Misty R H wrote:
I have wondered if I change my hair color if I might get more commercial work.

The grass is always greener lol

But I find that if a client finds the right model, hair color is easily altered. It's a lot harder to alter someone's height, age, etc.

Misty R H wrote:
I am on LA Casting which is the major casting website for actors/models in the Los Angeles area.  I literally see hundreds of casting calls.  I have been noticing  a consistant repeat pattern of the casting calls specifically requesting "no blondes" or "brunettes only". Many of them seem very firm about it.

There have been many times when I am going through a casting call and I am perfect for it until I get to the part that says "no blondes".  Very frustrating.  Right now this blonde is not having more fun.

Then when I look at the talent section of  Craigslist, I see alot of requests for blondes.  The casting calls on Craigslist are mostly (not always) for adult/porn oriented shoots.

So it seems that blondes are wanted more for sexy adult work and brunettes are preferred for serious main stream commercial work.

Has anyone else noticed this?  I have wondered if I change my hair color if I might get more commercial work.

So is the ditzy, sexy blonde stereotype at work here?  I am curious.

Fair color doesn't determine a single thing aside from… well… hair color. It doesn't indicate anything about a person's talent, ability, intellect, or personality. People who try to argue differently (that blondes are dumb or that redheads are feisty) are idiots. Sorry I'm not sorry.

That being said, in any visually-based medium, you're going to find specificity in what people want. Sometimes that specificity is more strict than others. "We need a 6-foot, tanned brunette with DD breasts for the such-&-such role." or whatever. This might be prompted by a company's/clients's research into what resonates with their target market. Despite the fact that hair color is not an accurate indicator of one's intellect, talent, personality, etc, that does not stop the (erroneous) stereotypes which follow them around. And a smart ad campaign will exploit such connotations attached to various visuals.

If a client wants to avoid a given stereotype in their imaging, they'll post No Blondes" in the call. It's not because they personally think blondes are ditzy — I've met as many ditzy brunettes as blondes and though few in raw numbers, I've never noticed proportionately more or less ditzy types amongst redheads — it's because they want to steer clear of whatever connotation surround it.

Jordan Bunniie wrote:
Casting that say "no blondes" just means they dont think blonde hair fits the look theyre casting for.

thats all.

Thanks Jordan. I do understand that.  But to me it does seem that there is a pattern of people specifically not casting blondes for parts in commercial work.   I haven't seen the 'no blondes" casting calls just a few times, but many times.  If it was this simple then I would see a number of no brunettes casting calls...but I don't see this. When I do see blondes requested it tends to be on things like Craigslist for adult or sexy type parts.

Of course this is my perception from the casting websites that I look at so
I am curious if any other actors/models have noticed this as well.

Kincaid Blackwood wrote:

Fair color doesn't determine a single thing aside from… well… hair color. It doesn't indicate anything about a person's talent, ability, intellect, or personality. People who try to argue differently (that blondes are dumb or that redheads are feisty) are idiots. Sorry I'm not sorry.

That being said, in any visually-based medium, you're going to find specificity in what people want. Sometimes that specificity is more strict than others. "We need a 6-foot, tanned brunette with DD breasts for the such-&-such role." or whatever. This might be prompted by a company's/clients's research into what resonates with their target market. Despite the fact that hair color is not an accurate indicator of one's intellect, talent, personality, etc, that does not stop the (erroneous) stereotypes which follow them around. And a smart ad campaign will exploit such connotations attached to various visuals.

If a client wants to avoid a given stereotype in their imaging, they'll post No Blondes" in the call. It's not because they personally think blondes are ditzy — I've met as many ditzy brunettes as blondes and though few in raw numbers, I've never noticed proportionately more or less ditzy types amongst redheads — it's because they want to steer clear of whatever connotation surround it.

I do think you are right.  I know people really don't think blondes are "dumm"   or ditzy/dizzy but it is common enough stereotype that I do think advertisers sometimes avoid casting blondes, unless the part they are casting plays into the blonde stereotype which further perpetuates it.

I have given thought to changing my hair color to see if this makes any difference.  It would be an interesting comparison to see "both sides of the fence".  It is easy to change hair color, but changing my entire portfolio is not so easy.  It would be alot of work to change my commercial portfolio and my website.  Then I could go through all of the time effort and expense to change things and then find out it may not make a difference.

Danielle Hieronimi wrote:
Look into using Natural Instincts boxed hair dye. They have several brunette shades that are semi-permanent and won't damage your hair.

It's a short term solution to open you up to more LA casting availability.

