login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > Terry Richardson pulls down $58M Search   Reply
first123last
Photographer
Karl JW Johnston
Posts: 8,889
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada


But what does he profit? Is that revenue or...what?
Jul 13 13 11:47 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Miroslava Svoboda
Posts: 555
Seattle, Washington, US


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

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

Jul 13 13 11:51 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digitoxin
Posts: 13,308
Houston, Texas, US


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

This.

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

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

Two things we should consider:

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

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

Jul 13 13 12:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digitoxin
Posts: 13,308
Houston, Texas, US


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

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

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

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

Jul 13 13 12:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Karl JW Johnston
Posts: 8,889
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada


Miroslava Svoboda wrote:

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

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

Jul 13 13 12:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AJScalzitti
Posts: 11,545
Atlanta, Georgia, US


Select Models wrote:

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

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

Jul 13 13 12:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PictureItYakima
Posts: 353
Seattle, Washington, US


Checked profile. No wonder.

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

Done.

Let the millions begin.

Still waiting...
Jul 13 13 12:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
The Something Guy
Posts: 14,776
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


Maybe the journalist who wrote the article had problems with maths and missed the decimal point $ 5.8 Mill.
Jul 13 13 12:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
zaxpix
Posts: 1,988
New Brunswick, New Jersey, US


Haters gonna hate.

Ballers gonna ball.

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

Z.
Jul 13 13 07:45 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mark Salo
Posts: 7,759
Olney, Maryland, US


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

Yes, net or gross?

Jul 13 13 07:57 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DavidHbad
Posts: 22
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway = goodnight! smile

Jul 13 13 08:04 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DavidHbad
Posts: 22
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


zaxpix wrote:
Haters gonna hate.

Ballers gonna ball.

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

Z.

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

Jul 13 13 08:04 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Guss W
Posts: 10,538
Clearwater, Florida, US


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

and in my opinion, his photographs are meaningful.

...

Did he get his start shooting corpses at the morgue?

Jul 13 13 10:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Lentille de Guerre
Posts: 93
Seattle, Washington, US


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

There's not, Richardson has it all.

Jul 14 13 12:02 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AG Media 13
Posts: 201
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia


He is blatant, audacious and confronting. Paparazzi comes to fashion. He developed this unique selling point when most other fashion photographers played safe.  Works for him and a good lesson for all - follow your vision - disrupt the market.
Jul 14 13 02:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Marciofs
Posts: 1,802
Freiburg, Baden-W├╝rttemberg, Germany


c_h_r_i_s wrote:

If there paying it I'd have no problem.

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

Dear whoever it may concern,

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

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

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

Jul 14 13 03:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
1k-words-photograpy
Posts: 276
Leesburg, Virginia, US


Bravo, gives me hope.
Jul 14 13 04:06 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Image Studios
Posts: 175
Marengo, Illinois, US


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

That is a lot of taxes.
Jul 14 13 04:18 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Zahra
Posts: 1,066
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Ya, but you have to consider the capital investment he's made that he has to recover...  point-n-shoot and on-camera flash all need to get paid for.
Jul 14 13 04:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chicchowmein
Posts: 14,320
Palm Beach, Florida, US


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

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

Maybe it's meaningful to you but art is subjective

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

Jul 14 13 05:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,208
Seattle, Washington, US


Chicchowmein wrote:

Maybe it's meaningful to you but art is subjective

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

true....

money speaks....

Jul 14 13 05:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chicchowmein
Posts: 14,320
Palm Beach, Florida, US


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

money speaks....

I like some of Terry's work.

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

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

Jul 14 13 05:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chicchowmein
Posts: 14,320
Palm Beach, Florida, US


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

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

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

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

it's not about the gear

Jul 14 13 05:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
udor
Posts: 21,017
New York, New York, US


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

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

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

I am in agreement with everything you've said!

Jul 14 13 05:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mortonovich
Posts: 5,083
San Diego, California, US


udor wrote:

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

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

Jul 14 13 07:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Camerosity
Posts: 4,757
Saint Louis, Missouri, US


I'm not sure the Rolling Stones or Led Zep ever made $58 million in a year - especially if you don't count concert tours, which is where the real money is in that business.
Jul 14 13 09:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Robert Lynch
Posts: 2,481
Bowie, Maryland, US


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

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

Jul 14 13 09:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Robert Lynch
Posts: 2,481
Bowie, Maryland, US


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

That is a lot of taxes.

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

Jul 14 13 09:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kaostika Studios
Posts: 266
New York, New York, US


58 million is more then all of MM makes.
Jul 14 13 11:02 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mark C Smith
Posts: 687
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


He's a shrewd businessman in general, photography is far from his only income stream.
Jul 15 13 04:27 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SoCo n Lime
Posts: 3,283
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom


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

im pretty sure it can wink

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

Jul 15 13 06:44 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,208
Seattle, Washington, US


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

income stream....

i dunno...

Jul 15 13 07:25 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
EyeCanShoot
Posts: 1,084
Orlando, Florida, US


Miroslava Svoboda wrote:

lol

Bahahah!

Jul 15 13 08:59 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JonPhoto
Posts: 650
Robertsdale, Alabama, US


Jul 15 13 09:08 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,243
Buena Park, California, US


Maybe they meant 5.8 million.
Jul 15 13 09:22 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gpro
Posts: 646
Salisbury, Maryland, US


Wow, I thought Terry just did photography for the chicks.
Jul 15 13 09:30 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,243
Buena Park, California, US


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

HA! big_smile

Jul 15 13 09:46 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,478
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


Christopher Hartman wrote:

HA! big_smile

nononononononnnnnnnnoooooo terry is real. mediamass is fake tongue

Jul 15 13 12:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jirrupin
Posts: 1,742
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia


i wonder what his average gig is worth, ie is he pulling a 4-5m gig every month, or cramming in a 1m gig every week?
Jul 16 13 02:59 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
The Something Guy
Posts: 14,776
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


Maybe the $58M is the value placed on his work by Art Capital as with Annie Leibovitz images.
Jul 16 13 03:31 am  Link  Quote 
first123last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers