model emily in maine wrote:
My agency is busier than ever; I'm constantly being sent on casting calls and work has seriously picked up this fall. Hm.  Maybe it's just their market.

Where I am, clients come into town and contact agencies to get talent they know they can count on.  From my experience, they don't have time or often the knowledge to hop on MM, Craigslist or the like to scout out potential models.

Cool!  Are your bare minimum starting rates $1,000, like my friend  in the post above who is having trouble getting work through her major agency?

HJM Photography wrote:

Cool!  Are your bare minimum starting rates $1,000, like the model in the post above?

Of course not.  I'm in Maine.  LA is a much different market. 
It also allows me to book more work.

model emily in maine wrote:

Of course not.  I'm in Maine.  LA is a much different market. 
It also allows me to book more work.

Yes!  Cool!  That is what I am saying--the starting prices at some major agencies seem a bit high these days

HJM Photography wrote:

Yes!  Cool!  That is what I am saying--the starting prices at some major agencies seem a bit high these days

I would agree with you.

Oscar Partida wrote:
i think part of this is the Bookers who many of them are photographers as well ..they might have great eye and style but it doesnt mean they are business people who should be running an enterprise ,so their main board keeps booking jobs when available and the Development get's forgotten and hardly takes off

I have never heard of a booker being a photographer, they tend to be from a sales background or some other part of fashion.  At least here a photographer can't get licensed as an agency thank god.

As for the OP perhaps the model you know has been overshot or her look isn't in demand.  Hell it could even be a number of new models have come onto the market who are cheaper with the same look.

model emily in maine wrote:

I would agree with you.

add to all this that a lot of the print magazines, which accounted for a large percentage of advertising campaigns using agency models, are fading, and a $1,000 minimum seems that it will be pricing many out of the market.  the sad thing is that if the model were allowed to book $500-$900 gigs on her own, she'd be making great money/working/having fun (without having to pay a middleman a sizable cut).  Even $300-$500 gigs for a few hours ought not be scoffed at, but sadly, major agencies prevent  the model from partaking.

John Fisher wrote:

Annie Gustafsson, not available on Craig's List (Surprise, surprise!)

First, I sincerely doubt any agency is turning down jobs over $500 out of hand. The client of course pays $600, and the model is asked if she/he is interested in a booking which pays only $500 ($400 net). Now, if the model is working regularly, the agency won't recommend the job because it might affect his/her rate on future jobs.

This is all standard practice as anyone who works booking models through agencies will tell you. The agency will look closely at the booking, clients will try to fly through on the cheap if they think they can get away with it. The truth is on any real advertising booking, the model (and the photographer for that matter) are the cheapest part of the job. The standard single page rate for one of the major publications is about $275,000, and that's without markups for placement. Obviously other smaller publications have lower rates, but it's easy to see the real cost of advertising is printing and distribution, not models and photographers. But if as an advertiser I'm going to pay those printing and distribution costs, I better have a great model and a great photographer or I've wasted a lot of money!

Now, I have no idea what is going on in LA, or at any particular agency in LA. I have heard from clients (and models) that Miami has become the second market of choice for print advertising. I do know there is a preference this time of year for clients from Europe to come to Miami, and we see a lot of production out of New York this time of year. LA  used to be famous as the place our life style trends originated, that hasn't been true for fifteen years now.

John
--
John Fisher
900 West Avenue, Suite 633
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
305 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

The model, who is with a top-tier agency in LA, said that her agency won't consider any project under $1,000 for her.   It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but seems many business models are fading these days.

