsuit issue is editorial, and personally, I consider the Playboy centerfold
(and only the Playboy centerfold) to be a form of Editorial modeling,
All kids are commercial models, and most observers consider all men to be commercial
models. Models are used in television ads and instructional or corporate videos. This is a
very specialized but lucrative area of modeling, and why Gino Cox often recommends getting
involved in theater classes and school plays while you are in school. You have to start
somewhere, why not while you are trapped in the educational system anyway?
Commercial modeling is by far the largest and most diverse field of modeling, and while
the average income of commercial models does not approach the levels of the top editorial
models, many commercial models make very attractive incomes, and work steadily with long
careers. In truth, in the US all agencies not located in New York are really commercial
agencies, even the branches of the majors like Ford and Elite (but don't tell them I said
so, they can be very touchy about this.)
Okay, this is a quick overview of commercial modeling. I have hardly scratched the
surface, but it will give you a sense of the breadth of the field.
Being an editorial fashion model.
Please be aware that what follows are my opinions, and are not to be confused with actual
facts. Some, if not all, of what I say will be controversial and not well received. And, I
am only addressing modeling as it relates to still photography. We will start with the
basics, editorial fashion models are tall (usually 5'9" minimum), beautiful, not
pretty,
beautiful (and different looking. How can you be beautiful and different? Whoa, this is
hard, really hard!).
And when they start, most editorial models are way too young to be doing this. Figure 16
or 17 as a median age for new faces. There is simply no way women this young can possibly
be prepared for the stress and commitment editorial fashion demands of them. They are
thin, scary thin, mother wants to take you to the doctor thin. Claudia Schiffer is 5'11
and was reported to weigh about 118 pounds. The industry takes a lot of heat about this,
creating unhealthy images for young (and not so young) women, but that doesn't change the
reality. 5'7" and 136 pounds is pretty close to perfect, but it doesn't cut it in Big
City fashion.
Are there exceptions? Yes, Kate Moss is not 5'9" (5'6" is closer), Cindy
Crawford at the height of her editorial career weighed.... well, lets just say that she
weighed more than 118 pounds. So why am I getting into all of this? In part because most
young people who consider modeling are familiar only with editorial models, and so very
few should even think about an editorial career. Far more potential models will work if
they chose commercial modeling, which was the subject of my previous post. But if you want
to know about editorial fashion in New York city, here it is.
First, there are enormous differences between modeling commercially and editorial fashion
models. There are actors, pilots, firemen, housewives, students, etc. who model
commercially, some are very successful and make a good deal of money at it. But they are
not commercial models in the same sense that editorial fashion models are editorial
models. This is because you don't build a "name" as a commercial model. You do
build a reputation (you show up on time, wear proper attire, not hard to work with, etc.)
that helps an agency place you. But not a name, the way an advertiser wants a Cindy, or
Linda, or Kate. This "name" thing is a big deal. Think about it this way, if
your not an industry insider, can you name a model that is not an editorial model? (Okay,
I'm a commercial model and you know me! The big, dumb, bald, white guy who looks like a
thug, not a name, a description.)
The top fashion agencies give only exclusive contracts (usually two to five years for a
new face"). They have the contacts with the fashion magazines to help you build that
"name", and they expect to benefit from that relationship through that exclusive
relationship. Their resources are directed solely to the development of the models they
represent, which is why you see the term "Model Management" in so many of the
agency names. If you want Linda Evangelista, you call Elite, not Ford. If you want Christy
Turlington, call Ford, not Wilhelmina. The "inventory" of a commercial agency is
it's clients (Coke, Kodak, Xerox), The "inventory" of an editorial agency is
it's models (Kate, Nadia, Tyra, Vivian). In short, commercial agencies have clients and
find models, fashion agencies have models and find clients.
Editorial models are expected (as someone here has said repeatedly) to live the life. You
model, that's it. You may wait tables, or something else part time to pay the rent when
you start, but you model. If you were not in front of a camera today, you had a bad day,
money or no money. You take jobs, work with certain photographers, for your entire career
which pay little or nothing, simply because they build your name and give you exposure. I
can think of no other career where the "prestige" jobs pay so little. Most here
would be stunned to learn how little a model is paid for the cover of Vogue or Elle, or
for the purely editorial layouts inside those magazines. So why do it? Because it builds a
name. Then when an advertiser calls the agency, they are not asking for a "type"
(brunette, athletic, Asian, bald, dumb), they are asking for Shalom or Niki, or Naomi.
