Forums > General Industry > Jobs with the surprisingly low pay... which

Photographer

Images by MR

Posts: 8908

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

includes models.. Not sure how accurate this is cuz it doesn't state what type of model, but still some interesting reading

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/most-s … 39571.html

Mar 08 12 09:00 pm Link

Model

Marketa Fei

Posts: 401

Berkeley, California, US

Probably any model signed to an agency, given the listed data collection procedure.

Mar 08 12 09:58 pm Link

Model

Damianne

Posts: 15978

Austin, Texas, US

Marketa Fei wrote:
Probably any model signed to an agency, given the listed data collection procedure.

Given the data and the low number for "employed" I'm going to say anyone that put modeling in their taxes as the majority or only source of income.
Edit: ah, yeah, surveys. That would be agency models, yes.

Mar 08 12 10:05 pm Link

Photographer

devpics

Posts: 839

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Well Modelling like Acting is one of those professions where the people at the top make $$$$ but if you average it out to everyone who claims to be either then it isn't a lot, but the lure of sucess is a pretty big carrot

Mar 09 12 12:28 am Link

Photographer

studio36uk

Posts: 22898

Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna

Some time ago, in the UK, a comment was made on a TV documentary about modelling, as to agency models in particular, to the effect that an average work-a-day agency agency model can expect to earn about UK£350 [more or less] on a typical client work assignment. That's going to be for a DAY not by the HOUR! And when combined with the fact that they will not be working every day, - AND - broadly speaking have to live in the highest priced area of the country [London], the pay is really quite dismal.

Quite a stark contrast, you have to admit, with what some Internet models think they are worth.

Studio36

Mar 09 12 03:38 am Link

Photographer

John Fisher

Posts: 2165

Miami Beach, Florida, US

Well, the source is Forbes magazine, and let's look inside the numbers. According to Forbes, the top three models earned a total of $50,000,000.00 (US dollars). Also according to Forbes, the mean (not average) pay for the 1,020 models was $42,000.

Mean income (as opposed to average income) for the top 750 working fashion models is probably well up there as a top earning profession, the lowest 270 earners or beginning models pull the mean down significantly. And yes, I'm quite sure they are referring to fashion models, the total number of models sounds right for that group.

FYI the tenth highest earner this year(Carolyn Murphy, and the only American on the list) made $3,500,000. And the numbers are down significantly (because of the world economy) since 2008. One assumes they will be on the rise again this year (come on Lara Stone!). Another thing is that the top models are not the top wage earners (Lara Stone is currently considered the top working fashion model based on a number of factors, and she is not listed among the very top earners). The top money girls are brands more than models (Gisele, Heidi, Kate......).

John
--
John Fisher
900 West Avenue, Suite 633
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
305 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

Mar 09 12 04:33 am Link

Photographer

studio36uk

Posts: 22898

Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna

And if anyone around this place belonged in that group they would be there and not here.

Studio36

Mar 09 12 04:50 am Link

Model

Abigail Rose Hill

Posts: 540

Newcastle upon Tyne, England, United Kingdom

studio36uk wrote:
Some time ago, in the UK, a comment was made on a TV documentary about modelling, as to agency models in particular, to the effect that an average work-a-day agency agency model can expect to earn about UK£350 [more or less] on a typical client work assignment. That's going to be for a DAY not by the HOUR! And when combined with the fact that they will not be working every day, - AND - broadly speaking have to live in the highest priced area of the country [London], the pay is really quite dismal.

Quite a stark contrast, you have to admit, with what some Internet models think they are worth.

Studio36

Preach.

Mar 09 12 04:51 am Link

Photographer

Dan K Photography

Posts: 5581

STATEN ISLAND, New York, US

John Fisher wrote:
Well, the source is Forbes magazine, and let's look inside the numbers. According to Forbes, the top three models earned a total of $50,000,000.00 (US dollars). Also according to Forbes, the mean (not average) pay for the 1,020 models was $42,000.

Mean income (as opposed to average income) for the top 750 working fashion models is probably well up there as a top earning profession, the lowest 270 earners or beginning models pull the mean down significantly. And yes, I'm quite sure they are referring to fashion models, the total number of models sounds right for that group.

FYI the tenth highest earner this year(Carolyn Murphy, and the only American on the list) made $3,500,000. And the numbers are down significantly (because of the world economy) since 2008. One assumes they will be on the rise again this year (come on Lara Stone!). Another thing is that the top models are not the top wage earners (Lara Stone is currently considered the top working fashion model based on a number of factors, and she is not listed among the very top earners). The top money girls are brands more than models (Gisele, Heidi, Kate......).