One of my friends who runs a swimsuit company here in Malibu just did a shoot with pro-surfers for a few hundred dollars.  I was just hanging out as we were surfing out there that day and the set was fun and laid-back, and because the girls were naturally awesome water-women and athletes, I was thinking that the vibe and tone and spirit would have been impossible to create, even with $1,000+ agency models, in light of the earlier conversation with my friend.  Their poise, the way they held and interacted the boards--like the true surf girls they were--the fun, natural spirit--the boldness and athletic confidence--it was all so very real, unlike a lot of the faux surf ads I've seen for certain hipster surf lines, which look like every other instagram-finished ad for every other billion-dollar clothing company, except the models are holding surfboards with their pants unbuttoned or something.  The photographer wasn't directing at all--she was just documenting, and I think that when that happens, the results are generally awesome.

SoCo n Lime wrote:
so to sum just cause your with one agency and on a main boards doesnt mean that your home and dry and on to a career in modeling

Well stated. I always tell the new models that you better work a lot harder after you get signed than you did to get signed with an agency. It's a tough business, sitting around waiting for the booker to call you is simply not productive. This is a business, a model would be well advised to learn as much as they can about it before they jump in. Genetics plays a part, but so does your business sense and your workout and diet regimen. I say you're one third model, one third business person, and one third professional athlete. You are unlikely to be successful if you don't embrace all three.

John
--
John Fisher
900 West Avenue, Suite 633
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
305 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

John Fisher wrote:
Well stated. I always tell the new models that you better work a lot harder after you get signed than you did to get signed with an agency. It's a tough business, sitting around waiting for the booker to call you is simply not productive. This is a business, a model would be well advised to learn as much as they can about it before they jump in. Genetics plays a part, but so does your business sense and your workout and diet regimen. I say you're one third model, one third business person, and one third professional athlete. You are unlikely to be successful if you don't embrace all three.

John
--
John Fisher
900 West Avenue, Suite 633
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
305 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

Yes, and my advice to models be would be to also pursue it for the art/love of it, and try to get your agency to allow you to work on and shoot projects you want to shoot to develop and build your portfolio, instead of strictly waiting for those $1,000 jobs which never seem to come, like Tim Tebow warming the bench at the NY Jets.  It would also behoove agencies to allow models to pursue the art of it all, as in the long run, it would be better business.  For art is eternal, while business models and agencies come and go, and thus art is a better, safer beacon to follow upon the  life's stormy seas.

faltered wrote:
$1,000 is the starting day rate for models on the new faces board at nearly all the top tier agencies in LA. If you're booking frequently and it's for line sheet/catalog type work that is turning over quickly then there is some room for negotiation.

I think what it simply comes down to is bookers are commissioned sales people. There is a agency fee (say 20%) and then they take a piece from the model as well, but then that commission needs to be split with the agency and the booker. If you're starting with a $500 fee that means the agency is getting $100 agency fee plus $100 from the model for a total of $200 then the booker only gets a percentage of that as their pay.

And once you lower the base rate you need to lower it for everyone because your existing clients that are paying the $1,000 rate are going to find out and want their rate lowered as well. So you've just cannibalized your entire book of business.

And keep in mind those big editorial shoots they showcase on their blogs with girls from their board, they're not making anything on those because in 95% of cases nobody is being paid anything above cost of doing business for editorials.  So the agency survives on the clients. The big fees come from the Ad Agencies that are booking models for campaigns that pay use fees etc.

Yes, and from what I hear, the $1,000 minimum agency rate seems to be pricing more and more models out of the market, as the agencies must compete with all the casting services like mm and lacasting/etc, while at the same time, the traditional top-tier print and magazine publishing industries the agencies served are faced with declining revenues.

Yet another way the internet and technology are reshaping the landscape.

HJM Photography wrote:
Yes, and from what I hear, the $1,000 minimum agency rate seems to be pricing more and more models out of the market, as the agencies must compete with all the casting services like mm and lacasting/etc, while at the same time, the traditional top-tier print and publishing magazine industries the agencies served are faced with declining revenues.

Yet another way the internet and technology are reshaping the landscape.

From your last few posts I think I have doped out what you are trying to say, let me paraphrase it:

"The agencies aren't interested in their models shooting with me for free. This is wrong and must stop immediately!"

