Forums > Photography Talk > Terry Richardson pulls down $58M

Photographer

Solas

Posts: 9538

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

But what does he profit? Is that revenue or...what?

Jul 13 13 11:47 am Link

Model

Miroslava Svoboda

Posts: 555

Seattle, Washington, US

Karl Johnston wrote:
But what does he profit? Is that revenue or...what?

Karl you are not speaking the right language here big_smile but yes good point.

Jul 13 13 11:51 am Link

Photographer

Digitoxin

Posts: 13345

Houston, Texas, US

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
$58 million between June 2012 and June 2013. I'd like to know where and how they got those figures especially as the end of June was only a few weeks ago.
$4+ million a month ! that's a calculation of shooting 12 months of the year.

This.

June 2013 ended less than 2 weeks ago.  Here is what I know for certain:

PR guys can really chum the water.  Want to get more pay?  Get folks believing that you already make $58m a year!

Two things we should consider:

1) Richardson is a private citizen and his contracts, income, and details are private.  NOBODY knows.
2) there is great advantage for anyone at the top of their game to exaggerate their income because, as noted above, it might help in future negotiations.

That said, did Mr. Richardson make a good salary last year?  SURE.  Was it $58m?  Only he (or his finanical handlers) know, and they aren't talking....only the PR engine is.

Jul 13 13 12:23 pm Link

Photographer

Digitoxin

Posts: 13345

Houston, Texas, US

Karl Johnston wrote:
But what does he profit? Is that revenue or...what?

There are no facts.  There is only PR spin.  The spin is designed to increase leverage in future negotiations.

Ever tell a potential employer that you earn $10k more than you do to set the negotiation bar higher?  Hint: it often works to get you a little more money.......

That may be the case here.  Pure PR as I mentioned above.

Jul 13 13 12:26 pm Link

Photographer

Solas

Posts: 9538

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Miroslava Svoboda wrote:

Karl you are not speaking the right language here big_smile but yes good point.

meh, math and numbers confuse me enough...;_; lloll you got the point

Jul 13 13 12:27 pm Link

Photographer

AJ_In_Atlanta

Posts: 12868

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Select Models wrote:

Are you SERIOUS?!?!?!?... I saw a picture of his butt ugly mug... and I'm thinkin 'oh Hell no'... lol

You must not have read the numorous allegations over the years.  I am sure over the lifetime of work, inherited assests, and proper management he is capable of making millions.  Again he is also smart enough to never release that information.  If he has a good accountant I would be surprised if his income went into the six figure range wink

Jul 13 13 12:36 pm Link

Photographer

Volition Graphics

Posts: 462

Seattle, Washington, US

Checked profile. No wonder.

>Edit Profile>>Compensation>>>Change from Time For Print to Paid Assignments Only
Click Update.

Done.

Let the millions begin.

Still waiting...

Jul 13 13 12:42 pm Link

Photographer

WIP

Posts: 15682

Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom

Maybe the journalist who wrote the article had problems with maths and missed the decimal point $ 5.8 Mill.

Jul 13 13 12:53 pm Link

Photographer

zaxpix

Posts: 1988

New Brunswick, New Jersey, US

Haters gonna hate.

Ballers gonna ball.

http://pedestriantv-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/article/2011/04/01/terry-richardson-gossip-girl-1-642-380.jpg

Z.

Jul 13 13 07:45 pm Link

Photographer

Mark Salo

Posts: 8603

Olney, Maryland, US

Karl Johnston wrote:
But what does he profit? Is that revenue or...what?

Yes, net or gross?

Jul 13 13 07:57 pm Link

Photographer

DavidHbad

Posts: 22

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

ChiMo wrote:
Forget the rest of the article. Check the part near the bottom:

"Richardson has shot ad campaigns for top fashion houses from Tom Ford to Yves Saint Laurent and made a whopping $58 million between June 2012 and June 2013."

http://gagadaily.com/index.php?showtopic=52518&st=0

This is why when I read about people talking about "classy" versus "not classy" nude photography, I think it's the dumbest thing in the world.

The aim - for me, at least - is to be working. Whatever the job calls for I do. I hear that he's a pervert and uses his position for sex - of course he does. Women in power do it too. It's the power of his position, and no model or actor/actress has to do it.

I just hope that people don't mistake their own preferences and ideals with the reality of how business works - especially in media and entertainment, where you can derail yourself without realizing it.

