WIP wrote:
Are you saying that Abaddon Thirteen is not a pro model as she does tf.

Nope. I have always said models will do tf for the right job. Hell they will even contribute and pay for the right job. It's the delusional expectation that they need to is the problem.

Listen to what she is saying rather than what you cherry pick from it.
She's here to work not have fun. Which Ive always said too. I've never really got that because to me it's serious - it's not about me it's about the vision, the work, whether it's fun or not or paid or not. I just think it sad for photographers that some believe things that cause them frustration.
Like we don't earn money....


And have a look at the paid castings some time; and also realise our ports here we can use to promote ourselves to off site clients for our main work. I joined here to do tf remember? It just went rather better than I expected and it was just so I could show people offsite what I do. 15% of my jobs from here direct. But lots more having an online port for off site clients.


Anyway as I said I'm butting out so please don't address me or my posts they are there to make of what you will I've no agenda. Only trying to help. Chat by pm if ya want.

Abaddon Thirteen wrote:
Sorry to interrupt but I think people should relax a bit.

I was a high fashion agency signed model for about 5 years. Two different top 4 agencies in the country. And I did fashion week, I'm not talking about freaking commercial modelling.
And keep in mind I worked mainly in Portugal where the rates are about half to 1/3 of the ones asked in London.

I never got less that 150€ for a half-day work. NEVER. And those numbers were on my early years, as a newface.

I received jobs paying 300€, 500€ and even 10.000€. Of course, all the commercial modelling jobs are paid above 1.000€. And commercial means catalogue, advertising or any means were SOMEONE will make money out of that picture/video/whatever.

So, really... I don't know what most photographers around here are complaining about. I recently showed my hourly rate to a photographer and he didn't even had the guts to answer me. And I asked less than half from what I was paid in my early years...

You have a personal project. You need a model. You ask a professional experienced model to work with you. This work won't benefit the model in any way... You pay the model.

You are a model. You need to update your portfolio with great pictures. You ask the professional photographer and he says he doesn't think the work will benefit him... you ask his rates... you pay him.

You are a model/photographer in need of pictures and you find a model/photographer that thinks that the collaboration will have great results for both... you trade services.

It's simple. It's a market. It's an industry.

Agree.

I and several other photographers have said the same.

Nice to have an agency model say so as well.

Nobody disputes that. Well maybe a bunch of dorky photographers. Akin to the 5'0" 300lbs newb who wants $200/hr (strangely enough there might actually be somebody out there willing to pay that).

And many of us know that there is far more to modelling than Haute Couture. And even with the stats, few girls are making a living at that. And the same goes for photographers.

And it is unfortunate that to most of the peeps on MM, modelling = Haute Couture.

To disabuse them of this erroneous idea, is a good thing. There are the multitude of options in modelling that Eliza has pointed out, as ways to make some coin.

However that is not generally what MM is about. Most photographers on MM are looking for Haute Couture stat models, or Figure models. (Alt, Fet etc. are an even smaller subset).
So...

Tony did misspeak a long time ago in a thread far, far away. He was taken to task and admitted he was wrong. However most of the time, from the perspective of the market he is familiar with, he tends to be right. Funny thing is that Eliza is mostly right from the perspective of her market. And guess what so am I from the perspective of my market. However none of us can, or should generalize to the world wide market.

And if somebody would write abstracts, instead of a full thesis in posts, they might actually get their points across, and get more agreement.

WIP wrote:

Are you saying that Abaddon Thirteen is not a pro model as she does tf.

I will work TF for the right team or "service". Even agency models do that. Vogue does that. Most high end fashion magazines do that. But I won't work TF with anyone who asks. Models usually trade for hair services, for example. They do deals with hair dressers so they keep their hair in good shape and healthy and the girls shoot their campaigns for free. It ends up being quite good for the girls, since a professional top hair cut costs around 120€. And we cut it around 6 times a year.
I once did that with a tattoo artist... 250€ worth of tattoo work. :p And the pictures got published.
So, yes... even agency models do TF. Very limited TF. And highly worth.
I think people need to understand their limitations and what their work is worth. Our work is a currency and we need to be very careful when trading, since we can make it loose... value. Hence the "very limited".

