Vector One Photography wrote:
MM is about the online modeling industry which should not be confused with THE industry or the (fashion, glamour, or art) modeling industry or real life at all.

Oh why this real life thing again, all our lives are real, all of us are working in real life. When I order clothes from a website it's still real life, if I book a modelling job over the phone it isn't any more real. Just because the communication medium is the internet we still have to show up to real physical locations, with our real physical bodies, to have our picture taken by actual cameras.

GeorgeMann wrote:

I think you are wrong here Udor.
Model Mayhem can certainly be called a part of an industry.
Internet models and photographers, regardless whether hobbiests or professionals make up a huge industry in and of itself.
  The industry as many refer to it is generally considered the fashion/commercial industry, but I would be interested to know if "The Industry" (fashion/commercial) really does move/pay much more money to its contributors than the Internet Modeling Industry?
  Internet modeling and the photographers in it very likely spend more yearly on equipment than the fashion/commercial photographers, simply by the numbers involved.
  Internet models, going by rates often posted in MM threads seem to make as much if not more annually than fashion models that are not Super Models.

Wow your numbers are way off..
Incorrect information by miles.............

Is Model Mayhem Not About The Modeling Industry?

Model Mayhem is about the industry of Model Mayhem

Philipe wrote:

Wow your numbers are way off..
Incorrect information by miles.............

I think he might be referring to the photographic equipment industry, for which every MM photographer is part of as a customer...

Philipe wrote:

Wow your numbers are way off..
Incorrect information by miles.............

Numbers???
Google it, models in general including "The Industry" models generally do not make a lot more ANNUALLY than minimum wage.

ddtphoto wrote:

Depends. If it's a national ad campaign with top shelf agency talent then those numbers aren't too crazy for a full day rate. I know a hand model who told me he still gets about $30,000 a year for an ATT commercial he did 3 years ago. His hand was in the spot for about 5 seconds.

And you believe him??

Bilsen Galleries wrote:
I analogise Mayhem to the zbaseball minor leagues.  There is some genuine major league talent on both sides of the camera but the step from A ball to the show is HUGE.

Guys like Ken Marcus are Major Leaguers but he is 1 out of hundreds on here ( like myself) who will make Double A or even triple A but never the show.

There are models who could get brought up to the bigs but, like ballplyers, they are the huge exceptions.

The rest of us play for love of the game........  And to see boobs of course.  LOLOL

Umm Ken has been to the show and retired (at least once), he shoots what he likes on his own terms now.

udor wrote:

I think he might be referring to the photographic equipment industry, for which every MM photographer is part of as a customer...

***snorts***

ddtphoto wrote:

Depends. If it's a national ad campaign with top shelf agency talent then those numbers aren't too crazy for a full day rate. I know a hand model who told me he still gets about $30,000 a year for an ATT commercial he did 3 years ago. His hand was in the spot for about 5 seconds.

Bilsen Galleries wrote:
I analogise Mayhem to the zbaseball minor leagues.  There is some genuine major league talent on both sides of the camera but the step from A ball to the show is HUGE.

Guys like Ken Marcus are Major Leaguers but he is 1 out of hundreds on here ( like myself) who will make Double A or even triple A but never the show.

There are models who could get brought up to the bigs but, like ballplyers, they are the huge exceptions.

The rest of us play for love of the game........  And to see boobs of course.  LOLOL

There are also many models who make a decent living here who're not reliant on photographers.
Fit and showroom, and promo models and life models for example. I am amazed and flabbergasted by the lack of comprehension of this.
Likewise, there are photographers who make a,living from.photography but not necessarily model photography.

It's an intersect. You know, sets. The 'industry' for models,and photographers can be largely seperate areas. Neither necessarily,reliant on the other for their income.

WIP wrote:
'...... the lack of comprehension of this'.   I don't think photographers have much interest unless there are pictures and I can't see models posting ' fit' pictures.... serves no purpose.

I don't expect anyone to have much interest in the stills I shoot as this is a model site ... images of models.

That's isn't the point .
I answered the question.

"Is Model Mayhem not about the modelling industry?"

by saying what the modelling industry encompasses. It is far from exclusively photography. And art, fit and showroom, runway, hostessing and  promo jobs feature in castings. And they are all paid!!! The purpose it serves in telling you guys that is that we have no trouble being paid by other employers. So an appreciation of that may help you understand why so few of us look at tf castings.




