Tony Lawrence wrote:
The US dept. of labor reports that the average model makes under $20.00 an hour.   Just because models are saying they make thousands a month doesn't make it true.

Very true.   

A local college magazine was once under the gun needing some photos on very short notice.  In two hours of shooting and processing I made $500  Does that make me a $250/hour photographer?   Of course not.  I'd be starving if I had to make a living on my photography skills.

Similarly, even if a model is truthful in saying she's made $150/hour,  that doesn't mean she regularly makes that rate, and it doesn't mean that's a going rate. One of my last shoots was with a traveling model who readily accepted an offer of 1/3 her advertised rate.  Most moderately experienced nude models I've hired at around $30/hour.  Most who have done no nudes previously on a trade basis.  There are many nude modes in my area who want $50/hour who get no takers.

As I said previously, giving new models a greatly over inflated idea of what they can commend, doesn't do anyone any good.

Caitin Bre wrote:

Ha most people here also pretend that they are big photographers in some imaginary Industry.
I am a freelance model. Do not confuse that with a fashion industry model. 2 entirely different worlds.
Most here do very much confuse the 2.
MM has very very small number of fashion industry pros on it. It is mostly freelance. But yet fashion wannabe's are constantly trying to push so called industry standards on to this site.
For you to make a condescending statement like this you obviously do not know what the word modeling means. Or you are very narrowly defining it based on what you think it is or want it to be.
I can tell you this. I get paid to model. The people who pay me are photographers that call me a model. I work projects that the call is for a model. So sorry I don't fit in your definition.
MM is a melting pot of people that have a passion for art and photography. There are no standard only experiences and opinions.
You go ahead and ignore the truth about the freelance world. I will keep working and making money in it like I have been since I was 18. Call it what ever you want to. But its modeling no matter if you like it or not.

So please do tell everyone what the definition of a Model is?

Yeah she wouldn't know anything about the " world of freelance modeling" and neither would Laura.

loeffinl

Caitin Bre wrote:
So you have to be confident and tell your client that To compete at the level of quality that they have enjoyed from you that you are going to have to get increases to keep up with the costs of doing good business. You will lose some and gain others.

The entire situation for photography has changed. You have to compete with the amateur now. Amateur is who has raised the price of models. There is so much work out there and people pay what I ask. I don't care if they are a beginner or a pro. Money still spends the same way.
A lot of people in the business are learning the loyalty they once enjoyed is dwindling.
The photographers that I know are aggressive in there marketing. When things get a little unpredictable to survive they diversify and go for new markets.
If I relied on just fashion I wouldn't make it at all. I am to old, not stat and the competition for a few dollars is fierce. Art nude is also kinda competitive the pay is ok, but it is very demanding for the pay and to far between work. Erotic artistic and fetish.... bingo! So combine all 3 and you can do very well. Then kick off somethings of your own to keep some bread and butter going.
I stay very busy. because I make it that way. Not waiting for anyone. Not doing it the way anyone says it should be or has to be. If a model did it the way a lot say it should be on MM. They would starve.

Fashion usually requires a face too

Samantha if I were you I would look at the portfolios of some successful models in the genre YOU would like to be active in and see how you stack up realistically.

How do you stack up compared to then looks wise, portfolio-wise -- what do you bring to the table?

Why should someone hire you over someone else?

And if someone has a portfolio that does not reflect the rates that they say they are getting you might want to ask yourself why that is.

Anything can say anything on the internet but the proof is in the pudding. If I see a portfolio with pics from two or three shoots and they look a pile of poo and the person says they get a certain rate and then I look at another model who has a kick ass portfolio and they say a completely different rate ( which is considerably lower) that should say something to you.

Charge what the market will bear.

Laura UnBound wrote:

We've been asking you the same thing for months, you've never once provided any substantial evidence to your claims, certainly not a portfolio that represents someone in the biz for that long. People might not call bullshit on your "info" so often if you actually had something to back it up, but you never seem interested in doing that, which just screams that it's not true.