True it is easy to change my hair color. But it is not so easy to change over my entire commercial port and re do all of those pictures with me as a brunette.  Plus LA Casting charges for every picture added.  I would also have to change every picture in my website.  I guess it would be nice to know if it will really make a difference before going through all of the effort and expense.  The thing is I may not know unless I try it.  It is a catch 22 situation.

Vector One Photography wrote:
In don't usually shoot blondes for three reasons. First, blondes are a dime a dozen. Second, most of the time it's a color not found on human beings. But third and most important, most blondes I have seen have over processed their hair and it looks like straw. Dried out, no sheen, usually flies away and with no body. If you are going to color it, take care of it.

My hair was naturally the color you see in my pictures until about age 14 and puberty took over and all those hormones changed it to a few shades darker but not much so now I do color it to what it used to be a few years ago.
It is not dry whatsoever, it's baby soft, no split ends, and i make sure to trim it often. Even being in California I would have to disagree...you can hardly find blondes here because of the upkeep on coloring hair. Brown hair is naturally more common.

Also the only two other people I know with my same hair color in my city are completely natural platinum blondes. (and not albino) ha

Vector One Photography wrote:
In don't usually shoot blondes for three reasons. First, blondes are a dime a dozen. Second, most of the time it's a color not found on human beings. But third and most important, most blondes I have seen have over processed their hair and it looks like straw. Dried out, no sheen, usually flies away and with no body. If you are going to color it, take care of it.

FWIW, my hair color is all natural.

Misty R H wrote:
There have been many times when I am going through a casting call and I am perfect for it until I get to the part that says "no blondes".  Very frustrating.  Right now this blonde is not having more fun.

You're hoping to fill a role. Just because you think you're perfect for the role, doesn't mean the casting director whose trying to meet the directors vision for the role in quesion thinks you're perfect. Ultimately its them you have to persuade.

Furthermore if they thought you were perfect for the role, they WOULD NOT HESITATE in selecting you.

Misty R H wrote:
So it seems that blondes are wanted more for sexy adult work and brunettes are preferred for serious main stream commercial work.

You state that like it is a widely accepted fact. It isn't. It's simply your observation which, in my opinion, is incorrect or lacks a broader view of the industry. Actually, that's being kind. Your observation is likely to be the opposite of the reality. Although it would be almost impossible to make a truly empirical survey, I would suspect a broad view of the models/actors actually cast in projects is statistically higher than the population by a great margin which would refute your observation.

Vector One Photography wrote:
In don't usually shoot blondes for three reasons. First, blondes are a dime a dozen. Second, most of the time it's a color not found on human beings. But third and most important, most blondes I have seen have over processed their hair and it looks like straw. Dried out, no sheen, usually flies away and with no body. If you are going to color it, take care of it.

Of course you are free to choose the models you want to work with when it is for your own personal work.  Everyone has favorite traits that they like and that is fine.  As far as blondes being a dime a dozen I beg to differ.  Blondes are not rare by any means but there are way more brunettes than blondes. This doesn't make one hair color better than another...that comes down to personal preference and neither choice is wrong.

Blonde is a color found on human beings.  There are millions of naturally blonde people.  This is especially true in places like Scandanavia.

You are right some people over process their hair.  But this is not only blondes who color their hair.  Any hair color may be guilty of this.  Some people's hair may be over processed because of perms or hair straightening.  So every model regardless of hair color needs to keep their hair in shape as best as possible.

It is another blonde stereotype that blondes are all overdone bottle blondes and not natural.  Yes, this is true for some blondes but not all.

I am not trying to get you to change your mind to shoot blondes...that is your choice and you are entitled to shoot who you want to shoot.

Farenell Photography wrote:

You're hoping to fill a role. Just because you think you're perfect for the role, doesn't mean the casting director whose trying to meet the directors vision for the role in quesion thinks you're perfect. Ultimately its them you have to persuade.

Furthermore if they thought you were perfect for the role, they WOULD NOT HESITATE in selecting you.

I know the casting director is just going by what the directors/client's vision of the role is.  My question is are the final clients/directors not wanting blondes because of the blonde stereotypes?  From what I have seen "no blondes" really does seem to be a frequent pattern.  No this is not 100% or the vast majority of casting calls, but it is frequent enough that I see this almost everyday. 

The thing is that blondes can't even submit for the "no blonde" roles to be given a chance to persuade the casting director/director that they may be great for the spot.  Or if they a blonde does submit he/she wouldn't even be called in for an audition because there are hundreds of non blondes that have already submitted.  So it is hard to convince someone if you never get a chance to meet them.

I am not complaining about the competition...it is what it is.  I just brought up this thread to see if other people...especially blondes have noticed this too.