And you'd be not necessarily right I'm very interested in fact in geographical images and portraits of non models and animals and sports etc  I've seen in photographers ports here. I think I'd be more inclined to shoot with Steve McCurry tf for eg than any model photographer here.
And I've been to a number of exhibitions by photographers here unrelated to their model photography eg Ira Meyer.


So our 'images of models' ports get us jobs in the other areas of modelling (I landed a very well paid long term fit job remember through my online port ), and the extent of variety of work in your ports,can attract the interest of models; though depends if it's inspirational imagery.

GeorgeMann wrote:
Numbers???
Google it, models in general including "The Industry" models generally do not make a lot more ANNUALLY than minimum wage.

Google is your source?

Send an email to a model agency with a brief and a client (under a fake name if you want) - with a real brief describing the project- look book for a small brand - national campaign for a year

Ask them for one model from their NEW faces even! And see what they reply

Google...

Also, I wrote to 2 main retailers: one in Europe and one in South America - they said photographers doing high end campaigns spend a lot more in equipment than all of their lower end clients put together.

Lower end go for years with the same cheap stuff, while higher end tend to buy the best as it comes out.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
We asked for a local agency here for a model's day rate a week ago for a CATALOG/look book

The rate was $4000 (usd)

I think you might want to rethink your numbers.

WIP wrote:
I think you're being screwed over.

Shot two ads for a new handbag company (which Natalia's shop did the retouching on, fwiw).  Two photos, VERY limited usage.  The rate for the day, for one model was $2,000 and that was through a booker who likes me and was willing to do us a solid. 

ddtphoto wrote:
Depends. If it's a national ad campaign with top shelf agency talent then those numbers aren't too crazy for a full day rate. I know a hand model who told me he still gets about $30,000 a year for an ATT commercial he did 3 years ago. His hand was in the spot for about 5 seconds.

GeorgeMann wrote:
And you believe him??

For a National TV Ad that runs often?  Yeah, I could see that. 

I have to do four insert spots for a national packaged goods brand.  Nothing fancy at all - pretty basic stuff.  We'll be shooting a "family" of four.  These are four photos, that will be used once each (on a national level).  One day of shooting.  Budget for models is $10,000.  If the company decides to reuse the shots, the the models, along with myself, will get paid more under a new licensing agreement.  These are not high rates - at all.

Now, if they elect to go with a full campaign, those rates would quadruple.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
We asked for a local agency here for a model's day rate a week ago for a CATALOG/look book

The rate was $4000 (usd)

I think you might want to rethink your numbers.

WIP wrote:
I think you're being screwed over.

Shot two ads for a new handbag company (which Natalia's shop did the retouching on, fwiw).  Two photos, VERY limited usage.  The rate for the day, for one model was $2,000 and that was through a booker who likes me and was willing to do us a solid. 

ddtphoto wrote:
Depends. If it's a national ad campaign with top shelf agency talent then those numbers aren't too crazy for a full day rate. I know a hand model who told me he still gets about $30,000 a year for an ATT commercial he did 3 years ago. His hand was in the spot for about 5 seconds.

For a National TV Ad that runs often?  Yeah, I could see that. 

I have to do four insert spots for a national packaged goods brand.  Nothing fancy at all - pretty basic stuff.  We'll be shooting a "family" of four.  These are four photos, that will be used once each (on a national level).  One day of shooting.  Budget for models is $10,000.  If the company decides to reuse the shots, the the models, along with myself, will get paid more under a new licensing agreement.  These are not high rates - at all.

Now, if they elect to go with a full campaign, those rates would quadruple.

This is in line with what agency models I have worked with have told me. People here don't believe it.

The vast majority of small businesses can't afford that of course so smaller agencies and freelance models mop up the rest at lower rates. My business plan was to look at those rates charged by commercial agencies. Mostly around £100 an hour plus vat plus four hour minimum plus commercial use rates on top.

So when I got asked my rates, I set £75 an hour, and £245 for the day. I was always told it was very reasonable. I never asked anything on top for commercial usr though was given more on times. Not that I did many such jobs. But that was because I was doing fit three or four days a week by then and that was regular.