You can't actually name someone making the kind of money you say they make, you just "know a person"
You don't actually show 20+ years of experience, you just expect people to be believe you because you said so
You don't actually show any of the amazing photos you've done, showcased any of the great photographers you've worked with, have anything to show for your incredibly successful 800/days or "good photos plus cash" negotiations, you just do a lot of talking.


We're all just waiting for you to walk the walk.




Also, she never said you weren't a model, she said that many people here would not consider you a model.

The proof is in my bank account and that is all that matters to me. I owe nothing to you and your MM forum clique. I don't have to prove a thing to anyone who isn't going to work with me or pay me. If you want to know just hire me.
The people who do pay and know me and are planning on working with me do know what they need to.
MM forums crack me up.
I make what I say I do or I wouldn't tell other models they could be making it as well. Period.

Caitin Bre wrote:

The proof is in my bank account and that is all that matters to me. I owe nothing to you and your MM forum clique. I don't have to prove a thing to anyone who isn't going to work with me or pay me. If you want to know just hire me.
The people who do pay and know me and are planning on working with me do know what they need to.
MM forums crack me up.
I make what I say I do or I wouldn't tell other models they could be making it as well. Period.

Thats fine.

Continue to have your "advice" challenged as misleading, unhelpful, and outright incorrect most of the time then. Hopefully the people who actually need advice see through all the BS you spew and can tell that a) you are the ONLY person saying what you say in a crowd of people who say otherwise and agree with each other, and b) you dont back any of your info up.

Caitin Bre wrote:

The proof is in my bank account and that is all that matters to me. I owe nothing to you and your MM forum clique. I don't have to prove a thing to anyone who isn't going to work with me or pay me. If you want to know just hire me.
The people who do pay and know me and are planning on working with me do know what they need to.
MM forums crack me up.
I make what I say I do or I wouldn't tell other models they could be making it as well. Period.

How can anyone hire you if you don't have a current portfolio?
Or do people have to pay you to experience that as well?

AJScalzitti wrote:

That is far too logical this thread moved on to delusional once $120/hr plus was suggested.

Haha I do feel like spock sometimes

Laura UnBound wrote:

Absolutely not, I've seen very otherwise successful and experienced models struggle to get those rates in this market. Which is why I said all models can't, just any random model can't.


Canada is a lot different for freelance modeling, and I think a lot of people don't understand that. They think any big city is going to be comparable to NYC or LA in terms of how much work and what type of work and how much it's going to pay! and that's simply not true here. While Toronto is certainly plentiful in the arts scene, the market is lower, the model selection is different and smaller, and we don't get travelers the way the us does. It's not like the north east where you can take a 5 dollar bus and hit any combo of 1-6 major cities with thriving markets in a matter of hours. The next big city from here is Montreal and that's 7 hours away. The full time traveling model just doesn't exist the way it does in the states. Which means the markets can stay low, they've got the same models day in and day out, same photographers, same people working together over and over. Which in a way isn't so bad, if you can arrange multiple frequent collaborations, lower rates but guaranteed frequency makes up for that high rate other models need to cover their asses during the dead periods. If you can't work that angle though then yeah, you feel like you're doing too much for too little and American cities seem like way better targets.

It's largely the same issue that arises when dealing with the European market. Their rates are much lower and any American models who travel over there and don't adjust their rates for that don't book work, they get laughed at for being absurdly high priced.


Self-worth and what your market perceives your worth as are two totally different things. It's great when they actually line up and can often be a kick in the teeth when they don't, but that's just a fact of freelancing.

I have worked with Eastern European models here.  They had the same rate as models here.   

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

I have worked with Eastern European models here.  They had the same rate as models here.   

Because they can get it over here. Doesnt work the other way around.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

I have worked with Eastern European models here.  They had the same rate as models here.   

I believe she meant the rates when you book them and work with them in Europe -- not the US.

LightDreams wrote:
I did some Googling to find out what even the so-called industry standard rates actually are for porn (as that supposed to be much more lucrative).

Wow.