There may be a thousand beautiful blondes, but there is only one Claudia, because of all
of her magazine layouts and covers (not ads, editorial layouts, the ad work comes later,
after the name is established). Once your name and image are established, you go to the
bank, big time doing fashion ad work (commercial modeling). Why? Because the ad agency or
designer wants Claudia, not a thin, busty blonde (lots of blondes, only one Claudia, and
you PAY for Claudia). Every editorial model spends some time in the trenches, go here, go
there, shoot with this guy, cut your hair, loose some weight, go to the agency, get your
go sees. Had a bad night? Tough. Went on six go sees yesterday with no bookings? Too bad,
here are four more, do it. Live the life. Models do not "try" editorial fashion
modeling, fashion tries you. It is hard, it is suppose to be hard. That it is hard is what
makes it great. If it was easy, everyone would do it.
I am posting this because there has been a lot of discussion about what agencies do and
what models should expect. Some of the photographers here are full time professionals (I'm
in that group, full time, not sure about the professional part). Like modeling, this is
not an easy business to get started and stay in professionally, and those that do it are
passionate about what they do. You wouldn't stay with this if you didn't love it with an
emotion that is hard to describe. However, depending on what side of the street you work
on (commercial or editorial), your experiences and expectations of models and agents can
be radically different. I work almost exclusively as a commercial photographer and
represent myself as such, but I have worked with fashion agencies and fashion models. I
like commercial models, they are gifted and talented people, and they want to get paid. I
love fashion models, they want great pictures, if you can't deliver, forget about it
(trust me on this one, the world is full of fashion models who can't remember my name).
These opinions and observations are the result of my experiences with both commercial and
fashion models (and agencies) over the past sixteen years. The probable worth of all of
this is just exactly what you paid for it.
Part two of editorial modeling.
I have recently been asked by several models about editorial modeling, what is it, what is
the value of it, and what are "editorial agencies"? In the past I have addressed
the simple definitions (simple?) of editorial and commercial modeling (editorial is story
illustration and commercial involves selling the product).
Editorial agencies I have defined as agencies whose goal it is to promote a select group
of models through editorial assignments, as opposed to commercial agencies whose goal it
is to provide a specific type of model to a client to meet the client's particular needs
at the time. Now in the end, the goal of any agency is to provide models to advertisers
because these are the people who pay models, and so in the end, all agencies are
commercial agencies. It is the value added by specific models to advertisers, and how the
models are promoted, which separates the two types of agencies.
I have discussed the value of editorial modeling in terms of self promotion and name
identification, which would raise the commercial value of the model to advertising
clients. In short, a model might be a little big in the hip, have an odd growth on her
face, and not be blonde, but if she has been on countless Vogue covers, she is worth a
fortune to Revlon, and paid accordingly (for the Revlon ads, not the Vogue covers).
Of course I am not referring to anyone specifically, this is just a general example, and
not to be confused with real life. However, in reviewing my comments on this area, I
realized I had left out one very important (and bizarre) value attached to editorial
modeling (and photography). This business, particularly at the upper levels, is one of
processionary caterpillars. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, processionary
caterpillars are caterpillars who travel through the jungle with the head of one pressed
firmly against the butt of the caterpillar in front of it. They travel along like this
until a food source is found. (It is said that if you gather a string of these
caterpillars and arrange them so they form a circle, they will march around happily until
they starve to death!) The comparison to advertising is that if someone else is doing it,
or using someone, then by God, we should be doing it too! The old saw in business is that
no middle manager ever lost his job recommending AT&T or IBM.
How does this apply to modeling or photography? Well, this is why editorial assignments
are held in such high esteem. Theoretically, a major magazine (and for fun, let's just say
Sports Illustrated) can chose any model they want to appear in a special issue (and again,
since I am just goofing around, let's say the swimsuit issue). And that magazine can pick
any model they want to appear on the cover. Virtually any model in the business likes to
travel, go to exotic locations, get fawned over, pampered, and have all of her expenses
paid, so who wouldn't take the assignment? (Undoubtedly many, I made this up, so what do I
know.) In addition, the magazine could probably pick any photographer for the assignment,
pay only expenses, let them shoot some of the most delightful creatures on the planet
earth, and I doubt they would have any problem finding takers from the most talented and
successful photographers in the world.