I don't know why photographers here find any of these rates surprising.Even when working for less, for example doing promo or art institution modelling, it was regular money and still around £25-35 an hour but you'd get eight hours two days a week, or every Thursday night for three hours for ten weeks. Promo similar you can get five days at a trade fair £20 an hour = £800 .

Models may work tf now and again for select photographers but it should not be expected from pro models. And the last thing they should do is sneer at rates we quote and say they are unrealistic. This is why half the time models don't answer emails here for tf requests.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
I don't know why photographers here find any of these rates surprising.

Because they have never been a part of an actual commercial project?

I don't mind that they don't know. I'm bothered by those who argue from ignorance.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Also, I wrote to 2 main retailers: one in Europe and one in South America - they said photographers doing high end campaigns spend a lot more in equipment than all of their lower end clients put together.

Lower end go for years with the same cheap stuff, while higher end tend to buy the best as it comes out.

They call it tax deductible.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
I don't know why photographers here find any of these rates surprising.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Because they have never been a part of an actual commercial project?

I don't mind that they don't know. I'm bothered by those who argue from ignorance.

What I find even more amusing, and it often comes up with the "digital killed commercial photography" arguments (which isn't true, although it has had an impact) are photographers who have no concept of commercial rates.  They'll usually chime in saying that they do commercial work and they're "doing great, very busy".  But when you ask what "doing great" means, they say they're earning $30,000 to $50,000 per year - if they're lucky - which is nothing for a commercial shooter. 

I don't work on high-end campaigns.  Most of what I do is rather pedestrian and not something I'd want to show.  I'm working hard to change that, as is the ad agency I get most of my work through, and it's starting to improve, but the simple fact is, I do rather unglamorous work.  Having said that, the four photos I have to take for the packaged food company will pay almost the same as these guys are making per annum.  I may only do four or five shoots a year, but that's pretty standard for a lot of commercial shooters.  Six to eight is a GREAT year.

The whole reason for doing the more illustrative work that I've been doing is to go after higher end commercial work, of which it is almost entirely composite work, and this is a fun, and so far successful way of demonstrating that work to ADs.

GeorgeMann wrote:

Numbers???
Google it, models in general including "The Industry" models generally do not make a lot more ANNUALLY than minimum wage.

While I agree that most models do not make more than minimum wage there are many of us that have other sources of income.

BlueMoonPics wrote:
I thought this was a dating site.

That works too. 

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Google is your source?

Send an email to a model agency with a brief and a client (under a fake name if you want) - with a real brief describing the project- look book for a small brand - national campaign for a year

Ask them for one model from their NEW faces even! And see what they reply

Google...

Also, I wrote to 2 main retailers: one in Europe and one in South America - they said photographers doing high end campaigns spend a lot more in equipment than all of their lower end clients put together.

Lower end go for years with the same cheap stuff, while higher end tend to buy the best as it comes out.

"Lower end go for years with the same cheap stuff, while higher end tend to buy the best as it comes out."

Whoever told you that should check on the Sales of Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Alien Bees, etc.
The high end Pro, if he actually purchases a high end camera, doubtfully buys a new Hasselblad yearly.
Heck, the lower, lower, lower, end probably spends as much YEARLY on cell phone cameras as the high end pro.
Think about it, lower end numbers in the thousands of photographers while high end pros probably in the low 100's.

Isis22 wrote:

While I agree that most models do not make more than minimum wage there are many of us that have other sources of income.

Definitely true, thus backing up my mentioning most "Models do not make more than minimum wage". (modeling)
Outside income is not relevant

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
Model Mayhem isn't an industry, it's just a niche that caters to internet models and hobbyist.

Banking is an industry.
Advertising is an industry.
Photography Gear is an industry.

A website about modeling is not an industry.
Modeling by it self is not an industry. It's a job.

I don't see why that's so hard to understand?

Model Mayhem provides a method of communication for models, photographers, those wishing to sell cameras, lingerie , lighting, etc., as well as paying jobs for models and photographers, even though on a smaller scale.
Much the same as the "advertising industry" puts them in touch with the clients wishing to advertise and nothing more.
The "Banking Industry" does the same with those wishing financing or a place for the MM amateur models to place their money made through MM advertising.
"Photography Gear" is purchased widely by photographers that have communicated right here on MM asking others what, which, and who to buy and deal with.
How much more of an industry do you need than an industry that can and does supply you with everything you need from equipment, subjects, clients, and producers, as MM does??