Kink.com (claims 22 websites) publicly lists "industry standard" porn rates for most of their video porn shoots with total pay for the performers in the $500 to $800 range...

And the styles listed certainly are well beyond "vanilla" porn.

Draw your own conclusions.


Edit: I was referring to the claim that "And no I don't do porn. But I have a few friends that do and they pop 10k in 4 hours plus residual earnings as well as the right to use the footage for there website."

I was curious because I had a vague memory of an old TV documentary that claimed that a top Vivid contract model (at the time) was making $1,000 a day for 3 or 4 days when they were making a new "high budget" porn film.

I know a porn director and his male actors get 1K max, the female actors get 2K max. This is not "vanilla" either. He doesn't shoot for Kink.com but companies such as Brazzers.

LightDreams wrote:
I did some Googling to find out what even the so-called industry standard rates actually are for porn (as that supposed to be much more lucrative).

Wow.

Kink.com (claims 22 websites) publicly lists "industry standard" porn rates for most of their video porn shoots with total pay for the performers in the $500 to $800 range...

And the styles listed certainly are well beyond "vanilla" porn.

Draw your own conclusions.


Edit: I was referring to the claim that "And no I don't do porn. But I have a few friends that do and they pop 10k in 4 hours plus residual earnings as well as the right to use the footage for there website."

I was curious because I had a vague memory of an old TV documentary that claimed that a top Vivid contract model (at the time) was making $1,000 a day for 3 or 4 days when they were making a new "high budget" porn film.

Interesting article:

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-wh … es-2012-11

Interesting to note that porn actresses now are making 1/2 of what they used to make.

According to the article, the agency listed is considered one of the top agencies in the porn industry.

"Spiegler's boutique firm, Spiegler Girls, represents a small group of elite women and is regarded as one of the industry's top agencies in the Hollywood of porn: The San Fernando Valley."

Here is what they state as the recognized rate for top porn actresses:


    $800 for a girl-girl scene

    $1,000 for a guy-girl scene

    $1,200 or more for anal sex

    $4,000 or more for "double penetration"

Very interesting article.

Laura UnBound wrote:

Because they can get it over here. Doesnt work the other way around.

They were very attractive models and worth it.

Greg Kolack wrote:
Interesting to note that porn actresses now are making 1/2 of what they used to make.

Strippers also.

The whole adult industry, really.

Samantha Barley wrote:
I'm unsure what I should be charging per hour.
I do partial nudes and full nudes.

thanks.

With just one single post and no follow up, you are not giving us much information to work with.  We are not supposed to critique in this section of the forums.   I can say that in looking at your portfolio, I think you can get paid for glamour nudes and vintage pin up style work.  I would pay for such type work based on your body and face ... in my opinion, you'd be great for it.  As a general statistic, models who are open to partial or/and full nudity do make more money than those who don't.  As for how much?  That can depend on so many variables that it's a better idea to discuss that in negotiation with photographers who are interested in working with you.  There maybe those you'd even TFP with and those who you charge any where from $25 to $125 and hour!  Too many variable to discuss here.  Realistically, what would you like to make?

Koryn Locke wrote:

Strippers also.

The whole adult industry, really.

I'm sure it has a lot to do with free porn all over the internet.

Samantha Barley wrote:
I'm unsure what I should be charging per hour.
I do partial nudes and full nudes.

thanks.

Rates should probably be flexible in my opinion.  I'd also keep in mind that with little experience (I really have no idea how much you have from your port), the paid offers will likely come from mostly photographers who aren't going to enhance your port but you could get lucky on occasion.  That's just how it is.

I'd even consider paying a high end photographer to enhance your port before trying to firm up rates. Like any business, I'd say you generally need to invest first before getting paid.

Carle Photography wrote:
Give it 10 years, and as the Massage Parlours of the 90's fall by the wayside,
new "Photography/Modeling Studios" will be cropping up.


No wonder those who actually work at their craft and sell what is published, are pissed.

You might be right, but I wouldn't worry too much.  People putting in real work and passion can always rise above what slackers produce.  I see the rise of social networking modeling as a get rich quick scheme for many people. Very few with the scheme attitude will get very far anyway.