Every professional, from lawyers to doctors, is able to trade. That won't make him an "amateur". An amateur is measured by his experience, not the currency he uses. :p

I'm still not sure why all this talking about "modelling industry". People use Model Mayhem to find models or photographers... so yes, it's modelling industry. Even low ranked football players are football players.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

If you're not in retail or advertising, you're shooting sentimental photos (weddings/bar mitzvahs/senior portraits) or you're not making a solid living. There's really nothing else.

Though the destruction of network TV is leading to a "content industry".

WOW!  I am so glad someone took the time to point this out to me.  Time to pack up and go home I guess.

Abaddon Thirteen wrote:
So, really... I don't know what most photographers around here are complaining about. I recently showed my hourly rate to a photographer and he didn't even had the guts to answer me. And I asked less than half from what I was paid in my early years...

You have a personal project. You need a model. You ask a professional experienced model to work with you. This work won't benefit the model in any way... You pay the model.

You are a model. You need to update your portfolio with great pictures. You ask the professional photographer and he says he doesn't think the work will benefit him... you ask his rates... you pay him.

You are a model/photographer in need of pictures and you find a model/photographer that thinks that the collaboration will have great results for both... you trade services.

It's simple. It's a market. It's an industry.

Awesomely stated.

This site serves me very, very well. No complaints from me.

This is a hobby to me.  Out of hundreds of prospects here on MM, and I have asked hundreds, the very few I do get to work with keep me busy enough; not enough time, not enough in the budget, lol.

The few models who are interested in what I do get some $$ out of it and get to participate in something they might, um, find fun.   

Nothing more, nothing less.   

Thus I agree that this is an industry, maybe not high fashion or mainstream in my case but I digress.

For a near-future shoot I want to do, I have a few new prospects here at MM and two from other social media.  For this hobbyist, not enough time, not enough in the budget.  Hmm.  Decisions, decisions.

Thank you, Mayhem! Love ya!

Herman Surkis wrote:
Agree.

I and several other photographers have said the same.

Nice to have an agency model say so as well.

Nobody disputes that. Well maybe a bunch of dorky photographers. Akin to the 5'0" 300lbs newb who wants $200/hr (strangely enough there might actually be somebody out there willing to pay that).

And many of us know that there is far more to modelling than Haute Couture. And even with the stats, few girls are making a living at that. And the same goes for photographers.

And it is unfortunate that to most of the peeps on MM, modelling = Haute Couture.

To disabuse them of this erroneous idea, is a good thing. There are the multitude of options in modelling that Eliza has pointed out, as ways to make some coin.

However that is not generally what MM is about. Most photographers on MM are looking for Haute Couture stat models, or Figure models. (Alt, Fet etc. are an even smaller subset).
So...

Tony did misspeak a long time ago in a thread far, far away. He was taken to task and admitted he was wrong. However most of the time, from the perspective of the market he is familiar with, he tends to be right. Funny thing is that Eliza is mostly right from the perspective of her market. And guess what so am I from the perspective of my market. However none of us can, or should generalize to the world wide market.

And if somebody would write abstracts, instead of a full thesis in posts, they might actually get their points across, and get more agreement.

This is a very well made post Herman.

However, at the last point you lose it.
I have nothing to add more to the debate here and if you actually look the only ones left arguing are those who see the industry as only high fashion. And there is a fashion model here who has told us what those models earn. This was rejected from me. Few of you know what showroom entails for eg, or can believe what a normal commercial gig can pay. I've given rates of bog standard agencies before. Thirteen has now told you the same. So when a pro model offers you a
day rate say of 250 or 500 euros, she is not dreaming, its certainly not hobbyists that are paying it, and saying she us,dreaming, or that only hobbyists pay it is insulting. Try a bog standand agency for their rates and you will see it is so. They will also check you out so expect to give references. And if I can get some of those paid castings on MM models like Thirteen definitely will. And they aren't hobbyist castings.


And just to say Tonys right about TF and testing. The first I've only encountered on the internet. It goes without saying that models will 'trade' or have massively reduced rates for editorial, as do agencies. Or for multi team collaboration efforts to showcase what you do in other ways.  I've just never heard it referred to as tf. The terminology not the barter. Testing however is something that photographers do with models and it is called that for a reason. It's NOT for commercial use. It's for your book and theirs and the agency. If you google the top agencies, you will find dozens of photographers on MM testing for those agencies. But only a small number will get paid to do it. I'm assuming it's what some photographers are after. And therefore judge all by that. Yet it's not the industry it's a niche. The photographer still for the most part will have to find other clients. Some find aspiring models if course. But again it's a niche or just a small part of their job. Likewise it's a very small part of what models do. So it's not something those outside that field can expect all the time. It should be obvious for example that a life model does not need to test much; and that fashion models are only going to test with agency approved photographers.