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Also, I wrote to 2 main retailers: one in Europe and one in South America - they said photographers doing high end campaigns spend a lot more in equipment than all of their lower end clients put together.

Lower end go for years with the same cheap stuff, while higher end tend to buy the best as it comes out.

Rent and charge back, no reason to tie up money in capital when you don't have to.

My personal camera is a Canon 7D because it's fast and I can catch the kids who never stop moving.   It's the hobby market that spend on gear that they just "have to have".

GeorgeMann wrote:

Definitely true, thus backing up my mentioning most "Models do not make more than minimum wage". (modeling)
Outside income is not relevant

It is when our other income may pay substantially less.

So if you have a long hours low £ per hour job, like being a,waitress or a scientist, a job or two modelling a month paying far more per hour can be very helpful, even though occasional.

I think I seemed to earn a bit less than the average model when doing it full time in London, and substantially less than many agency girls I worked with. But it was still far far more than minimum wage per hour.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

It is when our other income may pay substantially less.

So if you have a long hours low £ per hour job, like being a,waitress or a scientist, a job or two modelling a month paying far more per hour can be very helpful, even though occasional.

I think I seemed to earn a bit less than the average model when doing it full time in London, and substantially less than many agency girls I worked with. But it was still far far more than minimum wage per hour.

Hi Eliza; It appears to me that you are one of the models here that does pretty well and definitely knows what you are talking about.
However I think when classing low paying jobs the type should be considered.
Here in Orange County, in a decent restaurant, it is not rare that a good breakfast waitress will make over $200.00 (cash) in tips alone on a five hour shift and then add $50.00 on top for minimum wages makes her earn $1250.00 a week for a five day week. And I really think that is pretty good wages. A dinner waitress in a quality dinner house will often take home over $300.00 (cash) in tips for a single shift.

GeorgeMann wrote:
Hi Eliza; It appears to me that you are one of the models here that does pretty well and definitely knows what you are talking about.
However I think when classing low paying jobs the type should be considered.
Here in Orange County, in a decent restaurant, it is not rare that a good breakfast waitress will make over $200.00 (cash) in tips alone on a five hour shift and then add $50.00 on top for minimum wages makes her earn $1250.00 a week for a five day week. And I really think that is pretty good wages. A dinner waitress in a quality dinner house will often take home over $300.00 (cash) in tips for a single shift.

Wow cool.
Well again I guess that not many waitresses will miss a shift to do a tf shoot then!

I think I'm pretty bog standard here as a model, probably earnings wise too even when I was doing it full time, IF in a primary market. I was in London. Here it's not so easy. Mind you I haven't been trying due to writing up my thesis. I know a few models I've talked to here would actually be reluctant to say what they earn as people start pouring scorn on it. But if in a non primary market it's gonna be tough.




Also, in your post at the top, do I detect a little disbelief that models,here may earn more than some fashion models?

I'd say that was often true. At least most models here aren't $10k in debt pursuing it!
There are a lot of fitting and catalogue models here on MM though, and you can see what they earn by contrast.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ … ogist.html

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
Model Mayhem isn't an industry, it's just a niche that caters to internet models and hobbyist.

Banking is an industry.
Advertising is an industry.
Photography Gear is an industry.

A website about modeling is not an industry.
Modeling by it self is not an industry. It's a job.

I don't see why that's so hard to understand?

Far too simple as an explanation ........... but accurate.

JadeDRed wrote:

Oh why this real life thing again, all our lives are real, all of us are working in real life. When I order clothes from a website it's still real life, if I book a modelling job over the phone it isn't any more real. Just because the communication medium is the internet we still have to show up to real physical locations, with our real physical bodies, to have our picture taken by actual cameras.

I think you may have misunderstood the posters meaning.  I don't think he (or she) is saying that it's about the method of communication or transmission of the image. He's saying that in the "real" world it's about money, careers, products and production of images for a commercial (money making) purpose. While on MM there doesn't seem to be the overall quality, professionalism, or purpose as he may be implying or I may be inferring that  many members are not qualified, capable or maybe even desirous of that level.