Hero Foto wrote:
WOW, it would seem a LOT of people got their panties in a bunch over this.

That might be because it is not only misleading, repetitive and essentially useless, it is also profoundly insulting to the modeling community, especially when posted on "their" forum by a photographer who attempts to foist it off as reality.

The icing on the cake is that you don't seem to understand this, at all.

Shadow Dancer wrote:
The icing on the cake is that you don't seem to understand this, at all.

lol .. oh I understand it, very well.

Hero Foto wrote:

lol .. oh I understand it, very well.

Then I guess I don't understand the motivation for what appears to be a self-destructive activity?

Shadow Dancer wrote:

That might be because it is not only misleading, repetitive and essentially useless, it is also profoundly insulting to the modeling community, especially when posted on "their" forum by a photographer who attempts to foist it off as reality.

The icing on the cake is that you don't seem to understand this, at all.

Fuck yes!!!

Hero Foto wrote:
WOW, it would seem a LOT of people got their panties in a bunch over this.

My panties have been in a bunch for quite some time, primarily over the fact that so much is expected from models, for so little.

Very few people who book freelance models online understand the stresses that come with modeling, even just as a part-time/side income. You must be ON POINT, from the time you walk in the door (preferably 15 minutes early), to the time you leave. That's not so different from most customer service jobs (modeling is essentially customer service),  but UNLIKE your average sales position, you will getting be getting up at 4am, driving 200 miles, to arrive at 7am, camera-ready and on-fuckin-point. You'll have people critically evaluating your body and face every day. You'll be working with a lot of people who've already decided they dislike or distrust freelance models, so rapport-building is everything. You get no breaks on that front. Every move you make will be evaluated critically by your client(s), until they feel they can trust you. Much of your work will come through referrals from photographers you've worked with in the past, so if you miss a beat, you miss out on a potential gig they could refer you to. Any mistake at a shoot, even just forgetting one piece of wardrobe they requested you bring, can cost your big time.

You will sometimes get up at 4am, drive 200 miles, only to find that the person you're scheduled to shoot with sent you a text, canceling, when you were 150 miles into your drive to their location. A lot of people cancel the night before, not giving you time to fill that spot with other work. If you have a cancellation fee, they'll agree to pay it, then do not. Sometimes, people will book you for a half-day at, say, $250. After you finish that session, they'll mysteriously only have $150 in their wallet. You can't miss a beat, lest your customer service quality suffer, so you have to smile and say "thank you, that's fine," no matter how not fine it actually is.

Frequently, you will get up at 4am, drive 200 miles for a trade session with someone who has an amazing portfolio. You spend weeks preparing, possibly tailoring your diet and keeping dehydrated the morning before the shoot so your body will look great. You bring your own wardrobe, pay for an MUA, do the shoot - after which you're exhausted, starving and dying to drink a gallon of water - then, they disappear off the face of the earth, never fulfilling their end of the trade deal. This has happened to me so many times, I can't begin to count.

Yet, you still get these threads where people are essentially complaining that models charge too much. I drove 4000 miles, from October 8th, through November 8th of 2015. I worked in 9 different cities during those four weeks. I put the whole trip together, planning started in August, saved for the initial investment (obviously, there were large travel costs involved). Then, executed the whole thing, managing cancellations, reschedules, people's life complications, hosting, hotels as needed, budgeting for food and laundry during the trip, trying to gather up last minute items requested by photographers. My only days off were days spent driving hundreds of miles between locations. I don't think I showed up late to a single shoot during that entire month. I never lost my cool or complained when a few good-paying gigs got cancelled on me  After it was all over, I came home for a few weeks, then flew out to the Southwest to do another week of shooting. There are some intrinsic rewards to this -- but it's hard work. You don't get breaks. You can never, ever truly relax when you are actively shooting. I almost always get a bad cold after returning home from travel, because I'm exhausted, haven't gotten enough sleep, have been outdoors shooting in extreme cold/heat/uncomfortable conditions - your immune system gets kicked in the face when you're under so much stress for weeks at a time.

Yet, apparently, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, authority on everything, proves that paying more than $9/hr to a model is absurd.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
For those who are curious, here's what the same site says about photographers.

I did better in a retail position and also had benefits.   