For most models and photographers that whole testing thing isn't relevant. The castings models look at here are mostly third party ones such as hair and designer and fashion company ones. I've proved this by views.

Now your last point. An abstract is nothing alone. You are able to rely on it when reading a paper to some extent because you make assumptions from that plus conclusions that you don't need the 40 000 words and 200 page appendix that may support it that it may be based on.
The nature of discourse is that when an opinion is expressed is to ssupport it or see  if it can be falsified. So that takes evidence, citation, data, and rational argument. Resort to ad hominem is always fallacious and indicative of lost argument. These are the rules of civilised debate the world over. It takes length. If contributing to debate people should expect to defend opinions and falsify them with evidence and argument. Not merely statement of unsupported opinion, and personal attack when challenged.

But I am through now with this debate. I don't actually think theres much disagreement. You've summed it up well Herman. It's clear that the site is mostly hobbyists but that's ok they don't deserve contempt of others they keep camera companies in business. Modelling may not be for all  but cameras certainly are! But even if only 10% of people here make their living or a part of their living as professionals across or in niches of these industries, that's 85 000 people here. Take out 35% for non active ports if you like it's still a hell of a lot. And those people use MM to network, apply for odd castings, and in the case of models host ports to market themselves to off site clients. If you encounter them don't be surprised if they aren't playing at this, and be careful because they aren't Kate Moss or Testino that you don't think they don't earn a living in areas you didn't even know existed. But when you state you do something for 'fun' be aware that can come across as 'not serious'.


As for your 'views' post Herman, what does it mean when the tumbleweeds pass through the tf castings? How does 4 views break down? You see your attempt to falsify my data is invalid.


That's enough and longer that what I wanted to put - apologies.

Abaddon Thirteen wrote:
Testing has nothing to do with TF and AGENCY MODELS DO TEST AND DO TRADE.

I have no idea about the agency models and agencies you guys have experience with to come here and say "agency models don't trade". They trade ALL THE TIME. Two years ago a scandal involving Marc Jacobs not paying his models got a lot of media attention. He paid his models with trade: shoes, bags, even LV socks. Freakin' socks. And we are talking about Marc Jacobs and top agencies.

Many designers pay models with trade: clothing, shoes, hair styling,... Sometimes the full job is paid with trade, sometimes they pay half in cash, half in trade. That's why you see models with LV handbags and Chanel shoes: they don't buy this stuff... THEY GET PAID WITH THOSE.

I have my closet full of designer clothing and shoes. I never spent one cent with those, I got paid with those.

I think people tend to romanticize agency models. Only commercial models are nicely paid. They can earn 10.000€ per month. Fashion models get badly paid jobs (and I'm talking from 150€ to 1.000€). The best paying jobs I got were for commercials or outside my agency (hair saloons pay A LOT).

I got plenty of fashion work on MM, before I got signed (2009). Paid work. I don't know how things go today, since I just returned here one week ago, but I hope to get some paid jobs now too.

you're right, but most photographers can't stand it when turned down by agency models

trades happen at any level, as long as it's in balance, or somebody is granting you a possibility.

But that's all....just most photographers don't see it that way, they always think their work is good enough...they hardly see it from other perspectives....

Abaddon Thirteen wrote:
So, really... I don't know what most photographers around here are complaining about. I recently showed my hourly rate to a photographer and he didn't even had the guts to answer me. And I asked less than half from what I was paid in my early years...

You have a personal project. You need a model. You ask a professional experienced model to work with you. This work won't benefit the model in any way... You pay the model.

You are a model. You need to update your portfolio with great pictures. You ask the professional photographer and he says he doesn't think the work will benefit him... you ask his rates... you pay him.

You are a model/photographer in need of pictures and you find a model/photographer that thinks that the collaboration will have great results for both... you trade services.

It's simple. It's a market. It's an industry.

very concise !

Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com

Herman van Gestel wrote:
you're right, but most photographers can't stand it when turned down by agency models

trades happen at any level, as long as it's in balance, or somebody is granting you a possibility.

But that's all....just most photographers don't see it that way, they always think their work is good enough...they hardly see it from other perspectives....

Ahah, you got it.

