Chad Prescott wrote:
I was under the impression that the height minimum was for runway type modeling. I was told by an agent that wanted to sign me that for print my height was fine. He was wanting me to take one of the "schools" all too often promoted so i wouldnt be surprised if he was just trying to mislead me. I'm only interested in print to be honest. Im not looking to be the next big thing. I would be happy seeing my face in any clothing store. Is the height minimum across the board?

He was not an agent. He was scum.

Height is even more of a factor for males than it it females. Why? Imagine what you would look like standing next to a 5'7/8/9/10" model wearing 4" heels. It's just not a marketable photo.

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Chad, while in LA, also see Otto. They do a lot of commercial and other advertising work.  Have you been to Shamon Freitas in SD yet?

I worked for JRPowers and Barbizon in San Diego a very long time back. They aren't worthless. The biggest advantage is that the owners and staff know a whole lot of folks in the business and will use those networks when there's a good candidate. There are very few folks they'll stick their necks out for though.

I did work for JRP awhile back as well and while not a total scam, don't fall for the iPop contest (it's the JRP's travel agency side).

Two words: New York. LA is better for acting while NY has better and more legit modeling opportunities.

In the mean time, work with as many pro photographers as you can afford. The better your portfolio (comp card) looks the better your chances are.

Chad Prescott wrote:
I was under the impression that the height minimum was for runway type modeling.

For women. For men, I believe it's 6'.

Chad Prescott wrote:
Perfect thanks for the advice! It really is helpful. I will have to look into those agencies mentioned. I guess the best way to see if any agencies or clothing stores will take a lowly 5"9' guy is by going in and asking. Haha the worst that can happen is they will say no!

No the worst thing that can happen is that they pry you loose from your cash, and you get zippidy-do-da in return.

Studio36

Chad Prescott wrote:
I guess the best way to see if any agencies or clothing stores will take a lowly 5"9' guy is by going in and asking. Haha the worst that can happen is they will say no!

There is no shortage of agencies that will take you in, but whether you will benefit is entirely a different matter.

The worst that will happen is that they will build up your hopes, relieve you of a significant amount of money, and deliver nothing in return.

SierraBlade wrote:
The worst they can say is "grow".

Hahaha ok thank you I understand I'm short! I'm glad we got that out of the way.

Ronald N. Tan wrote:
Hi Chad,

First, thank you for your service. :-)

Second, any agent that tells you about a "modeling school" or strongly insist on a single photographer to work with, those are classic signs of scam and I recommend you politely (but strongly) decline on what ever they're proposing.

If you wanted to model just for fun, I completely encourage you. Don't be afraid to show some skin and be sexy. Here is a strategic tip for you: market yourself to gay photographers. How do you know if a photographer is gay? Look at the images he posts on his MM. If the 90%+ are images of men, chances are—he's gay. Contact them and introduce yourself. Start by saying that you're currently an officer or serving in the military.

Next, quickly and briefly state why you want to model or more importantly, why you think the photographer you're contacting is right to help you out in your modeling endeavors. They may charge you; they may give you a military discount; or decline you. I don't think it will hurt you to try my suggestion.

I should warn you, Chad—be careful of the many gay "photographers" masquerading as photographers. Ask yourself, "Can their work be seen in GQ? Can their sexy images be used by CK or major underwear brand?" If the answers are "NO!" I wouldn't waste my time for vapid and asinine pictures, even if they came gratis.

Good luck. Private message if, if you have additional questions or wants clarifications.

PS: I realized, I answered more on your other thread than this one.

thank you that is a lot of good info! I appreciate your help and ideas. I'll let you know how it gos.

Ronald N. Tan wrote:
Hi Chad,

First, thank you for your service. :-)

Second, any agent that tells you about a "modeling school" or strongly insist on a single photographer to work with, those are classic signs of scam and I recommend you politely (but strongly) decline on what ever they're proposing.

If you wanted to model just for fun, I completely encourage you. Don't be afraid to show some skin and be sexy. Here is a strategic tip for you: market yourself to gay photographers. How do you know if a photographer is gay? Look at the images he posts on his MM. If the 90%+ are images of men, chances are—he's gay. Contact them and introduce yourself. Start by saying that you're currently an officer or serving in the military.