Koryn wrote:

This is a perfect analogy and I love it.

Unfortunately, all the wisdom in the world won't change the underlying idea this thread (and others like it) are built upon:

"Freelance models should work for $10 per hour, or nothing at all. Additionally, we will refuse to acknowledge the tremendous amount of prep time, commute distance and expenses often required just to get to the shoot. We will continue to deny the emotional investment these people make in our work, and we will insist that all it takes to model is just to 'look pretty.' If we offer them trade, then fail to send images, they should just butt out. We won't answer calls or emails. Just drive 300 miles to get to our shoots, bring your own wardrobe, pay for the MUA, take your $30 and leave promptly afterwards." - Sincerely, Internet Photographers

I agree.  This seems to be the OP's agenda in this thread.

Koryn wrote:
A good percentage of photographers who book models off the internet do so in order to work on their personal projects. Or they book internet-based models because they enjoy the social and creative aspects of shooting. For them, it's a hobby, a time to leisurely grow their skillsets, or to work on their niche interest art projects.

As a result, they do not realize how intense, serious and focused the models who serve them must be. In order to survive even a few weeks of active shooting, a working model has to be coming from a whole different level of commitment and devotion. So, you have a bunch of guys who're shooting "for fun" or "to learn." These guys are seeking to work with people who've traveled thousands of miles in only a few days or weeks, sleeping in a different home every night, and probably not sleeping enough or eating well.

And so, there is a huge disconnect between the world of the internet-booking photographer and how he perceives the value of modeling work, versus the working model who is basically living and breathing it 24/7, for weeks, months and years at a time.

If I might draw an analogy between models and dancers since both are performing arts and many are both models and dancers, then you're on the right track when it comes to recognizing that there is a disconnect between a customer who is only casually interested in the service a dancer provides for some light entertainment, a bit of fun and maybe some learning ability vs. a dancer who performs at a professional level nationally or regionally.  I admire a good dancer.  But I'd be a fool to expect someone who could be dancing at the Metropolitan Opera House, Carnegie Hall or the Kennedy Center to dance in my dining room for $10/hour.  Those who have a lower value for the service provided should work with those whose costs are more in line with the value they have for their services.  Those who highly value the service provided should be willing to pay what's needed to make it worthwhile for someone performing at a higher level to work with them.

I don't question whether or not someone who has a high value for the modeling of someone as dedicated as you are should pay for opportunity to work with you.  I was just pointing out that not everyone is in the market for someone of your caliber.  There are a lot more people willing to shell out for a Hyundai than for a Ferrari. There's probably be less frustration on various sides of this thread if there was a better way of matching and marketing the right models to the right photographers at the right times for the right projects.  Too often, people seem to take price negotiations and what's essentially a matter of bargaining within the context of cost and value personally.  I don't get upset when a model wants me to pay more than I'm willing to pay.  I just try to negotiate and we either end up with a deal or we don't.  When a model asks for less than I'm willing to pay and I'm impressed by the way she surpasses my expectations, then I might offer a tip in addition to the negotiated rate.

No offense intended toward anyone.  I'm not seeking to portray models as money-grubbing vampires always out to bleed photographers dry or photographers as cheap, miserly and ungrateful scrooges with no appreciation of a model's talent, skill and dedication.  I'm just trying to help people see that the issues related to price are problems that can be managed with opportunities that can be developed.  Seeing it as a natural economic process and an essential part of business may help avoid wounded egos and unnecessary conflict.  I appreciate what Koryn and others have said on the subject since she has helped to clearly explain her side of the issue even when some others seem to have been baiting her.

Grayscale Photo wrote:
The hourly average rate ($9.02) is misleading.  It's a calculated by dividing the reported annual income by the standard 2000+ working hours in a year.  Very few models are working 40 hours/week at modeling.

For example, a model that earns $18,000/year working 100 modeling gigs, each of which lasts 4 hours is making about $45/hour.  Adjust any of those numbers to reach any hourly rate you want to justify.

Grayscale Photo wrote:
Once again, as long as the median hourly rate is a CALCULATED value based on annual income, not a REPORTED value, it's meaningless when most models aren't working 40 hours/week, 50 weeks/year.