Please, move on.

John
--
John Fisher
900 West Avenue, Suite 633
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
305 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

John Fisher wrote:
From your last few posts I think I have doped out what you are trying to say, let me paraphrase it:

"The agencies aren't interested in their models shooting with me for free. This is wrong and must stop immediately!"

Please, move on.

John
--
John Fisher
900 West Avenue, Suite 633
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
305 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

lol John, I sense you are interjecting yourself here and your own experiences?  I test quite a lot.

I am merely sharing the story of some of my friends who would rather be shooting/working $500-$900 gigs than warming the bench while waiting for $1,000 gigs, which end up paying them considerably less than $1,000, after all the requisite cuts are taken.  There are certain economic and technological trends that are reshaping the landscape which I happened to discuss with a talented model at a party this past weekend.  I was wondering if other folks had perceived these trends.

HJM Photography wrote:

Yes, and from what I hear, the $1,000 minimum agency rate seems to be pricing more and more models out of the market, as the agencies must compete with all the casting services like mm and lacasting/etc, while at the same time, the traditional top-tier print and magazine publishing industries the agencies served are faced with declining revenues.

Yet another way the internet and technology are reshaping the landscape.

I wouldn't say it's pricing more and more models out of the market. The models on the new faces board are not considered fully signed with the agency, they are there for development purposes. Some will work and some will not. Those that can book jobs will be moved off the new faces board. The girls actually on the roster are working.

The agencies just don't want that low end business bad enough that they are going to lower their prices to get it. It consists of a lot of start up lines that wont exist in a year. The agencies also don't want their girls shooting projects with crappy photographers, mua's etc. and you start running into that when you lower the models day rates.

The clients that have brands that are surviving and doing well understand the value and importance of a professional model and photographer and don't hesitate at paying fair market price. Those are the clients that hire multiple times on a monthly basis. I think it's better for them to have a quality book of business then to have more clients paying less money because in the end more clients paying less money isn't any more than less clients paying fair market prices.

It's just like photographers, there will always be photographers willing to work cheaper, but the clients that have had a bad shoot before understand the value in paying for a top photographer. It's just like ad agencies almost always throwing out the lowest bid on a job from a photographer.

faltered wrote:

I wouldn't say it's pricing more and more models out of the market. The models on the new faces board are not considered fully signed with the agency, they are there for development purposes. Some will work and some will not. Those that can book jobs will be moved off the new faces board. The girls actually on the roster are working.

The agencies just don't want that low end business bad enough that they are going to lower their prices to get it. It consists of a lot of start up lines that wont exist in a year. The agencies also don't want their girls shooting projects with crappy photographers, mua's etc. and you start running into that when you lower the models day rates.

The clients that have brands that are surviving and doing well understand the value and importance of a professional model and photographer and don't hesitate at paying fair market price. Those are the clients that hire multiple times on a monthly basis. I think it's better for them to have a quality book of business then to have more clients paying less money because in the end more clients paying less money isn't any more than less clients paying fair market prices.

It's just like photographers, there will always be photographers willing to work cheaper, but the clients that have had a bad shoot before understand the value in paying for a top photographer. It's just like ad agencies almost always throwing out the lowest bid on a job from a photographer.

I think you are overlooking major shifts in the industry: Models Sue Agencies in $22M Class-Action

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/20 … ss-action/

Models Sue Agencies in $22M Class-Action

The suit, filed on behalf of 31-year-old American model Louisa Raske and other unnamed male and female models, claims that the modeling agencies failed to provide accurate account statements and concealed money received on the models’ behalf.

“We’ve alleged that the modeling agencies are unjustly enriching themselves by using money interest-free that belongs to the models,” Skip Taylor, lead counsel for Raske, told ABC News.