Trades must benefit both parts. That's what most people seem to have problems understanding. For example, if a designer tells me to shoot a catalogue and that he's paying me with clothing I will send him my rates (let's say... 250€) and he will have to pay me with 250€ worth of clothes. Simple.

With photographers is a bit more complicated. I made a policy recently to be paid with photographic gear, since I'm trying to shoot festivals and live events for my music blog. So they get an opportunity to actually "trade". I also trade for services like tattoo work or hair styling so that gives an extra "trade opportunity". But other than that, photographers only get a "currency": print work. Publications. A fashion model will "always" trade for a printed cover. Or a really important editorial.

Testing is sooo different from everything else. Usually only new faces do tests. Or models who need to upgrade their portfolio due to weight loss/gain or look changes. Tests tend to be simple, mostly portrait, with little to none make-up and hairstyling. I worked for an entire month as an assistant in a Portuguese agency to gain experience and my job was to scout and take care of the young newfaces. I planned a hell lot of tests for those cutie pies. I had to decline 3 or 4 photographers who wanted to shoot them because their portfolio had "too much photoshop". Tests are really specific and must show all the model's potential.

Photographers don't need to get "angry" if an agency says no. I know a lot of "agency standard" models that would be ok to do a test or a trade. But people got this whole idea that "agency models are the only real models". It's bulls**t. I started as an alternative model. Later I got agency signed. Now I'm returning to work as a freelancer. I got lots of experience NOT because of being agency signed but because I got to work with great teams. And now that I'm by my own I didn't loose my experience or anything.

Top agencies usually don't "test" with "unpublished" photographers. So why even bother trying? You can get better pictures from non agency signed models. "Testing models" are so inexperienced that sometimes is really "painful" to work with them. Trust me, I spent a whole day trying to teach a new face how to pose and behave in front of the camera. Sure they usually are really skinny and tall but what do you prefer: a skinny and tall mannequin or a slim and shorter posing machine? And when I mean shorter, I mean 1,70m minimum.

What I find here in MM is that most models try to be something they are not. Girls, if you are shorter than 1,70m and larger than a 89-65-95 you will never be a fashion model. Not even for catalogues. All clothes are a size UK10 maximum. Just try something else! Like nudes or lingerie or alternative or glamour. You will end up earning more than fashion models do, anyway. xD

Abaddon Thirteen wrote:
Ahah, you got it.

that is a non-issue for me,  i never ever  had any problems getting agency models.. ...i was lucky enough to start right

But this is a question i get very often when i'm giving workshops about fashion-photography...they simply can't understand it....especially when a model tries to explain it...most models just refer to the agency...

you really explained it very clear and concise, but it hits somewhere a brick wall with most photographers

Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com

Herman Surkis wrote:
Some people here are locked into a concept and cannot see another point of view.

The vast majority of people on MM are hobbyists (photographers and models), or deluded wannabees (photographers and models).

There is a sprinkling of (percentage wise) actual pros. And some of the pros are not pros in what they come to MM. As an example some photographers here make big money shooting product, and like to shoot models for fun time. Some pro models may be high fashion, and come here to shoot arty stuff, or they may be 'parts models' but figure the rest of them ain't too shabby. 

Some come to network with pros in other fields. Looking for a stylist, MUA etc.

...

Horses for courses.

Now it bears repeating.
We mostly agree that, and we mostly constantly seem to forget that...

If I benefit you more than you benefit me, then you pay me.

If you benefit me more than I benefit you, then I pay you.

And if we are relatively equal, then perhaps trade.

Just to remind, that I and others have said this pages back, as well as on other threads.

Abaddon Thirteen wrote:

Ahah, you got it.

Trades must benefit both parts. That's what most people seem to have problems understanding. For example, if a designer tells me to shoot a catalogue and that he's paying me with clothing I will send him my rates (let's say... 250€) and he will have to pay me with 250€ worth of clothes. Simple.

With photographers is a bit more complicated. I made a policy recently to be paid with photographic gear, since I'm trying to shoot festivals and live events for my music blog. So they get an opportunity to actually "trade". I also trade for services like tattoo work or hair styling so that gives an extra "trade opportunity". But other than that, photographers only get a "currency": print work. Publications. A fashion model will "always" trade for a printed cover. Or a really important editorial.