"Annual wages have been calculated by multiplying the hourly mean wage by a "year-round, full-time" hours figure of 2,080 hours"  Also the BLS figures are based on full-time models, and does not include part time work, so your above comments/scenarios do not apply.

Isis22 wrote:
Keep in mind not everyone reports when they pay models and not every model reports their pay. Those statistics are meaningless to me and most people.

The BLS data is based on people who employ models, not people who hire the occasional freelance model.  It is based on what employers report paying models, not based on what models report they earn.  It's wage information, not freelance earnings. 

"These estimates are calculated with data collected from employers in all industry sectors, all metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, and all states and the District of Columbia."

malefica wrote:
Also, that was posted in 2012. That doesn't factor in local supply/demand fluctuations as well as inflation between then and now.

2014 data is as follows (2015 data I believe has not yet been released):

Median hourly:  $9.60
Mean hourly:  $16.12
10th percentile:  $8:13
90th percentile:  $23.86

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes419012.htm

Keep in mind this is for models hired full time, and does not include part-time independent models.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
This seems to be the OP's agenda in this thread.

My "agenda" was coming from a business majors POV. I am almost finished with my degree. This semester is all about HR and related stuff. Being a photographer I was curious as to WHAT was the ACTUAL wage and benefits for the industry, so as part of a case study, I went on the hunt. Starting at, you guessed it: DoL. These stats include data from Agencies and IRS records, in many parts of the industry including moving pictures. I also searched through modeling blogs and gathered data from models and agencies. I ain't done yet, but will use the info in a case study presented at the end of the semester.

Here's another GREAT bit of detail:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/20/porns-di … -paid.html

Hero Foto wrote:
My "agenda" was coming from a business majors POV. I am almost finished with my degree. This semester is all about HR and related stuff. Being a photographer I was curious as to WHAT was the ACTUAL wage and benefits for the industry, so as part of a case study, I went on the hunt. Starting at, you guessed it: DoL. These stats include data from Agencies and IRS records, in many parts of the industry including moving pictures. I also searched through modeling blogs and gathered data from models and agencies. I ain't done yet, but will use the info in a case study presented at the end of the semester.

Here's another GREAT bit of detail:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/20/porns-di … -paid.html

1)  Your original post was about median pay, not "ACTUAL wage & benefits for the industry".
2)  Not clear whether the "industry" of the original post was related to the "industry" MM represents.
3)  Your "another GREAT bit of detail" is about the porn industry; implying that you think of models as
     porn stars, which is offensive.
4)  Business majors should understand...
     ...  The local supply & demand of talent & its impact of wages & rates,
     ...  The "median" wage is not the same as the average wage,
     ...  Model rates are subject to negotiation.

So, your explanation doesn't change the impression you are giving us.  Seems to many (including me) that you are just disrespecting models in an effort to get them to lower their rate demands.

Victoria Elle wrote:
These statics have been being posted to the forums for as long as I have been a member of this site (9 years).  The implication is always that models are stupid to ask the rates we ask, and that we are liars to say we are paid them.  What everyone who has ever posted these stats refuses to accept, no matter how many times it is said is:

-No model, not even full time, works as many hours as a full time hourly paid employee, and no employer employs models for as many hours as companies employ full time employees.  The numbers presented in these stats will therefor always be skewed.

-Some modeling jobs, even through an agency, are low paid.  Editorial work (the non-advertising images in fashion magazines) pays $150 per day.  Runway is often unpaid, or paid in clothing.  Other modeling jobs pay hundreds of dollars per hour.  The reason for this is editorial and runways work are considered prestigious, and are where the people who hire for higher paid modeling jobs (campaigns) look for models to hire, and because the usage of images is very limited (basically a one time use).  Almost no one on MM is shooting this sort of work.  Modeling jobs can also have higher rates attached to them if they are considered any kind of risk: the kind of work not every would be interested in doing because it may affect your chances at another job, or are not considered to be of artistic merit.  The more usage asked for also means a higher rate.  Almost everyone on MM is shooting this kind of work and asking for unlimited usage.

-They've since taken it down, but they used to show via a graph which companies they got their info from, and it was mostly from places that call to their retail sales associates and store greeters as "models" (Abercrombie, Hollister, etc.), further skewing the stats, because they do earn about $9/hr.