I don't add to these chats because this is still a competitive field, but I just had a "Richardson" talk today, so this felt like I was meant to comment. I don't even log on that often, either.

So - yes, pervert and all that, but it's the reality of the field in the first place. I've been working for only a few years, but this has been very true from what I've seen also.

Anyway = goodnight! smile

Jul 13 13 08:04 pm Link

Photographer

DavidHbad

Posts: 22

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

zaxpix wrote:
Haters gonna hate.

Ballers gonna ball.

http://pedestriantv-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/article/2011/04/01/terry-richardson-gossip-girl-1-642-380.jpg

Z.

+1. Didn't see you already said it. Glad to see someone gets it.

Jul 13 13 08:04 pm Link

Photographer

Guss W

Posts: 10650

Clearwater, Florida, US

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:
...
richard learoyd's photographs sell for about $40,000 each.

and in my opinion, his photographs are meaningful.

...

Did he get his start shooting corpses at the morgue?

Jul 13 13 10:40 pm Link

Photographer

Lentille de Guerre

Posts: 149

Seattle, Washington, US

Image Magik wrote:
Yes, and they say there's no money in photography anymore...

There's not, Richardson has it all.

Jul 14 13 12:02 am Link

Photographer

Xperience Media

Posts: 244

Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

He is blatant, audacious and confronting. Paparazzi comes to fashion. He developed this unique selling point when most other fashion photographers played safe.  Works for him and a good lesson for all - follow your vision - disrupt the market.

Jul 14 13 02:42 pm Link

Photographer

Marcio Faustino

Posts: 2144

Freiburg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

If there paying it I'd have no problem.

Just about to draft a some letters (Tom Ford to Yves Saint Laurent)

Dear whoever it may concern,

I'm an average photographer but if you could hire me a great model(s), MUA's, stylist, assistants, camera, lighting, retouchers and a few more people just to hang around the hire studio I'm sure I could come up with some great images.

My fee would be reasonable only $1mill a week (I could bump it up another $20, 000 a week for lunches)  this would also help your tax loss..... better than handing the money over to the IRS.

Who cares about photos. If you don't have name you don't have chance. smile

Jul 14 13 03:44 pm Link

Photographer

1k-words-photograpy

Posts: 355

Leesburg, Virginia, US

Bravo, gives me hope.

Jul 14 13 04:06 pm Link

Photographer

Image Studios

Posts: 177

Marengo, Illinois, US

Well I thank Terry for his generous tax money he must pay. I know when it comes down to it I end up paying 50% in taxes on my income. 39% federal. 7% state and then I have the additional payroll tax when ends up to be 50%. That would mean he had to pay $29 million in taxes.

That is a lot of taxes.

Jul 14 13 04:18 pm Link

Photographer

Michael Zahra

Posts: 1106

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Ya, but you have to consider the capital investment he's made that he has to recover...  point-n-shoot and on-camera flash all need to get paid for.

Jul 14 13 04:33 pm Link

Photographer

Chicchowmein

Posts: 14496

Palm Beach, Florida, US

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:

ChiMo wrote:
http://gagadaily.com/index.php?showtopic=52518&st=0

learoyd is for sure a hero of mine.  but i'm not even close to his work, and it's not from a lack of trying!

Maybe it's meaningful to you but art is subjective

Just because something speaks to you doesn't means it speaks to everyone else.

Jul 14 13 05:07 pm Link

Photographer

L A U B E N H E I M E R

Posts: 8844

Seattle, Washington, US

Chicchowmein wrote:

Maybe it's meaningful to you but art is subjective

Just because something speaks to you doesn't means it speaks to everyone else.

true....

money speaks....

Jul 14 13 05:21 pm Link

Photographer

Chicchowmein

Posts: 14496

Palm Beach, Florida, US

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:
true....

money speaks....

I like some of Terry's work.

Not all of it -- but make no mistake he knows how to light. I think he's a sleaze but it doesn't mean I think he is entirely without merit. I've seen some nice campaigns from him.

He's got game and he's got the name.

Jul 14 13 05:24 pm Link

Photographer

Chicchowmein

Posts: 14496

Palm Beach, Florida, US

Michael Zahra wrote:
Ya, but you have to consider the capital investment he's made that he has to recover...  point-n-shoot and on-camera flash all need to get paid for.

If you think that is all he has ever done you're mistaken -- I think he's laughing all the way to the bank.

I also think he is thumbing his nose at the establishment.