Testing is sooo different from everything else. Usually only new faces do tests. Or models who need to upgrade their portfolio due to weight loss/gain or look changes. Tests tend to be simple, mostly portrait, with little to none make-up and hairstyling. I worked for an entire month as an assistant in a Portuguese agency to gain experience and my job was to scout and take care of the young newfaces. I planned a hell lot of tests for those cutie pies. I had to decline 3 or 4 photographers who wanted to shoot them because their portfolio had "too much photoshop". Tests are really specific and must show all the model's potential.

Photographers don't need to get "angry" if an agency says no. I know a lot of "agency standard" models that would be ok to do a test or a trade. But people got this whole idea that "agency models are the only real models". It's bulls**t. I started as an alternative model. Later I got agency signed. Now I'm returning to work as a freelancer. I got lots of experience NOT because of being agency signed but because I got to work with great teams. And now that I'm by my own I didn't loose my experience or anything.

Top agencies usually don't "test" with "unpublished" photographers. So why even bother trying? You can get better pictures from non agency signed models. "Testing models" are so inexperienced that sometimes is really "painful" to work with them. Trust me, I spent a whole day trying to teach a new face how to pose and behave in front of the camera. Sure they usually are really skinny and tall but what do you prefer: a skinny and tall mannequin or a slim and shorter posing machine? And when I mean shorter, I mean 1,70m minimum.

What I find here in MM is that most models try to be something they are not. Girls, if you are shorter than 1,70m and larger than a 89-65-95 you will never be a fashion model. Not even for catalogues. All clothes are a size UK10 maximum. Just try something else! Like nudes or lingerie or alternative or glamour. You will end up earning more than fashion models do, anyway. xD

Geez, you sound like a blend of Tony and Eliza.

Not sure if that is a compliment or not. 

And even worse, I tend to agree with you.

Herman Surkis wrote:
The vast majority of people on MM are hobbyists (photographers and models), or deluded wannabees (photographers and models

Deluded wannabee here. 

Yeah for my team!

WIP wrote:
Is it safe to come out !

LOL

I M N Photography wrote:
Pages and pages later...
"Is Model Mayhem Not About the Modeling Industry?"
Answer: Yes

It is about hobbyists: photographers and models.

Sure, you can sprinkle in a few people that make (or have made in the past) a respectable income working in "the industry", but most of those that want monetary compensation are simply trying to work this website as some sort of employment agency. The conventional methods are probably alien to them, or they simply know that they can't compete with other people in "the industry."

Model Mayhem is mainly a social media marketplace for people that either wish to photograph other people, or wish to be photographed by others.

The MM business model: Hobbyists hire others to work with/for them.
The IB business model: Members purchase ad space or upgrades.

MUAs, hair/wardrobe stylists, and painters are the hidden gems within the microcosm that this website has become.

+1

I M N Photography wrote:
Pages and pages later...
"Is Model Mayhem Not About the Modeling Industry?"
Answer: Yes

It is about hobbyists: photographers and models.

Sure, you can sprinkle in a few people that make (or have made in the past) a respectable income working in "the industry", but most of those that want monetary compensation are simply trying to work this website as some sort of employment agency. The conventional methods are probably alien to them, or they simply know that they can't compete with other people in "the industry."

Model Mayhem is mainly a social media marketplace for people that either wish to photograph other people, or wish to be photographed by others.

The MM business model: Hobbyists hire others to work with/for them.
The IB business model: Members purchase ad space or upgrades.

MUAs, hair/wardrobe stylists, and painters are the hidden gems within the microcosm that this website has become.

+1

I do agree with the notion that MM is or can be categorized as a "hobbyist internet based industry" sprinkled with hidden gems and a few working/former working INDUSTRY professionals. 

Furthermore, this MM playground is NOT a relevant "so-called industry" contrary to the hobbyist mindset.  Also, this site is NOT and can NOT be recognized as relevant and or a viable source for those seeking the services of talents as it pertains to the overall professional model related INDUSTRY. 

(note-worthy industry clients seek to retain the services of such industry talents via direct on going working relationships, artist agencies, modeling agencies and or ad agencies... NOT via opening a MM account!)

GER Photography wrote:
There are some people here on MM that are in the professional fashion modeling "industry" but most are hobiests (like myself) or rank and file photographers with local photo studios and "models" who pose for anyone who comes along.