The main problem, the suit asserts, is that the agencies mix their own funds with the money held on the model’s behalf, which allows them to use that money on their own behalf, with “little fear of being discovered,” the suit alleges.

Another issue is that models aren’t represented by the same agency for their entire careers. Typically, a contract lasts about three years, and then the model moves on to another management company.

So, if for example, an advertising agency wants to continue to use a model’s photo on a particular product after she has left the modeling company, the modeling company will simply forge her signature or pretend that it had contacted the model and was “legally allowed to move forward with the business transaction,” the suit alleges

HJM Photography wrote:
lol John, I sense you are interjecting yourself here and your own experiences?  I test quite a lot.

I am merely sharing the story of some of my friends who would rather be shooting/working $500-$900 gigs than warming the bench while waiting for $1,000 gigs, which end up paying them considerably less than $1,000, after all the requisite cuts are taken.  There are certain economic and technological trends that are reshaping the landscape which I happened to discuss with a talented model at a party this past weekend.  I was wondering if other folks had perceived these trends.

What is in the best interests of your friends (the models) may not necessarily always be in the best interest of the agency.  While your friends may prefer to work a $500 job rather than waiting for a $1000 job, the agency has their own business model to adhere to.  While I agree that business models have to adapt to changing market conditions, sometimes available business is not worth going after.  The agency's policies are not set by the models because the models don't have any responsibility for the profitability of the agency.  Perhaps if your friends were part owners of the agency they would feel differently about that policy.  I don't know because I don't have insight into the business model details of any agencies, but I think you're not looking at this from the agency's point of view.

David Kirk wrote:
What is in the best interests of your friends (the models) may not necessarily always be in the best interest of the agency.  While your friends may prefer to work a $500 job rather than waiting for a $1000 job, the agency has their own business model to adhere to.  While I agree that business models have to adapt to changing market conditions, sometimes available business is not worth going after.  The agency's policies are not set by the models because the models don't have any responsibility for the profitability of the agency.  Perhaps if your friends were part owners of the agency they would feel differently about that policy.  I don't know because I don't have insight into the business model details of any agencies, but just because they employee (model) wants something doesn't mean the company is wise to provide it.

Yes, because modeling agencies are primarily businesses, they are focused on their own bottom line, rather than the model's personal, business, and artistic development.  So the end result is some models are signed with big agencies which prevent them from working/developing/pursuing art for a couple years, before letting them go.  I wonder what percentage of models are signed these days and rarely receive work due to the lack of $1,000+ jobs in a down-economy with shifting technological and social elements.  For instance, major billion-dollar brands like AA use mostly in-house, non-agency models, and smaller, highly-successful multi-million-dollar brands like Johnny Cupcakes on Melrose also never use $1,000+ agency models.

HJM Photography wrote:

Yes, because modeling agencies are primarily businesses, they are focused on their own bottom line, rather than the model's personal, business, and artistic development.  So the end result is some models are signed with big agencies which prevent them from working/developing/pursuing art for a couple years, before letting them go.  I wonder what percentage of models are signed these days and rarely receive work due to the lack of $1,000+ jobs in a down-economy with shifting technological and social elements.  For instance, major billion-dollar brands like AA use mostly in-house, non-agency models, and smaller, highly-successful multi-million-dollar brands like Johnny Cupcakes on Melrose also never use $1,000+ agency models.

I believe that models have the choice to sign with the agency or not.  They should know the conditions of getting work before they make a commitment to the agency.  And if they feel they are not getting the work they should be they can always leave the agency (per the termination clause in their contract). 

The models on AA (I assume you mean American Apparel) and Johnny Cupcakes don't look like agency models.  So I don't see how an agency repped model is going to get any work from those companies even at discounted rates.

I won't even pretend to know how the finances work inside a model agency, but its possible that they actually lose money by sending a model out on a $500 job.  It certainly makes perfect sense to me that if I have a product that usually sells for $1000 and I offer it for $500 it will be very hard for me to be able to sell it for $1000 again.  If your model friend wants to take the $500 gig she (or he) should understand that she may need to take a lot more $500 gigs in the future, and fewer if any $1000 gigs.