Dan Howell Tearsheets wrote:

You state that like it is a widely accepted fact. It isn't. It's simply your observation which, in my opinion, is incorrect or lacks a broader view of the industry. Actually, that's being kind. Your observation is likely to be the opposite of the reality. Although it would be almost impossible to make a truly empirical survey, I would suspect a broad view of the models/actors actually cast in projects is statistically higher than the population by a great margin which would refute your observation.

Actually I never stated this was fact.  I mentioned that this is a pattern that I have been noticing and I have posted this thread to see if other people have noticed this as well.  Of course I don't see all of the casting calls in the world/US.  I only see the casting calls that fit my age group in the Los Angeles Area so again this is why I brought up this post to see if other models/actors in other areas other age groups see this too.

I have seen it frequently enough to make we wonder if this truly is a pattern in the industry.  I am interested in peoples feedback.

Zack Zoll wrote:
So I can only speak for myself.  But were I to say 'no blondes', it would be because you're a lot more likely to get bottle blondes than actual blondes, and I don't want to see roots or super-dark eyebrows on a blonde.  Ditto for redheads ... I think about half of the "redheads" I've met/photographed actually had red hair, and a lot of them didn't even have believable red hair.  You see a lot of blondes or redheads, presumably who did the dye job themselves, that don't understand how colour works as applied to your hair, and don't understand that the same tone doesn't look right on everyone.

If I was a casting director, and I just wanted 'a natural girl' and I didn't care who she was of have any personal interest in the project, I'd probably ask for a brunette.  You might get some dyed black brunettes, but most of the brown-haired women you get will actually have brown hair.

No, it's not fair that I'd make a blanket statement that excludes a lot of naturally coloured blondes or redheads, or those that have their colour done well.  But it could save me half a day of wasted time in casting, so fairness goes right out the window.

But that's just me.  Maybe these other guys really do dislike blondes, I don't know.

You are probably right.  Again this is probably a stereotype that most blondes are bottle blondes and it is poorly done. Again that is just a stereotypel

I know it is not fair and that is not really the issue here because when it comes to modeling/acting most of it isn't fair.  Just ask any 5'3" model. Or any actor that may be really good but just hasn't had the chance to shine yet. This post isn't really to say this isn't fair because that doesn't matter.  I am just curious if this is something other people have noticed.

I don't expect anything to change. Again this comes down to me being curoius to see if this is truly a pattern in the industry or just my perception based upon the information that I see.

Misty R H wrote:
I have seen it frequently enough to make we wonder if this truly is a pattern in the industry.  I am interested in peoples feedback.

What I've seen quite frequently, actually throughout my life, is that blondes are much more often portrayed as the "bad" or "mean" girl... or, yes, the "ditz."

You are not alone.

Yosh Studio wrote:
I dont know much about the LA film market. But, I do know about the LA fashion market and as far as the major agencies are concerned, authentic real natural blondes, such as Aussie, Norwegian, Scandinavian, etc. are always in depend.

And the opposite being true of the fake, bleach blond.

I do think you are right that natural blondes would be in demand for fashion work.  This is of course assuming that the blondes have the age and body stats for fashion.  For the purpose of this thread I am mainly asking about the commercial market.

Carl Blum Photography wrote:
If you are a true Commercial Actress/Model I would have expected you to have all the hair colors available in your Portfolio.
Wigs are Cheap and not so damaging to your hair...

You bring up an interesting point, I wish it was that simple.  The thing is what would a commercial model/actor put as his/her hair color in the stats section of the the casting websites?  Multiple colors is not an option.  For one casting call a model/actor may need to be blonde for another casting call brown hair may be needed.

If it were as simple as just putting on a wig then casting websites, Model Mayhem and agencies wouldn't include hair color in the stats section.  Also casting calls/directors wouldn't request specific hair color because technically with a wig anyone could have any hair color.   So it would seem that models/actors can't rely on just wearing a wig to quickly change their hair color.

Vector One Photography wrote:
In don't usually shoot blondes for three reasons. First, blondes are a dime a dozen. Second, most of the time it's a color not found on human beings.

depends on where you live. My boyfriend lives in holland, and there are tons of natural blonde adults here, and not the brownish-blonde, but really light, golden, blonde. And pretty much all dutch children (unless they have foreign roots, like maroccan) are blonde. You can also find a lot more blondes in scandinavian countries. So to say that it's a color not found on human beings is incorrect.

Jordan Bunniie wrote:
Casting that say "no blondes" just means they dont think blonde hair fits the look theyre casting for.

thats all.

This.