Next, quickly and briefly state why you want to model or more importantly, why you think the photographer you're contacting is right to help you out in your modeling endeavors. They may charge you; they may give you a military discount; or decline you. I don't think it will hurt you to try my suggestion.

I should warn you, Chad—be careful of the many gay "photographers" masquerading as photographers. Ask yourself, "Can their work be seen in GQ? Can their sexy images be used by CK or major underwear brand?" If the answers are "NO!" I wouldn't waste my time for vapid and asinine pictures, even if they came gratis.

Good luck. Private message if, if you have additional questions or wants clarifications.

PS: I realized, I answered more on your other thread than this one.

Wow, I'm amazed at the stereotypes used in the above post!

Darren Brade wrote:
Wow, I'm amazed at the stereotypes used in the above post!

Maybe for good reasons

Darren Brade wrote:

Wow, I'm amazed at the stereotypes used in the above post!

Well, I must be a stereotype, then.

The only thing I would add to Mr Tan's post is the need for a reasonable body if the OP is going to get fitness or underwear work.  The genre is quite competitive.

studio36uk wrote:
The truth in two short paragraphs - - -

The whole of the fashion as well as the non-fashion model industry is corrupt. The worst, and that's not saying much since the case of Masters, et al v. Wilhelmina, et al which resulted in a judgement of nearly $22 million against 8 of the very top end NYC agencies who were happily ripping the models off for years, [the worst] are the bottom of the barrel agencies who treat models and wannabe models as little more than cash cows.

There are always those, the industry's real dregs, who will tell a model or hopeful wannabe model, or their parent(s) if they are a minor, that they can make them a "star" - but only if they buy into this training, or that convention, or buy that $1500 or more "portfolio," or otherwise find some way to separate the model from their money. These are no-hoper "agencies," some of which are actually phantom operators as they lack licensing or bonding in places that otherwise require it, preying on no-hoper models who will never have an actual career prospect in the industry, EVER! And yet they will happily take the model's money, and often lots of that, instead of the honest approach of telling them, up front, that they know from the git-go that they have no chance in hell.

Studio36

The second paragraph is an opinion that I happen to agree with.

The first paragraph begins by introducing a fact that's distorted. These agencies didn't "happily rip off models for years". It was an Anti-Trust case regarding collusion to fix pricing (agency commissions). The judgment was stipulated and the court's opinion included a statement that Plaintiffs' may have a difficult time in proving their case.

You cannot compare the agencies and their practices named in Masters, to the agencies commonly referred to as "scams". They're not the same business model. The New York agencies that were the defendants in Masters are the agencies that built the business of modeling and have made an awful lot of models rich and successful. Their mistake was continuing to do business as they always had and not modernizing their methods and contracts. Any model would kill to be with just about any one of them, and most higher paid models currently are.

On the other hand, and I won't name names currently in business but there are the "agencies" who's practices somewhat follow the Options Models business plan. These agencies, and even schools IMO are predators that prey on dreams and parents that want to their kids to have every possible chance at success.

LaurensAntoine 4 FHM wrote:
You cannot compare the agencies and their practices named in Masters, to the agencies commonly referred to as "scams". They're not the same business model.

Perhaps not but the result is often the same. In my thinking the real difference is that one does things that are manifestly wrong on their face, while the other tends to use more slight of hand, often in the accounting, to accomplish the same end. NONE are entirely transparent in their dealings with the models.

The more I see the less encouraged I am. If you want to test that just start asking models, a very fundamental question, what % commission they think their agency collects for their services and compare that to what agencies actually make on the model's services.

Though Masters v. [8 agencies] settled into the anti-trust element there was a lot more revealed in the first filings - - - price fixing; double dealing; dealing in their own self interest; actually breaking the [NY state] law on fees; unfair business practices; conspiracy between themselves to do these things [which primarily formed the anti-trust element]; and a lot more.

Studio36

EDIT: In may ways this is my operative observation:

... there are many people who just do not know what an agency and an agent are, and what both the professional and financial relationship between the principal and the agency/agent is or should be. Or, do they know and understand the functional and financial difference between [model] agency and [model] management.