HJM Photography wrote:
Yes, because modeling agencies are primarily businesses, they are focused on their own bottom line, rather than the model's personal, business, and artistic development.  So the end result is some models are signed with big agencies which prevent them from working/developing/pursuing art for a couple years, before letting them go.  I wonder what percentage of models are signed these days and rarely receive work due to the lack of $1,000+ jobs in a down-economy with shifting technological and social elements.  For instance, major billion-dollar brands like AA use mostly in-house, non-agency models, and smaller, highly-successful multi-million-dollar brands like Johnny Cupcakes on Melrose also never use $1,000+ agency models.

I don't disagree with that.  It's not in every model's best interest to be with an agency - that still isn't an argument for the agencies to change their business model.  They are focused on their bottom line and ultimately serving their clients as best they can.  They are definitely not there to maximize the model's personal wealth and artistic endeavours.  They have no obligation to the model's personal goals, nor should they.

It's no different than hockey players that are drafted by an NHL team and ending playing for the farm team for peanuts - many never play a game in the big league.  They didn't have to participate in the NHL draft.  Some could have gone to Europe to increase their development (getting more ice time), get paid more, and have more stable income, but that is their choice.  They want to be in the NHL and for that chance there are sacrifices to be made.

David Kirk wrote:
It's no different than hockey players that are drafted by an NHL team and ending playing for the farm team for peanuts - many never play a game in the big league.  They didn't have to participate in the NHL draft.  Some could have gone to Europe to increase their development (getting more ice time), get paid more, and have more stable income, but that is their choice.  They want to be in the NHL and for that chance there are sacrifices to be made.

What is this thing "hockey" you refer to?  I see no evidence of players in the NHL wanting to play hockey for peanuts...

/threadjack

David Kirk wrote:
I don't disagree with that.  It's not in every model's best interest to be with an agency - that still isn't an argument for the agencies to change their business model.  They are focused on their bottom line and ultimately serving their clients as best they can.  They are definitely not there to maximize the model's personal wealth and artistic endeavours.  They have no obligation to the model's personal goals, nor should they.

It's no different than hockey players that are drafted by an NHL team and ending playing for the farm team for peanuts - many never play a game in the big league.  They didn't have to participate in the NHL draft.  Some could have gone to Europe to increase their development (getting more ice time), get paid more, and have more stable income, but that is their choice.  They want to be in the NHL and for that chance there are sacrifices to be made.

Yes!  I think it's good for models to be aware of the present-day corporate atmosphere, where they may be viewed more often as a potential revenue stream rather than a human being/artist with dreams and desires of their own.  One thing the NHL players you speak have often have is lawyers and agents to ensure they are fairly compensated before they sign with teams.   I'm not sure how many beginning models have folks and lawyers looking out for their long-term interests.

RLA Photo wrote:
My daughter is with a major agency in LA and her usual day rate is $1200 or better but today she is working for a small company for $400 for 1/2 day + OT if they go over.  She frequently shoots for less than $1000/day. If your friend is not getting any bookings it could be for various reasons as have been very well stated above but I would say if she is not happy them she needs to look at her contract and what she needs to do to get out of it.  Then go look for another agency that will represent her better.

My daughter has shot for Target, K-Mart, Nordstrom's, Sears, Amazon, Frederick's and many many other smaller brands.  There doesn't seem to be any shortage of work in LA but as we all know it is whatever "Look" they want. 

I just wish she would shoot with me more!

She will.. for her day rate...lol

HJM Photography wrote:

Yes!  I think it's good for models to be aware of the present-day corporate atmosphere, where they may be viewed more often as a potential revenue stream rather than a human being/artist with dreams and desires of their own.  One thing the NHL players you speak have often have is lawyers and agents to ensure they are fairly compensated before they sign with teams.   I'm not sure how many beginning models have folks and lawyers looking out for their long-term interests.