John
--
John Fisher
900 West Avenue, Suite 633
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
305 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

The mean is what most people consider as the average.

Mar 09 12 04:52 am Link

Model

Malin_

Posts: 3902

New York, New York, US

Images by MR wrote:
includes models.. Not sure how accurate this is cuz it doesn't state what type of model, but still some interesting reading

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/most-s … 39571.html

That was a great read! And since I just did my taxes, it kind of hit home. big_smile

I feel like I work a lot and always have enough money for anything I want... but my day to day earnings probably suck if I would calculate them!

* As a model, you don't work every day.
* Some jobs don't really pay that much: you're not becoming a millionaire doing editorial, showroom, runway.
* Someone mentioned the cost of living above and that's true as well... our (or at least my) NET income per day is probably ridiculous due to New York City rent, paying for new pictures (something I do once a year, or every other year), agency web fees (they add up when you're with a lot of them) etc.

But on the upside, there is a lot of free time when you can enjoy life and do whatever you please, instead of being stuck at a desk in a dark office. That's definitely worth something too. smile

Mar 09 12 05:23 am Link

Model

Malin_

Posts: 3902

New York, New York, US

Dan K Photography wrote:

The mean is what most people consider as the average.

I am sorry, but that is because most people are uneducated.

Mar 09 12 05:24 am Link

Photographer

Abbitt Photography

Posts: 13559

Washington, Utah, US

I have cited the BLS data often.   I find it interesting that many people prefer to form their opinions about what is common pay based on a few vocal models (or photographers) or based on what the very top models in the field earn and give no credence to the data provided by the very organization who's job it is to study wages and income.

Some have pointed out that the BLS data is collected by those who work full time in the business who hire models, and may not accurately reflect what occasional, often newbie internet models make.  I think that's a valid point, but don't understand why they wold think newbie internet models make significantly more than people being employed by full-time professional photographers.

There have been many threads here which indicate how difficult it is for many models to break free of TF and get any paying shoots at all. I find it laughable that many claim rates typically made by MM models are several times the BLS data indicates is typical.  I think such claims reflect political posturing and not what people actually pay or get paid.

Mar 09 12 05:34 am Link

Photographer

SEI Photos

Posts: 314

Kalispell, Montana, US

Mean is the official statistics term for what is the average.  There is no difference.  Mean = (Sum of N)/N.  AVG = (Sum of N)/N.  Therefore, Mean = AVG.  MS Excel uses the term "AVG" instead of "MEAN" in its formula functions. When writing mathematically, of course, then we use the "bar-over-x" symbol to denote the mean, rather than writing either "avg" or "mean."

Mar 09 12 05:40 am Link

Photographer

Dan K Photography

Posts: 5581

STATEN ISLAND, New York, US

Malin_ wrote:
I am sorry, but that is because most people are uneducated.

I think it is just the most commonly used method ofdeterming central tendency.. Mean and average has just become synonymous and it has little to do with education.

regardless saying "mean income as opposed to average income" does not make sense.

Mar 09 12 05:41 am Link

Photographer

udor

Posts: 25255

New York, New York, US

studio36uk wrote:
Quite a stark contrast, you have to admit, with what some Internet models think they are worth.

Studio36

But top-advisors of the Barbi-Zone and other elite modeling schools make sure that those models understand that each one of their graduates will be the exception and will pull in 6 figures the first year (maybe second)... wink

Mar 09 12 05:45 am Link

Photographer

ASheehy

Posts: 560

Quincy, Massachusetts, US

Dan K Photography wrote:

I think it is just the most commonly used method ofdeterming central tendency.. Mean and average has just become synonymous and it has little to do with education.

regardless saying "mean income as opposed to average income" does not make sense.

You just proved her assertion.

Mar 09 12 06:26 am Link

Photographer

Dan K Photography

Posts: 5581

STATEN ISLAND, New York, US

ASheehy wrote:

You just proved her assertion.

Please explain.

Mar 09 12 06:28 am Link

Model

Koryn

Posts: 39496

Boston, Massachusetts, US

From the freelancer's perspective:

People forget that while you might make $400 at a single shoot, which seems absurd for a half-day's work, there's a good chance that shoot will be your only significant "earner" that week. So, while you might go home Wednesday night with a sweet $400 payday, it's likely to be Saturday again before you have another shoot, and that might only be a $150 art nude gig, for a few hours of your time. After you subtract the (let's just say) $75 you spent that week on commuting, you're really only taking home $475 for a week's pay.

