Forums > General Industry > Is this odd?

Photographer

Black Dog Studios RI

Posts: 279

Providence, Rhode Island, US

I stumbled across a model profile where she has a "clothed" rate of $60/hr and a "bikini/lingerie" rate of $100/hr.

Aside from the fact that bikini/lingerie is clothed, does this strike anyone as odd? I don't think I've ever seen rates split like this.

Oct 07 12 10:15 am Link

Model

V Laroche

Posts: 2746

New Orleans, Louisiana, US

No, it's not odd. It's fairly common for glamour models.

Would you wear your bikini to work? It's not clothed; it's just not naked.

Oct 07 12 10:17 am Link

Photographer

DMesser Photography

Posts: 1288

Oceanside, California, US

If she can get her asking rate, it is not odd.  Just like photographers that will only pay for nude since there are an abundance of beautiful girls willing to pose clothed and in bikini and lingerie for TF.   If she doesn't get the rates she advertises, she either doesn't get the work, or makes arrangements with the photog.

Oct 07 12 10:21 am Link

Photographer

Blue Ash Film Group

Posts: 9539

Cincinnati, Ohio, US

What is so hard to understand that a model might want different compensation for different types of work? What about that seems odd to you?

Oct 07 12 10:27 am Link

Photographer

BTHPhoto

Posts: 6815

Fairbanks, Alaska, US

If you assume that the higher rates for bikini/lingerie reflect a belief on the model's part that she's worth more with less covered, it's pretty silly. 

If you assume that the higher rates for bikini/lingerie reflect the fact that the market will bear it so she might as well get it, then it's just good business sense.

Either way though, those split rates are illogical if you believe that a model's value derives from her looks and talent rather than how much skin she'll expose.  Either the model or the market is behaving irrationally, no matter how you look at it.

V Laroche wrote:
No, it's not odd. It's fairly common for glamour models.

I suppose we all define "odd" differently.  I don't see how the fact that something is common has any bearing on whether or not it's odd.

Oct 07 12 10:32 am Link

Model

V Laroche

Posts: 2746

New Orleans, Louisiana, US

BTHPhoto wrote:
If you assume that the higher rates for bikini/lingerie reflect a belief on the model's part that she's worth more with less covered, it's pretty silly. 

If you assume that the higher rates for bikini/lingerie reflect the fact that the market will bear it so she might as well get it, then it's just good business sense.

Either way though, those split rates are illogical if you believe that a model's value derives from her looks and talent rather than how much skin she'll expose.  Either the model or the market is behaving irrationally, no matter how you look at it.

The first two sentences of this post basically mean the same thing. A model's worth = what the market can support. The market determines the worth of a model.

Glamour models ARE worth more with less covered. There is more demand for a glamour model in a bikini than in a poncho. Therefore, the market supports higher rates for bikini work than for wearing a poncho. A model's value does not depend only on her looks and talent but also on the demand for her services. I look fking great playing the autoharp and I am really good at it, but since there is almost no demand for pretty women playing the autoharp, it does not add to my value as a worker in a free market.

BTHPhoto wrote:
I suppose we all define "odd" differently.  I don't see how the fact that something is common has any bearing on whether or not it's odd.

Actually, one of the really nice things about the English language is that English words do not have subjective definitions as you imply. They actually have concrete and discrete meanings which are recorded in dictionaries.

The word "odd" means something that is not common; therefore, whether or not something is common is the ONLY thing that has bearing on whether or not that something is "odd."

odd  /äd/
Adjective:   
    Different from what is usual or expected; strange

Oct 07 12 11:43 am Link

Photographer

Orca Bay Images

Posts: 32233

Lodi, California, US

Black Dog Studios RI wrote:
I stumbled across a model profile where she has a "clothed" rate of $60/hr and a "bikini/lingerie" rate of $100/hr.

Aside from the fact that bikini/lingerie is clothed, does this strike anyone as odd? I don't think I've ever seen rates split like this.

It's very common.

And you're being pedantic about underwear/bikini being clothed. If you think they're the same as clothed, take yourself down to the nearest shopping mall, with you wearing nothing but your tighty-whities.

Oct 07 12 12:07 pm Link

Model

Isis22

Posts: 2567

Muncie, Indiana, US

I have had a photographer pay me according to whether I was wearing regular clothes, bikini, or nothing. His idea and I am totally fine with that breakdown. I don't find it odd at all.

Oct 07 12 12:48 pm Link