They are a "revenue stream" that's what a modeling agency is, a vehicle for clients to book models and in return they get a commission.

Most agencies now will not require an exclusive agreement and the girls can even freelance on jobs they book direct, so they're hardly locked down. Most of the top models have multiple agencies and whichever agency calls them first about a casting is the one that gets the commission if the model books the job.

The problem with your argument that it might not be in the models best interest to be with an agency because they're "artists with dreams and desires" is that they just severely limited their careers. They are almost certain to never be published in major magazines because virtually every major magazine requires models to be signed by an agency (and you can go read their editorial guidelines to find that) and the major ad agency clients (major fashion brands and retailers etc.) have the exact same requirement. Part of that is the industry protecting itself from price erosion which helps nobody and part of it is because of the guarantees and protection the clients receive by going through an agency. So basically a model that chooses to stay independent has eliminated the best clients worldwide and is left with a career constantly fighting for start-ups and low end clients.

faltered wrote:
They are a "revenue stream" that's what a modeling agency is, a vehicle for clients to book models and in return they get a commission.

Most agencies now will not require an exclusive agreement and the girls can even freelance on jobs they book direct, so they're hardly locked down. Most of the top models have multiple agencies and whichever agency calls them first about a casting is the one that gets the commission if the model books the job.

The problem with your argument that it might not be in the models best interest to be with an agency because they're "artists with dreams and desires" is that they just severely limited their careers. They are almost certain to never be published in major magazines because virtually every major magazine requires models to be signed by an agency (and you can go read their editorial guidelines to find that) and the major ad agency clients (major fashion brands and retailers etc.) have the exact same requirement. Part of that is the industry protecting itself from price erosion which helps nobody and part of it is because of the guarantees and protection the clients receive by going through an agency. So basically a model that chooses to stay independent has eliminated the best clients worldwide and is left with a career constantly fighting for start-ups and low end clients.

I'm not sure you read the first post?  My model friend is not getting *any* clients.  The least of her worries right now is "eliminating the best clients worldwide," many of whom are dying off.  You keep talking about the importance of "magazines." I'm not sure you are keeping up with industry trends?

These represent huge percentage drops:

http://www.adweek.com/news/press/fashio … art-134049

Things aren’t looking too good in the land of fashion titles. Nearly every fashion title (with the exception of Allure, which was flat, and Vogue, which fared well) dropped in the first half of the year, reports WWD.

InStyle, which remains the leader at newsstands, was down 8 percent to an average of 570,272 copies, according to Audit Bureau of Circulations. Marie Claire dropped 21.5 percent in single-copy sales to 198,752—the worst percentage newsstand decline among fashion magazines.

Glamour was down 17.5 percent in single-copy sales to 453,707 in the first half of the year, while Harper's Bazaar dropped 14.3

http://www.adweek.com/news/press/fashio … rch-140105

Fashion Magazines See Little Newsstand Love in March

HJM Photography wrote:
Fashion Magazines percentage drops

fashion magazines are not the core business for model agencies

besides printed paper being down in sales means nothing as they still have the readership its only moved to their online presence so they still can sell their advertising space it just on different platforms.

what keeps an agency in business is making money through brands and commercial gigs (it always has been).. like supplying models to shopping centre catwalk event, providing models for the latest awareness campaign for 'x' brand

SoCo n Lime wrote:
whats with the allow for the fun and art of it! agencies holding model back BS?? and changing landscape

if your model friend ain't getting work maybe she doesn't have a look anyone wants so wether its $50 or $1000 it really wont make a difference. maybe the agency is concentrating and running with models that are bringing them in work and your friend wont be there long to much longer. maybe they dont put effort into each model on their books and it works for them but not your model friend so she should move agency.