+1 (/thread)

P.S. The "Mayhem" primarily occurs in the fora, and you'll find that it's mostly "photographers" bickering with other "photographers. In March/April there's an annual influx of noob-shooters and new models, then each October/November most of them are gone like the weather they are only able to photograph in - which may be due to the budgetary constraints of their weekend-hobby. Of the remaining 15% of MM-noobs, 2/3rds are gone within 2/3 years. The remaining 5% either linger like a bad odor until they're good enough to make a bit of a living with their gear, and they start phasing-out their MM-time and filling it with money-making time, or they just linger & linger & linger........Pee Yew!!!

I'm in that 5% - but we don't know yet if I'm phasing-out MM or if I'm just a stinker Time will tell, I suppose!!

Abaddon Thirteen wrote:
Oh yada yada yada potato potato potato.

I don't know why we still bother to talk about this. Everyone has his own opinion and vision about MM. That's why we have an "about me" section.

+1 (Except for the bolded letter I've added for grammatical correctness )

Ðanny
BBM# 24C79149
(647) 794-7261 (Tablet)
http://www.dbiphotography.com
Posted by DBIphotography via my CrackBerry®

"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.”
~ George Orwell

Saadiq Photography wrote:
+1

I do agree with the notion that MM is or can be categorized as a "hobbyist internet based industry" sprinkled with hidden gems and a few working/former working INDUSTRY professionals. 

Furthermore, this MM playground is NOT a relevant "so-called industry" contrary to the hobbyist mindset.  Also, this site is NOT and can NOT be recognized as relevant and or a viable source for those seeking the services of talents as it pertains to the overall professional model related INDUSTRY. 

(note-worthy industry clients seek to retain the services of such industry talents via direct on going working relationships, artist agencies, modeling agencies and or ad agencies... NOT via opening a MM account!)

Nice summary!

MM could have gone a more industry relevant direction in the beginning when it made a lot of headwaves and was the new, cool thing on the block.

We had brick and mortar agencies (Elite LA and several others) opening profiles, or... applied for profiles, and according to moderator majority (I was for the acceptance) those were declined. Some bookers (from those agencies) opened accounts and when found out, were closed down.

So... from the very beginning, MM excluded the actual, real life industry... who then turned their backs on MM... too bad... to this day... I just can't wrap my head around that.

udor wrote:
Nice summary!

MM could have gone a more industry relevant direction in the beginning when it made a lot of headwaves and was the new, cool thing on the block.

We had brick and mortar agencies (Elite LA and several others) opening profiles, or... applied for profiles, and according to moderator majority (I was for the acceptance) those were declined. Some bookers (from those agencies) opened accounts and when found out, were closed down.

So... from the very beginning, MM excluded the actual, real life industry... who then turned their backs on MM... too bad... to this day... I just can't wrap my head around that.

After many of the comments I have seen over the past few weeks by so called industry pros I clearly understand why they would do that if there focus was reaching as many people as possible. Industry pros have a tendency to talk down and belittle others. I am sure that works with people that want to make it at all costs, but the average person would not put up with such behavior.

Is culture and the people the #1 reason given for why people leave the forums and the site in general.

Herman Surkis wrote:

I did not need a translation, and I think that scares me.

Oh me too.

I'm a horrible offender if I am replying from my tablet, (and my texts are the worst!!) Sometimes even I cannot tell what I was trying to say!

Jen

Fotticelli wrote:
"me"....

Maybe the reason we are here is different for many of us but, am I using it as an industry site? Not really but I am using the social aspect of it to participate in the industry. Sort of.
JenB"

This is a social site for people interested in modeling and model photography. Big modeling agencies would be idiots if they didn't use this site for scouting for talent. So, no, this is not an industry site but, yes, it is a public place where you can get noticed. If you have what happens to sell at the right moment.

Hmm, I wonder if there are more industry people here than the average person like me can imagine. Granted, the few that I am aware of are incredibly humble, gracious and do not flaunt themselves. Very down to earth.
Jen

udor wrote:

Nice summary!

MM could have gone a more industry relevant direction in the beginning when it made a lot of headwaves and was the new, cool thing on the block.

We had brick and mortar agencies (Elite LA and several others) opening profiles, or... applied for profiles, and according to moderator majority (I was for the acceptance) those were declined. Some bookers (from those agencies) opened accounts and when found out, were closed down.

So... from the very beginning, MM excluded the actual, real life industry... who then turned their backs on MM... too bad... to this day... I just can't wrap my head around that.

Holey cow,

Really? I cannot wrap my head around it either! ??

Jen

Is Model Mayhem Not About The Modeling Industry?

No.