Now, here is the rub. Since most models want the assignment, and since most photographers
would kill to shoot it, they get to pick the people they think are the best. And guess
what? It doesn't matter who they pick, a ton of other people will now think these chosen
ones walk on water. And these other people will stand in line to hire and pay the silly
rascals a lot of money. A lot lot lot of money. Why? Because they are truly the most
beautiful, the most talented? No. Who can possibly say that any working model is not
beautiful? Or that one is more beautiful than the rest? You see, it does not matter,
Sports Illustrated said they are, so they must be, they get to pick! A major advertiser
wants to refresh their ad campaign, introduce a new product, who do they want..... at any
price? Why the most beautiful woman in the world, the SI cover girl. She must be the most
beautiful, SI picked her! (Okay, last year they picked someone else, quick, name her,
can't? Right...... get me the new one.)
Now you know why any model should want to be on the Vogue cover, the spring fashion
editorial spread in Elle, the....well you get the picture. And why photographers would
kill to shoot those same assignments. Pay? Fogedaboutit! Who cares? They know that if they
get picked by the caterpillar in front, the others will follow on blindly and happily. And
they will pay for the privilege.
In truth, not all editorial assignment have equal value, and the best ones go to models
and photographers who have worked their way up the editorial chain. Models don't get a
Vogue cover as their first cover. And model rarely gets any cover without first working
her way through the back editorial pages of the magazines. This applies to photographers
as well. Editorial is about getting known, getting exposure. But it is first about getting
picked. The more options the one doing the picking has, the greater the value the
commercial market places on the one's who are chosen. And that is why the business seems
to be using the same people over and over again. These silly caterpillars just have their
heads up against someone else's butt, and until someone breaks away, they go around, and
around, and around.
In response to someone who was asking a general question about agents.
The following section describes my experiences with agents, both commercial and fashion,
and I don't pretend that it reflects accurately how every agent works with the models they
represent (for instance, their is nothing here about talent managers who work with TV or
Movie actors, I have had no contact with these people), but it should give you a general
over view concerning agents who work with models. (It is also gives me a reason to post a
picture I like, but haven't been able to post before because the CD it was on used to
crash my old computer!) If you have seen the article before, and it bored you, it will
again. I have changed nothing. If you haven't been bored by it before, well here's your
chance to waste a few minutes. In the popular media, the picture which is presented of an
agent is that which describes a very small group of agents associated with editorial
fashion agencies, who work with a very small number of uniquely qualified models. Most
models really wind up working for a much larger group of agents (agencies), which, for
lack of a better term, are called commercial agencies.
A commercial agent provides a number of important and exclusive functions for a model. The
agent (or more accurately the agency system) normally sets the "going rates" for
models in a reasonably large market, say a city like Chicago, Atlanta, or Los Angeles. The
agent (and again, I am referring to the agency system) provides the necessary contractual
language (description of rates, releases, usage restrictions on resulting images,
cancellation fees, etc.) for a model and the client to establish a successful working
relationship. The agent handles billing to the client, and payment (after the money is
paid) to the model. And finally, very few (if any) large clients (advertisers) would want
to deal directly with individual models, so their work is made available in the market
place almost exclusively through agents. Is an agent important to a commercial model?
Absolutely, if they have any hope of working at the upper end of the commercial market.
Notice, at no time did I refer to model career development. Most commercial agents act as
clearing houses for jobs which come available through large clients. Models are expected
to provide basic tools to the agent so the agent can make the model available to clients.
These tools include comp cards, head shots, résumé's, etc. Sometimes, if the agent has
the time, they will offer a model advice on putting together some pictures for a card, or
recommend that the model see a particular photographer (or more commonly, provide a list
of photographers who the agent has some confidence can provide usable pictures). The
reality is that in most large markets someone who wishes to be a model must find their own
way through the jungle to obtain the pictures and experience to put together the tools
they need to work as a model. Time is not particularly critical to a commercial model. If
they are twenty or twenty four, if it takes six months or two years to collect the
necessary tools, that is fine as far as the agent is concerned.
Most commercial jobs require the model to play a roll, to look like a particular
character, to meet some pre designated set of physical qualifications for "That
Particular Job". Why does a commercial agent not have to be in the model management
(or more accurately, model development) business? Primarily, because in most major markets
so many other people are doing it for them. Actors work as commercial models,
photographers develop models on smaller jobs with their direct (usually smaller) clients,
and so called fashion agencies have models who fail to catch on editorially, and who then
wind up listing with the commercial agencies.