by the way.. business is business .. a career is a career. something to be taken serious.

games, fun, art is for the bedroom or in your spare time

people like yourself tend to talk themselves into justifying lower rates and assume that peoples business models are fucked up cause they charge XYZ .. flirting with the loss leading myth that the internet has created is futile (after all no one wants to pay for talent or content anymore cause on the www you can get it for free right??).

just like the economy language BS.. it is not because corporate and commerical business is skint! UK top  companies just like US top companies have bank balances bulging at the seams. the problem is they wont spend it through investment (projects all of us creatives would work on) cause of all the smoke and mirrors caused by bankers deflecting blame and the property bubble that burst.. medias way of selling people bad news stories and talking things down is the only BS that sells their product which gives the negative outlook.

lowering your rates and everyone else's below your CODB rates will not get companies or businesses spending any faster and even when they do which is what is slowly happening as confidence returns is that your only saving them cash and putting yourself out of pocket and out of business at the same time. if your in the business of renting or selling property then it is the only industry that should be lowering the cost of its products cause they sold everyone a huge lie about how much your bricks and mortar should cost..

the mistake is that instead of creating a career by taking the cost of doing business model you try some how to remodel it just for you own selfish and speculative gains (loss leading) but only in hope that it gets you work further down the line.

the only landscape that is changing is more and more joining the short lived loss leading market and find themselves back into full time work faster than you thought or for ever wondering why their not making enough income to feed themselves never mind live on or invest into equipment and a viable business

lol dude, you seem to be saying 100 different things/sorting some things out.  perhaps you could clarify?  thanks!  brevity is the soul of wit!

the facts are facts.  the traditional fashion industry and fashion magazine industries are in decline--a reality which manifests itself in many different ways, such as those discussed in this thread.

Dan OMell wrote:
well, if it's about supply and demand...

look around some university campuses. acceleration in action -- the modern teenagers are taller, slender, not yet poisoned by fast food and sedentary lifestyle...

lol?  i still have a house in & love carolina, but what planet are you living on?

http://www.myabc50.com/mostpopular/stor … p6mUw.cspx

America Is More Obese Now Than 4 Years Ago

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/ … RA20120918

Fat and getting fatter: U.S. obesity rates to soar by 2030

HJM Photography wrote:
lol dude, you seem to be saying 100 different things/sorting some things out.  perhaps you could clarify?  thanks!  brevity is the soul of wit!

the facts are facts.  the traditional fashion industry and fashion magazine industries are in decline--a reality which manifests itself in many different ways, such as those discussed in this thread.

decline? what decline its been moving side ways and modifying for years

the press feed you with numbers that look bad but really when you look at the detail its not that bad at all and in fact you find readership went up when you take online and print into account and the sales in advertising space can still be sold and so on.

only a complex answer will cover your way of thinking

there is 100 reasons why $1000 should remain the minimum rate for her agency.. and not because you think the agency should be allowing her to go for $500 jobs cause in your eyes thats good money for her aswel

SoCo n Lime wrote:
decline? what decline its been moving side ways and modifying for years

the press feed you with numbers that look bad but really when you look at the detail its not that bad at all and in fact you find readership went up when you take online and print into account and the sales in advertising space and so on.

you should write a letter to all the laid-off folks who were once working in print, telling them that really, their checks are still there, if only they look at the details.

you should tell them to all go back to their jobs tomorrow, as the press was "just feeding them numbers."

http://rising.blackstar.com/are-you-rea … tions.html  "Are You Ready for the Decline of Print Publications?"

Ivanafox wrote:
The forums are hilarious!
Usually we are reading complaints that people (specifically photographers) doing cheap or freebie shoots for businesses and commercial projects (and ruining it for everyone.) Here we have a photographer complaining that people (specifically an agency) not doing things on the cheap for commercial projects!.

Actually all of this stems from a good friend's lamentation that she is getting no work through her agency.