If you're actually interested in what models really earn, contact modeling agencies, tell them you are doing this school project, and get correct information.

Thanks for the insight Victoria, I appreciate the leads too.

Hero Foto wrote:
but NOT on average, they are the exception not the standard (median)

Hero!!

Hello. Heya, I'm here on the West side for a couple more days, fwiw, and I didn't have to do the major jetlag to do so.

I like your shared link, thanks.

Jen

Tony Lawrence wrote:
In 2014:   http://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/models.htm    This of course is based on a national average.   A NY model is likely to make more then one based in Kansas.   Also as a poster noted many models don't work 40 hours a week with a large number doing more auditions then shoots.   I think that the main point is that some of the posts on MM have members claiming $100.00 or more per hour as a average when my guess its no where near that much.

A few years ago a popular MM member said she had made around $24,000 that year.   Not horrible for a college student or a person with no kids living with a roommate or in a place with low rents.   Not good otherwise.   I've taken buttwhuppings for saying $25.00 per hour for non nude work seems fair given that places like Wal-Mart and Target pay around $10.00 per hour.

Tony, I always seem to back you up when it comes to these discussions on what models average in salary.  It is an "average" and should not be the only basis for discussing model pay.  We know it can be all over the board!  There are those who call themselves a model who work & make little, while others who are in the mix of it can be making considerably more.   I know the music business is very similar.  Only a few are on top and making the big money. 

Another factor is the use of the Internet.  Many musicians and models are able to "sell" their "product" online with proper licensing along with good planning.  I know models who have websites (doesn't matter if it's nude or non nude) that make a decent income without having to work full time.  The best ones have started with a plan and built a following.  Other models I know are making good money traveling, doing everything from art & glamour nudes, to tradeshows or conventions.  Fashion modeling is still a way if one has the look and in the right location.  The Internet has become an important tool for many models and photographers!

I totally agree with you that $25 an hour is a decent wage for non-nude work ... and even nude in cases where the model & photographer are in mutual agreement.  Typically I do pay from a min. of $25 an hour upwards to $100 at the most.  These stats don't mean much to me at all.

Hero Foto wrote:
and NOW you know ...

Now I know what?

Was this some sort of test to see if your math would be challenged? Apparently it has been.

Is this some sort of attempt to justify paying $9 per hour to models? Lemme know how it works out.

Koryn wrote:
You will sometimes get up at 4am, drive 200 miles, only to find that the person you're scheduled to shoot with sent you a text, canceling, when you were 150 miles into your drive to their location. A lot of people cancel the night before, not giving you time to fill that spot with other work. If you have a cancellation fee, they'll agree to pay it, then do not. Sometimes, people will book you for a half-day at, say, $250. After you finish that session, they'll mysteriously only have $150 in their wallet. You can't miss a beat, lest your customer service quality suffer, so you have to smile and say "thank you, that's fine," no matter how not fine it actually is.

.

None of this is "fine".
I'm like Phoebe with money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HmayYpsDYk

Hero Foto wrote:
My "agenda" was coming from a business majors POV. I am almost finished with my degree. This semester is all about HR and related stuff. Being a photographer I was curious as to WHAT was the ACTUAL wage and benefits for the industry, so as part of a case study, I went on the hunt. Starting at, you guessed it: DoL. These stats include data from Agencies and IRS records, in many parts of the industry including moving pictures. I also searched through modeling blogs and gathered data from models and agencies. I ain't done yet, but will use the info in a case study presented at the end of the semester.

Here's another GREAT bit of detail:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/20/porns-di … -paid.html

Here we have someone nailing you!

Looknsee Photography wrote:
1)  Your original post was about median pay, not "ACTUAL wage & benefits for the industry".
2)  Not clear whether the "industry" of the original post was related to the "industry" MM represents.
3)  Your "another GREAT bit of detail" is about the porn industry; implying that you think of models as
     porn stars, which is offensive.
4)  Business majors should understand...
     ...  The local supply & demand of talent & its impact of wages & rates,
     ...  The "median" wage is not the same as the average wage,
     ...  Model rates are subject to negotiation.

So, your explanation doesn't change the impression you are giving us.  Seems to many (including me) that you are just disrespecting models in an effort to get them to lower their rate demands.