It is also fair to say that a great many agencies [and agents] also play fast and loose with this as well and operate based on the above mentioned lack of knowledge and understanding.

Studio36

Ronald N. Tan wrote:
Hi Chad,

First, thank you for your service. :-)

Second, any agent that tells you about a "modeling school" or strongly insist on a single photographer to work with, those are classic signs of scam and I recommend you politely (but strongly) decline on what ever they're proposing.

If you wanted to model just for fun, I completely encourage you. Don't be afraid to show some skin and be sexy. Here is a strategic tip for you: market yourself to gay photographers. How do you know if a photographer is gay? Look at the images he posts on his MM. If the 90%+ are images of men, chances are—he's gay. Contact them and introduce yourself. Start by saying that you're currently an officer or serving in the military.

Next, quickly and briefly state why you want to model or more importantly, why you think the photographer you're contacting is right to help you out in your modeling endeavors. They may charge you; they may give you a military discount; or decline you. I don't think it will hurt you to try my suggestion.

I should warn you, Chad—be careful of the many gay "photographers" masquerading as photographers. Ask yourself, "Can their work be seen in GQ? Can their sexy images be used by CK or major underwear brand?" If the answers are "NO!" I wouldn't waste my time for vapid and asinine pictures, even if they came gratis.

Good luck. Private message if, if you have additional questions or wants clarifications.

PS: I realized, I answered more on your other thread than this one.

+1


Hopefully he contacted you about this, since you would know more about the local scene and agencies there than most anyone else in this thread.



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

studio36uk wrote:

LaurensAntoine 4 FHM wrote:
You cannot compare the agencies and their practices named in Masters, to the agencies commonly referred to as "scams". They're not the same business model.

Perhaps not but the result is often the same. In my thinking the real difference is that one does things that are manifestly wrong on their face, while the other tends to use more slight of hand, often in the accounting, to accomplish the same end. NONE are entirely transparent in their dealings with the models.

The more I see the less encouraged I am. If you want to test that just start asking models, a very fundamental question, what % commission they think their agency collects for their services and compare that to what agencies actually make on the model's services.

Though Masters v. [8 agencies] settled into the anti-trust element there was a lot more revealed in the first filings - - - price fixing; double dealing; dealing in their own self interest; actually breaking the [NY state] law on fees; unfair business practices; conspiracy between themselves to do these things [which primarily formed the anti-trust element]; and a lot more.

Studio36

EDIT: In may ways this is my operative observation:

I don't think the end result is anything the same. One scenario is a scam with false hopes and promises that result in only one of the parties making money. The other makes both the parties money (or the model is released).

I don't need to test transparency, I know many models with the 8 agencies, as well as owners, managers and bookers at several (or more) of them. The formula for commissions as well as the agency fees are no secret. With that said, I'd agree that many people that don't work with those types of agencies do not have a good understanding of all the fees, splits, or responsibilities of the parties.

Less well known is the what you touch on in your edit (agency v management). Depending on the state, employment agencies may be capped as to "commission". That's one of the failures to modernize methods and contracts I had mentioned. Today, the difference is clear, at least in New York.

I find most the major agencies to be quite above board these days, but they do make a nice target. Most the money and better models gets funneled through a small handful of agencies with big brand names while the rest exist on scams, not paying bills, lying and other bad forms of business. The bad-will from this gets around but the public mainly only knows the big brand names.

Darren Brade wrote:

Wow, I'm amazed at the stereotypes used in the above post!

Have to disagree Darren, most of what he posted is pretty much spot on!

Chad Prescott wrote:
I have been looking at agencies and what they have to offer however I have found a plethora of scams and schools and all that. Is it really necisary to do the schooling? I feel like it would not be necisary however maybe helpful if you have the cash. What are your opinions? Are there any good agencies I should be aware of?

Chad, there are three decent agencies in San Diego- No Ties, Shamon Frietas and
San Diego Model Management.

Shamon Frietas in particular has been around forever and is solid. Carol, the main person is as nice as anyone you'll ever meet.

Sandra Vixen wrote:
ever notice how big budget films hire prestigious names even when they don't have talent.

ROTFLMAO ! ! !

Studio36