Here's another scenario that is reflective of what it looked like to model full-time:

You book 3 glamour nude gigs with hobbyist shooters in a single week. No one cancels; everything is looking good for the week. One of the guys pays you $100 for two hours. Another pays you $200 for 3 hours, and the other pays you $150 for 3 hours. That week still balances out to around $450 for the entire work week, without any travel expenses removed.

Sure, there were good weeks where I would book 6 days straight (mostly only happened though while traveling), and they would all work out, and I would be able to save for the dry spells. There were some shitty weeks, which turned into long, shitty seasons where I worried about running out of the money I'd hoarded when things were good and bookings were overflowing. But, when I was modeling full-time, my *average* week looked like the examples above.

While people bitch and moan about how "expensive" freelance models are, they sometimes don't see that no, it's not a killin'. In the grand scheme of things, once everything is averaged out, it's a VERY modest living. Not terrible, but not exactly a glamorous lifestyle, if you're paying rent, food, utilities, phone bill, yada yada yada.

Still, I felt the money was nothing to complain about, considering it was something I enjoyed, whereas other jobs were oppressive and miserable. You have to take the good, along with the bad, but once everything's balanced out, it's not an easy way to support oneself.

Mar 09 12 06:51 am Link

Body Painter

Monad Studios

Posts: 10131

Santa Rosa, California, US

Looking at the survey that this article is based on, I find that the numbers they report for models are useless.

Forbes' source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Here is the BLS definition of Models:
http://www.bls.gov/soc/2010/soc419012.htm

Note that they classify modeling within "Sales and Related Occupations", not (for example) within "Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations".  So I think they're leaving out a lot of models that way.  They seem to be thinking mostly of promotional models.  (Within "Sales", Models are part of the subcategory "Models, Demonstrators, and Product Promoters".)

Here is the detailed data on models:
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes419012.htm#nat

Note that this information is from a survey of employers and does not include self-employed models.  Also it is a sampling, not a comprehensive census.  For these reasons, most if not all of the highest-earning fashion models and "spokesmodels" would not be included.  Finally, note that most of the models they list are employed by colleges and universities.  I'm guessing this means that they're actually mostly counting artists' models.

Their "annual wage" numbers are derived by multiplying an hourly rate by 2,080 hours.  This is equivalent to 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year.  Obviously that is invalid for most models.

The only relevant conclusion to be drawn from all this is that artists' models at colleges and universities make on average about $16/hour.  Big surprise.

Mar 09 12 07:12 am Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 12067

Grand Rapids, Michigan, US

Marketa Fei wrote:
Probably any model signed to an agency, given the listed data collection procedure.

Probably most paid models, especially through agencies, do promotional work.  Maybe not most of the money, but most of the people.

Mar 09 12 08:52 am Link

Model

Malin_

Posts: 3902

New York, New York, US

Art of the nude wrote:
Probably most paid models, especially through agencies, do promotional work.  Maybe not most of the money, but most of the people.

I disagree. I guess some models do promotional work as a side job (I used to do that myself), but that is not modeling and you would never get booked on such a job through a modeling agency. There are promo agencies for that... entirely different animal.

edit: just read the post above that defined "modeling" as part of sales, marketing and whatnot. Oh well!

Mar 09 12 09:04 am Link

Photographer

Abbitt Photography

Posts: 13559

Washington, Utah, US

The BLS data gives both mean and median information, which are only a couples bucks off one another.

Also of note is that in reading with how the BLS collects their information, for models they collect data on what they were actually paid on an hourly basis and from that give a guesstimate of annual income based on a 40-hour week.  This of course may not accurately reflect what models actually make over the course of a year worked. The reason they do this is because most models are paid an hourly rate, not an annual salary.

With photographers I believe they do the opposite.  They collect data about annual salaries and from that assume an hourly-rate, which of course is likely also off by assuming photographers work a 40-hour week.

As Monad Studios points out, the data is collected from those who employ models and therefore most probably is not very reflective of most hobbyist photographers who hire inexperienced, part-time amateur freelance models, common to MM.

Mar 09 12 09:25 am Link

Photographer

Carlos Occidental

Posts: 10583

Los Angeles, California, US

Actually, none of the ten listed are remotely surprising.  It's also interesting what they consider "low" pay.

Mar 09 12 09:35 am Link