I can't help but wonder if either Hero Foto has an incredibly poor understanding of how the rule of averages works with statistics, or he really does have an agenda of brow beating models into working for him at $9 an hour.  What he pays models does not matter to me.  I will always pay what the model and I agree on, and that is typically $25 or more an hour.    The better models are worth far more!

Brett Hunt wrote:
I agree with most points made by models here except their travel time.(not counting someone who is hired that is over 2 hours away)...

In my experience, there is really no such thing as "local" shoots. Back five years ago, when there was actually paying work in the Northeast and I worked "locally" a lot, local meant anywhere from southern Connecticut, up through Maine, and as far out west as Albany, New York.

I'd be booked on Monday in central Massachusetts, an hour commute from my house, and the following day, I'd have to be 3 hours north in Vermont or New Hampshire. Large sections of each day, I'd be in the car driving.

In several years of working "locally," I was rarely less than 1-2 hours drive from home. And that was just one way. I frequently worked in Maine.

"Local" doesn't exist, if you plan on modeling for more than a year. Within that first year shooting, you'll quickly exhaust all the opportunities available within a half hour drive of your home. Then, you have to start planning for local shoots to include a radius of 3-4 states, depending on what region you live in and the size of your region.

By the beginning of 2013, the market for freelance models around New England was basically gone, so then it became an issue of ALL the work I was able to get was hundreds of miles from home. Thousands even.

For models who wish to build a sustainable income, there's no local. There's just commuting and more commuting.

Koryn wrote:
Yet, apparently, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, authority on everything, proves that paying more than $9/hr to a model is absurd.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics isn't providing any opinion about what pay is absurd or not absurd.  They are simply reporting by mean, median and percentile what those who employ models actually pay them.  Reporting aggregate wage information to the public for various professions is part of what they do.  They report photographer earnings in a similar manner.  (note they report both the mean and median, $9/hour being the lower of the two.  The mean is closer to $16/hour.)

As Victoria Elle said, such employed models have little in common with the freelance modeling typical of most MM models.  The independent traveling freelance model, business plan you described is the opposite end of the spectrum from the type of modeling the BLS is reporting on.  Compared to full time employed models or even the MM model who models on the side, a full-time traveling model has many additional expenses she needs to cover with fairly limited shoot hours. 

Good for traveling models who can commend the higher rates necessary to make their business model work, but it doesn't follow the many models  (or those who hire them) who work at a lower rate, with less overhead, possibly more hours are doing anything wrong.   There's a place for full time models who earn a median and mean hourly wage of $9 and $16/hour, there's a place for traveling models who may commend $100/hour,  there's a place for TF, and there's a place for agency models and their rates.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
...I'm not trying to convince models what they should charge.   I am saying that many price themselves out of the market.   We all have expenses.   If you are a traveling model you may have more ...

It's obvious from the detailed posts by many traveling models, they have chosen a modeling approach that has very high overhead, and minimum billable contact hours in which to cover that overhead and make a profit.  This of course requires them to charge a much higher hourly rate than models who work more total hours either modeling or modeling and other work and don't have those high travel costs.

I get why they need to charge the high hourly rates they do to make it work, but what they never seem to explain is what incentive photographers have to pay them theses much higher rates.  It's clear some are having a hard time of it and are giving up on the traveling model thing as a result.  My congrats to those who can make it work.  It seems like a very tough business model to me.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

It's obvious from the detailed posts by many traveling models, they have chosen a modeling approach that has very high overhead, and minimum billable contact hours in which to cover that overhead and make a profit.  This of course requires them to charge a much higher hourly rate than models who work more total hours either modeling or modeling and other work and don't have those high travel costs.

I get why they need to charge the high hourly rates they do to make it work, but what they never seem to explain is what incentive photographers have to pay them theses much higher rates.  It's clear some are having a hard time of it and are giving up on the traveling model thing as a result.  My congrats to those who can make it work.  It seems like a very tough business model to me.

Some models do well and share $2100/month apartments in LA and NYC.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

Some models do well and share $2100/month apartments in LA and NYC.