This is the normal experience the most models will have when dealing with an older
established commercial agency. It is very rare for any single model to be particularly
important to a commercial agent (unless, like anyone in the business, there is some
personal reason. Hey, you want the truth? Or the fantasy?). It is the advertising clients,
and the agent's relationship with those clients, which drives a commercial agency, not the
models. The models are a commodity which the agent makes available to his or her clients.
The more models they have, and the greater the variety, the happier the agent. Is it fair
for the agency to collect it's fees for placement? Yes, particularly since they have
access to clients (and work hard to establish and maintain those relationships) that any
model would not be able to get to directly.
Their fees are a function of the access they provide to clients and the contractual
arrangements they maintain, the fee's and commissions collected from the model and client
are not for model management. The rates a commercial model normally commands in the market
place do not usually justify a significant commitment to model career development by an
agent..
Now, the popular concept of an agent, which is that of an editorial fashion agency. These
agents (agencies) succeed or fail on their ability to discover, develop, and promote new
faces. Two or three hot new models, and the agency is getting calls and bookings for those
premium commercial fashion jobs. The agents (and now I am going to introduce a new word
here, "bookers", the real power in any agency) really do select, manage, and
develop the careers of these select few models. If a booker is successful in finding that
new face, in properly promoting the model, in training and managing the model, AFTER the
editorial image is established, then a long string of highly paid commercial jobs follow.
The model has no chance of entering this market without an exclusive relationship with a
qualified booker in an agency. There is no beginner editorial market a model can find on
their own. It is possible that a model can get hooked up with an important editorial
photographer on her own, get a few editorial jobs, maybe a high profile commercial
booking, as a result of that relationship, but this is pretty rare these days. Is a
commercial agent worth their fees and commissions? Yes, again this career is not possible
without them, and a successful booker is what every fashion agency depends on. They are
paid too much after the model is successful, and not nearly enough when they are
developing the model. So it goes.
So, why not go directly to those wonderful editorial agencies? After all, this story makes
them sound like the real deal. They manage a model, they promote the model's career, and
the individual model is important to them. Well here's the rub. You must be young, very
young. You must be tall, very tall. You must be ready to sacrifice everything about your
personal life, where you live, what your schedule is, often schooling, and you must be
ready to take on a whole raft of adult responsibilities. And there is no promise that this
will work, even if you do everything asked of you. Editorial modeling is a crap shoot, win
and you win big, loose and you may walk away with some pretty bad experiences. This is not
what most people want to hear.
What most people want is a commercial modeling career...... with the attention and
promotion of an editorial agency. Not going to happen. Get over it. Get your pictures, and
put together a comp. Promote yourself through agencies, photographers, and social
contacts, and hope for the best. Take any good job you can get without regard to pay in
the beginning. Don't think you can make a living at it immediately. After a few years, if
you are going to work, you will have enough good pictures to have a pretty good comp card.
You will have worked for enough people to have some idea about the level of work you will
get on a regular basis, and enjoy the business!
There is one small section of the commercial modeling business which is time sensitive,
and that is children's modeling. Here things do have to move a little faster (you will
outgrow the business!), and the agents do have to get involved more directly with the
model (parent). But this is such a strange area, I really don't want to get into it.
Considering a career in modeling
These comments are a result of my experiences over the years, they are my opinions and are
not to be mistaken for the last word on these matters. Getting started: How to pick an
agency, and start up costs for a beginning model. Agency fees charged directly to a model
can be broken down into two distinctive groups, one which can be considered normal charges
made by any agency (although they can be abused), and another group which would certainly
be suspect (but not necessarily improper).
The first group of normal fees would include the agency commission for placement on jobs.
Normally expressed as a percentage of the hourly or daily rate earned by the model, this
percentage can be as low as 5%, and as high as 50%, with the average for placement on
standard print or runway work being 20% (be aware that the agency may also charge the
client, not the model, a service fee, again typically 20%). The lower fee structure is
usually associated with TV or movie work, and the higher percentages are typical of
foreign assignments, mostly in the Far East (Japan, Korea, etc.). Other "normal"
agency charges include the physical cost of producing materials directly associated with
the promotion of individual models. Composite cards for the model which are ordered
through the agency are charged back to the model, placement in the agency promotional book
which is printed and distributed by the agency, and now electronic media promotional
materials such as (but not limited to) internet promotional websites may also generate
legitimate fees to the model.