Will Snizek wrote:

Rates should probably be flexible in my opinion.  I'd also keep in mind that with little experience (I really have no idea how much you have from your port), the paid offers will likely come from mostly photographers who aren't going to enhance your port but you could get lucky on occasion.  That's just how it is.

I'd even consider paying a high end photographer to enhance your port before trying to firm up rates. Like any business, I'd say you generally need to invest first before getting paid.

This is something I agree with! 

As of yet, Samantha has not provided much info to go on.

Will Snizek wrote:
You might be right, but I wouldn't worry too much.  People putting in real work and passion can always rise above what slackers produce.  I see the rise of social networking modeling as a get rich quick scheme for many people. Very few with the scheme attitude will get very far anyway.

 

I have kept my finger on the pulse of this Internet modeling phenomena as it has grown.  In the late 90's and early 2000's, single model "non nude" teaser sites were popping up all over the 'net, often times with teen models who were not even legal for adult work yet.  Many failed and went off the net, while some progressed to "adult" sites, but with the flood of free porn, it's hard to make a buck at that now.  Multiple model sites, Facebook fan pages, and places like ModelMayhem are where a lot of people browse nowadays, but it's not making money for anyone but those who collect from advertising.  What is the next big thing?  I've got an idea, but I'm not telling. 

Laura UnBound wrote:
Thats fine.

Continue to have your "advice" challenged as misleading, unhelpful, and outright incorrect most of the time then. Hopefully the people who actually need advice see through all the BS you spew and can tell that a) you are the ONLY person saying what you say in a crowd of people who say otherwise and agree with each other, and b) you dont back any of your info up.

+1.

jf

Nature Coast Lightworks wrote:
Why are even here Caiten? Your not a real model

She modeled for me once, I thought that was real.

Robert Randall wrote:
She modeled for me once, I thought that was real.

thought?

jf

Nature Coast Lightworks wrote:
thought?

jf

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/31701804

and of course he paid her $1000 a day

Patrick Walberg wrote:
What is the next big thing?  I've got an idea, but I'm not telling. 

Nature Coast Lightworks wrote:
thought?

jf

That's a great photo. No makeup nothing. Its a pretty good emotional expression shot if you ask me. The emotion (nervous a little fear) of is somebody watching me, following me? Fear of the unknown.

Caitin Bre wrote:

That's a great photo. No makeup nothing. Its a pretty good emotional expression shot if you ask me. The emotion (nervous a little fear) of is somebody watching me, following me? Fear of the unknown.

Normally you don't have to explain really great photos.

GeorgeMann wrote:
... shouldn't the OP be given actual rates she can receive without resorting to porn videos?

I believe that that information has been given several times.

In brief, the consensus seems to be that, at her present level of skill and experience, she can command minimal or zero fees unless she pitches to the GWC market where she might occasionally be offered $50 to $100 per hour.

natural beauties of qld wrote:

I believe that that information has been given several times.

In brief, the consensus seems to be that, at her present level of skill and experience, she can command minimal or zero fees unless she pitches to the GWC market where she might occasionally be offered $50 to $100 per hour.

Thank you.

Robert Randall wrote:

She modeled for me once, I thought that was real.

No offense
But you might be in on the gag so to speak
A few months from now I could see an epic "gotcha suckers post" !!!!

natural beauties of qld wrote:

I believe that that information has been given several times.

In brief, the consensus seems to be that, at her present level of skill and experience, she can command minimal or zero fees unless she pitches to the GWC market where she might occasionally be offered $50 to $100 per hour.

+1.

Laura UnBound wrote:

Which is great, if you're hiring a model 5 days a week.

The point I'm trying to make is we charge so damn much because we're rarely able to book full days every day all month all year. We have to make up for the dead periods and the flakes and whatnot.

I agree that this is in the back of anyone's mind who works for themselves.

Years ago I told an art director this same reasoning for my rate..
He replied.  "Your lack of work is not my concern." 

It  was after that I never mentioned it again.