Again -- don't get me wrong -- Personally he's not my cup of tea but he's more than on camera flash and point n shoot.

it's not about the gear

Jul 14 13 05:27 pm Link

Photographer

udor

Posts: 22759

New York, New York, US

Chicchowmein wrote:
I like some of Terry's work.

Not all of it -- but make no mistake he knows how to light. I think he's a sleaze but it doesn't mean I think he is entirely without merit. I've seen some nice campaigns from him.

He's got game and he's got the name.

I am in agreement with everything you've said!

Jul 14 13 05:29 pm Link

Photographer

Mortonovich

Posts: 5713

San Diego, California, US

udor wrote:

Hey Udor, you're kinda on the inside  . . . is $58M even realistic?
How is that possible?

Edit- I see you sort of touched on that answer already. Thanks!!

Jul 14 13 07:50 pm Link

Photographer

Camerosity

Posts: 5334

Saint Louis, Missouri, US

I'm not sure the Rolling Stones or Led Zep ever made $58 million in a year - especially if you don't count concert tours, which is where the real money is in that business.

Jul 14 13 09:32 pm Link

Photographer

Robert Lynch

Posts: 2484

Bowie, Maryland, US

Image Magik wrote:
Yes, and they say there's no money in photography anymore...

There was.  Unfortunately there was only $58 million and he got it all.

Jul 14 13 09:36 pm Link

Photographer

Robert Lynch

Posts: 2484

Bowie, Maryland, US

Image Studios wrote:
Well I thank Terry for his generous tax money he must pay. I know when it comes down to it I end up paying 50% in taxes on my income. 39% federal. 7% state and then I have the additional payroll tax when ends up to be 50%. That would mean he had to pay $29 million in taxes.

That is a lot of taxes.

Assuming, for a moment, that he made that much money, there is still no way he paid anywhere near that amount in taxes.  No one who makes that much money pays that much in taxes unless the people working for them are incompetent.

Jul 14 13 09:41 pm Link

Photographer

Kaostika Studios

Posts: 267

New York, New York, US

58 million is more then all of MM makes.

Jul 14 13 11:02 pm Link

Photographer

Mark C Smith

Posts: 933

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

He's a shrewd businessman in general, photography is far from his only income stream.

Jul 15 13 04:27 am Link

Photographer

SoCo n Lime

Posts: 3283

Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom

Jakov Markovic wrote:
money can't buy you love.

im pretty sure it can wink

im sure creating such sums of money has more to do with the people behind him that are making the money and the deals and has little to do with richardson selling himself.. He has a style and product that people can sell and also make money from

Jul 15 13 06:44 am Link

Photographer

L A U B E N H E I M E R

Posts: 8844

Seattle, Washington, US

Mark C Smith wrote:
He's a shrewd businessman in general, photography is far from his only income stream.

income stream....

i dunno...

Jul 15 13 07:25 am Link

Photographer

EyeCanShoot

Posts: 1169

Orlando, Florida, US

Miroslava Svoboda wrote:

lol

Bahahah!

Jul 15 13 08:59 am Link

Photographer

BeachBoudoir

Posts: 781

Robertsdale, Alabama, US

Jul 15 13 09:08 am Link

Photographer

Christopher Hartman

Posts: 54153

Buena Park, California, US

Maybe they meant 5.8 million.

Jul 15 13 09:22 am Link

Photographer

Gpro

Posts: 649

Salisbury, Maryland, US

Wow, I thought Terry just did photography for the chicks.

Jul 15 13 09:30 am Link

Photographer

Christopher Hartman

Posts: 54153

Buena Park, California, US

JonPhoto wrote:
I'm guessing this is fake.
http://en.mediamass.net/people/terry-ri … -paid.html

HA! big_smile

Jul 15 13 09:46 am Link

Photographer

AVD AlphaDuctions

Posts: 10573

Gatineau, Quebec, Canada

Christopher Hartman wrote:

HA! big_smile

nononononononnnnnnnnoooooo terry is real. mediamass is fake tongue

Jul 15 13 12:49 pm Link

Photographer

Jirrupin

Posts: 1743

Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

i wonder what his average gig is worth, ie is he pulling a 4-5m gig every month, or cramming in a 1m gig every week?

Jul 16 13 02:59 am Link

Photographer

WIP

Posts: 15682

Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom

Maybe the $58M is the value placed on his work by Art Capital as with Annie Leibovitz images.

Jul 16 13 03:31 am Link