Why are these charges and fees passed through to the models, and not absorbed by the
agency as normal operating expenses? Part of this has to do with tax law, and part of it
has to do with the nature of the "standard" representation contract signed by
the models with the individual agencies. The vast majority of these contracts strive to
create a relationship which is not an employer - employee relationship. The agency
typically promises only to "advise" the model, and no promises of guaranteed
work or payments (accept the direct pass through of collected model's fees from the
clients) is made. If this arrangement is properly structured, the agency is not normally
responsible for taxes such as withholding, social security payments, unemployment, and
workman's compensation premiums.
Payment of direct charges for printing, publishing and distribution of promotional
materials for the models (not more general materials promoting the agency) could imply
that an employer - employee relationship does exist, and that would place the agency in
the position of having to pay significant taxes and premiums to the government (federal,
state, and local). It is also possible that the agency would even come under the equal
opportunity provisions of various oversight agencies. Clearly this would put agencies in
an odd position (do you have enough models over 40, what percentage of your models are
handicapped or of Serbo-Croatian ancestry?).
So agencies do pass on the hard charges directly associated with many promotional items
associated with individual models And by the way, major agencies in cities like New York,
Chicago, Atlanta, and Los Angeles who provide access to "model's apartments",
advance living expenses for things like food, and prepay fees for travel to and from
assignments, do so under loan arrangements and fully expect to be paid back by the models
from client fees or directly by the models from their own pockets.
The second set of more questionable charges made by smaller agencies in smaller (and
sometimes large) markets include such things as "modeling classes", makeup and
runway training, and photography produced by a specific "agency photographer".
These "agencies" invent special fee opportunities faster than I can keep up with
them, but unless they are specifically related to direct marketing charges for model
promotion, I remain very skeptical. These "fees" are more likely to be the
agency's only source of income, when the placement of their models on paying assignments
should be. Asking to be provided with information about the income made by their top
models for assignments arranged by the agency, is not out of line for someone considering
representation through that agency.
I am also not a fan of the various model "searches", which promise access to
major agency representatives or scouts, but primarily are in the business of collecting
large fees from prospective models while providing access to these people (if they can
actually attract them) under the most adverse circumstances. Much better is for the local
agency or agent to actually arrange individual appointments for their models with the
major agencies and then go and see them at their offices. Typically this could be done for
the fees charged for these "searches", and places the model in the best position
to be seriously considered.
So, what are the expenses a person should reasonably anticipate when considering a career
in modeling? First, photography, and not necessarily with one photographer. Reasonable
charges for photography which should produce images which can be used to promote the model
first to the agency, then to prospective clients, run from $150 to $500, not including
makeup and enlargements. Many photographers who work for ad agencies or other commercial
clients will test models for a minimal fee (figure $200 to $300) in order to meet and work
with the model. Rarely, a qualified photographer will test for very little or nothing, but
understand that the photographer under those circumstances may be more interested in
getting a picture of interest to them, than one of value to the model. Sometimes an agency
can arrange for a free test with a photographer THEY are interested in learning more
about, but then again, the results are a matter of some conjecture (hence the need for the
test).
Makeup and hair styling for photography shoots are also a responsibility of the model.
Some models can do their own makeup, but this is an area of great importance to the
finished result, and should be left to a qualified professional. Sources for referrals to
a good makeup artist can be through the agency, or through a qualified photographer. Costs
for makeup can run as little as $50 for a short shoot, to as much as $300 or more. A
reasonable fee for a qualified artist for a typical portfolio shoot might be around $100.
Don't expect one session to produce more than two or three "looks" (changes in
attire and makeup). Any more than that starts to become repetitive and the number of
useful images drops dramatically.
Composite cards are a key to marketing any model. These are normally a single
"flip" card, 8.5" X 5.5" in size (although this can vary slightly),
with normally one shot on the front, and three or four on the back. A great head shot
normally is the "grabber" on the front, and the back would show images
consistent with the type of work the model seeks on the back. The costs for these cards
can run as little as $100, to as much as $1,500 or more for elaborate multi fold, printed
color cards. Today, most new models (and many heavily booked veterans) have cards with
both color and black and white images produced on specialized laser copiers for as little
as $150 to $200 for 100 cards. Additional cards can be obtained quickly when they are
needed, and new pictures can be inserted when desired on subsequent orders. After a model
has the necessary four or five quality images this is the one marketing tool they must (I
stress, must) have. Agencies, particularly smaller market (or remote) agencies are
increasingly using the internet as a communication and marketing tool. We are even seeing
the major, large market agencies now "online". Again, the agencies are charging
the models for their inclusion on these websites (they do cost money), but the costs are
typically low (figure $100 per year as a fair charge). Anything substantially higher than
that would be a red flag.