Indeed and good for them for doing so well.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
It's obvious from the detailed posts by many traveling models, they have chosen a modeling approach that has very high overhead, and minimum billable contact hours in which to cover that overhead and make a profit.  This of course requires them to charge a much higher hourly rate than models who work more total hours either modeling or modeling and other work and don't have those high travel costs.

In general,
...  Models don't care about photographers' expenses (like how much their cameras cost).
...  Photographers don't care about models expenses (like how much their travel costs).

There is no such thing as a "standard" modeling rate:
...  More than anything else, a model's rate is subject to pressures from the local supply & demand of
     similar talent.
...  Not all models are created equal.  Some match a project's requirements better than others.
...  Not all photographers are created equal.  In particular, some have a bigger budget than others.
...  It doesn't matter whether the photographer himself or the photographer's client is paying
     the model.
...  It doesn't matter whether the photographer expects to earn money from pictures of the model.
...  It doesn't matter what labor statistics say (remember, not all models are created equal).

All that matters: 
   The model can ask for whatever compensation she wants.
   The photographer can accept, decline, or make a counteroffer.
   Everything else is just a waste of time.

In my opinion, anything else is indicative of people not overly familiar or comfortable with the art of negotiation.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
All that matters: 
   The model can ask for whatever compensation she wants.
   The photographer can accept, decline, or make a counteroffer.
   Everything else is just a waste of time.

In my opinion, anything else is indicative of people not overly familiar or comfortable with the art of negotiation.

Complete, concise, to the point.
Endless jibber-jabber does not further provide useful information.
/thread

Looknsee Photography wrote:
In general,
...  Models don't care about photographers' expenses (like how much their cameras cost).
...  Photographers don't care about models expenses (like how much their travel costs).

There is no such thing as a "standard" modeling rate:
...  More than anything else, a model's rate is subject to pressures from the local supply & demand of
     similar talent.
...  Not all models are created equal.  Some match a project's requirements better than others.
...  Not all photographers are created equal.  In particular, some have a bigger budget than others.
...  It doesn't matter whether the photographer himself or the photographer's client is paying
     the model.
...  It doesn't matter whether the photographer expects to earn money from pictures of the model.
...  It doesn't matter what labor statistics say (remember, not all models are created equal).

All that matters: 
   The model can ask for whatever compensation she wants.
   The photographer can accept, decline, or make a counteroffer.
   Everything else is just a waste of time.

In my opinion, anything else is indicative of people not overly familiar or comfortable with the art of negotiation.

I'm not sure why you quoted me and then stated this.  I for the most part agree with you.  Photographers for the most part don't care about a model's expenses as you said.  That was my very point about the higher expenses many traveling models have and wish to cover. (a point many traveling models have noted in this thread) 

If I can hire a local model for $30/hour who has little overhead, then I have little incentive to hire a similar traveling model at 4 times that rate.  As you said, it's about supply and demand.  What models actually earn and what photographers actually pay is a result of supply and demand.  That's where I disagree with you a bit regarding stats about what models earn.  Such stats reflect supply and demand.  However, as myself and others have said, what those who employ full time models pay them, (BLS stats) has little to do with with local supply and demand for freelance models.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Model fees often have little to do with supply and demand.   What a model can charge and receive is mostly a reflection of what others feel she's worth paying.  Yet may vary based on her location.    A beautiful woman can charge a crap load of money in NY and get it and NY is filled with great looking models.   However being beautiful in Nowhere, Arkansas may not earn you anything even when the number of models is limited.

What you describe above is supply and demand, nothing more and nothing less.

Shadow Dancer wrote:
That might be because it is not only misleading, repetitive and essentially useless, it is also profoundly insulting to the modeling community, especially when posted on "their" forum by a photographer who attempts to foist it off as reality.

The icing on the cake is that you don't seem to understand this, at all.

Wowsa,

nvm, I'm avoiding this.

Phane2001 wrote:
Fuck yes!!!

Fuck no.

Y'all are ripping Hero to shreds here and all he did was post something that was likely an eye opener for him on what the real time wages of modeling boil down to.

Somehow it was taken as a nefarious attempt to deny models wages. WTF?

Crazy.

Hero, I took your post in an interesting way, the same way I felt when I read those statistics previously, (and which I share when people find out I model and they want me to get their daughter, son or themselves "discovered.")

Jen