London Fog wrote:
I wonder if IB (Model Mayhem) have had to buy extra bandwidth to cope with Eliza's posts!

Yes.


Next question?

udor wrote:

Nice summary!

MM could have gone a more industry relevant direction in the beginning when it made a lot of headwaves and was the new, cool thing on the block.

We had brick and mortar agencies (Elite LA and several others) opening profiles, or... applied for profiles, and according to moderator majority (I was for the acceptance) those were declined. Some bookers (from those agencies) opened accounts and when found out, were closed down.

So... from the very beginning, MM excluded the actual, real life industry... who then turned their backs on MM... too bad... to this day... I just can't wrap my head around that.

^^^  And this, my friends, is true!  ^^^

The Grand Artist wrote:
After many of the comments I have seen over the past few weeks by so called industry pros I clearly understand why they would do that if there focus was reaching as many people as possible. Industry pros have a tendency to talk down and belittle others. I am sure that works with people that want to make it at all costs, but the average person would not put up with such behavior.

Is culture and the people the #1 reason given for why people leave the forums and the site in general.

I really don't understand your comment, question and or grievance with the comments of others via this thread... I'll go on to say that your response actually appear to that of a troll or either you're simply playing dumb!  This site (forum included) is nothing more than a socal/networking playground filled with MAYHEM and sprinkled with a few knowledgeable, working INDUSTRY pros and or former INDUSTRY pros period!

Just to say it BOLDLY... You won't find ANY professional model industry related work deriving from within this MM playground!   So, how can that FACT as well as other subject related FACTS be perceived as belittling and or talking down to others?!

Also, just because I may have played a round or two of golf and Tiger Wood just happen to be on the same golf course doesn't make me a pro golfer. Sh%t the "greens" (what's left of them) know that I'm NOT worthy of giving any type of golf advice other than I have NO business with a golf club in my hands.  I said that to say; its very disingenuous for some to pass on hearsay, second, third hand info and or self indulgent lies via these forums as if its their own experienced FACTS.

Unless you've actually worked within the professional model related INDUSTRY you really don't have much (other than mayhem) to contribute on said subject matter.  That's not to say one shouldn't contribute their opinions but rather to say... opinions are just like a%%holes everyone has one and they all stink some more than others!

The Grand Artist wrote:
What is with all of you call me a troll in my own threads.

They must all be wrong.

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:

They must all be wrong.

All of the people calling anyone they disagree with a troll. Yes they are but this is nothing new for MM.


And this is my last response to this silliness.

udor wrote:
Nice summary!

MM could have gone a more industry relevant direction in the beginning when it made a lot of headwaves and was the new, cool thing on the block.

We had brick and mortar agencies (Elite LA and several others) opening profiles, or... applied for profiles, and according to moderator majority (I was for the acceptance) those were declined. Some bookers (from those agencies) opened accounts and when found out, were closed down.

So... from the very beginning, MM excluded the actual, real life industry... who then turned their backs on MM... too bad... to this day... I just can't wrap my head around that.

I can. If MM were to offer a large number of models of agency standard it would put off people who would justifiably reckon they could not compete. If the membership is made up of people who look the same as you do, then there's no reason 'you' can't be a model too.
I expect the calculation was made that the numbers would be too small to make the site viable.

TMG wrote:
I can. If MM were to offer a large number of models of agency standard it would put off people who would justifiably reckon they could not compete. If the membership is made up of people who look the same as you do, then there's no reason 'you' can't be a model too.
I expect the calculation was made that the numbers would be too small to make the site viable.

Naahh..., this decision was pre-commercial interest by IB, when we were still a community and business interests like the ones you are raising weren't part of the equation. What you are describing is actually the MO of America's Next Top Model... exactly... that's why that show is/was such b.s.!

One of the valid concerns was how to avoid the sluggo, e.g. slimy "model managers" and the verification process if that agency is legit or not.

So, it was decided not to include any agencies (and magazines at that time) on MM...

udor wrote:

Naahh..., this decision was pre-commercial interest by IB, when we were still a community and business interests like the ones you are raising weren't part of the equation. What you are describing is actually the MO of America's Next Top Model... exactly... that's why that show is/was such b.s.!

One of the valid concerns was how to avoid the sluggo, e.g. slimy "model managers" and the verification process if that agency is legit or not.

So, it was decided not to include any agencies (and magazines at that time) on MM...

Ah, that makes sense.