So, what does it cost to get started? As a purely speculative number based on my analysis,
lay aside $500 to $750 for photography (figuring two or three shoots), $200 to $300 for
makeup and hair styling, $400 for cards, a portfolio book with six to eight high quality
enlargements, and maybe $100 for electronic media. This doesn't include wardrobe, travel
expenses, shoes, meals, living expenses, etc. Can it be done for less, of course.
Primarily in the area of photography, where trade outs are possible, but remember, the
closer you cut the corners, the greater the risk in failing to get appropriate marketing
materials.
On going expenses include the cost of constantly updating and improving your photographic
images (and here you can get help, as you work with photographers and find people who give
you quality work, you can frequently work out trades for time), replacing old cards with
new images, hair care, wardrobe, travel to meet new clients, agents, and photographers.
Hopefully, your agency is getting you placements at this time, and so these expenses are
part of the normal cost of doing business.
An agency should only take you on because they believe they can place you on jobs, their
income is dependent on you working (assuming they are a legitimate agency). It is
reasonable to expect that if they sign you, you will have the opportunity to work, which
justifies your startup costs. But please, do check (ask them directly) about models they
represent, and if they are getting good paying assignments. Real agencies are not
reluctant to provide this information, they are proud of their record, it is how they
attract working models. Even big name models change agencies (Niki Taylor from Irene Marie
to IMG, Claudia Schiffer from Metropolitan to Elite, as an example), and they do this
because they believe that the new agency can provide them with more work than their
original agency has done. If an agency has a great track record, they can't wait to tell
you!
Tear Sheets
I have been working with a new face who is getting started here in Miami, and she has been visiting the agencies looking for representation. I've been through this before, but she hadn't and she questioned why I was introducing her to some of the commercial agencies here on the beach rather than the upper end editorial shops. Certainly she has a good look, and at 5'11 is tall enough for editorial fashion. The issue was simple, age. At 22 she is too old to be a new face, and while the editorial agencies expressed interest (I finally did take her into a couple of them), they explained to her that models her age had "developed" books.
"What does that mean? Aren't my pictures good enough? What do they mean by a 'developed book'?", she asked. The short answer is tear sheets. The models with Elite, Karin, or Next who are over twenty have books with tears, good ones, editorial tears, and if the client is strong, even commercial tears. "Still, they are just pictures, if mine are good, what difference does it make if they are just pictures or if they are tear sheets? And why do I have to have tears, but the younger girls don't have to have them to get accepted?"
Good questions, and the answer is neither short nor simple. The deal is this, everyone knows that a true new face is inexperienced, and they are cut some slack when they are getting started. Not a lot, and the development curve is steep, but if they are sent on an assignment the photographer(s) should expect to provide more input than with an older model. But a model over twenty is competing with other experienced models, and if the agency sends a model on a go-see and she's booked for the assignment, it is expected that she can produce quality work on demand. That's what tears tell the client, and the agency. Not that the model is beautiful, or has nice pictures, but that she has produced good images in a defined limited time frame with people she may not know, and has never worked with before. The models over twenty with Karin, Next, Elite, Wilhelmina, etc. have those tears, and the experience that comes from producing them.
How does this relate to the 22 year old model who is trying to get started? If she wants to work she has to start with smaller agencies who will give her the chance to get those tears. The jobs will be smaller, the pay more conservative, but with luck and a little push she might put together a book of work which will make her more attractive to the larger agencies. A couple of good editorials, even in smaller magazines, a string of strong commercial assignments (fashion related), and all of a sudden the model has the credentials to open the door at Wilhelmina or Ford. So, why would a smaller agency take on a model that Irene Marie passes on? Well, the smaller shops don't get first crack at the hot 16 year olds, and they aren't really in the development business anyway. The best talent they can book have the look, but are over twenty. If they are sent on a go-see, book the job and bomb, well, the agency reputation wasn't really on the line the way it is with Karin, as an example. But, catch a break and do a good job, things can really open up. Anyway, we will see how things work out for her this season. It's a rough business at best, and only the toughest survive. I often think we are not successes (when we are), so much as we are survivors.
Fish!
Click here to return to the resource center ->
Model's Resource
Center
Click here to go to Bill Brent's site ->
Photography By Bill Brent