Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

OK, I think it is time for a bit of history.  Wilhelminal Models is named after its founder, Wilhelmina Cooper.  Wilhelmina was a supermodel from Sweden.  She started the agency in 1967.

Willie, as we used to call her, was the powerhouse before most of the big agencies we know, such as Ford, were even started.  I have met her once and talked to her a couple of times on the phone.  I have friends who used to hang out in her, daily.

What made the agency unique was her prowess for communication.  Gone were the days when agents were dull and drab.  To a large degree, she helped usher in the age of supermodels by elevating models from a picture in a magazine to someone who was bigger than life.  She has a lot to do with models becoming household names today.

Sadly, Wilhelmina died of cancer in 1982.  She was only 42 and died before her time.  By then, other agencies, Such as Ford had started and the paridgam she forwarded had become the standard for the business.

Wilhelmina Models has been sold a number of times since her death.  The last time I looked, it was owned largely by Click.  Management has changed and the principles have changed a number of times over the years as well.  That is part of the reason for the Wilhelmina Scouting Network debacle.  Some owners wanted to find ways to market the name.

Now that they are controlled by another major agency, they have pushed back towards their roots.  I doubt that they will make the same mistake again.   Wilhelmina is and always has been a great agency.   There is no doubt that the loss of their founder has affected them over the years, but by and large, they continue to be one of the big ones.

Getting signed with Wilhelmina in NYC or L.A. is a good thing.  One of my close friends in L.A. is signed exclusively with them for print and she gets big jobs all the time.  I walk though the Bay Street Mall and I see lifesize posters of her all over the walls.  She got a gig as the spokesperson.

OK, enough of history.  There will be a quiz on this later.

1.  Who was Wilhelmina?
2.  Why is this information so boring?

Good morning MM'ers

2. not boring at all!  this is a very informative post, and much appreciated.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
So from my perspective, while I wouldn't generally recommend a modeling school, I take it for what it is.  A modeling school is a modeling school.

Many people say that modeling schools are scams.  Actually, that is untrue.   A "scam" is where someone sells you something but does not deliver.  As an example, if you buy a new camera on eBay and you are delivered a used one that was non-working.


So I am not a fan of schools.  But the BBB report we saw dealt primarily with the school and not the agency.  I don't know anything about either one, except that Modelogic is aparently a legitimate licensee of Wilhelmina Models.

If she is planning on moving to NYC, L.A., Chicago, Miami, etc in the near future, then Modelogic will be a dissappointment to her.

Oh well, good luck to the OP.  This thread has had some interesting comments.

Okay I got an email back from the woman but unfortunately I made it sound like I was so worried about having to have a comp card that I was trying to back down. LOL I didn't think about it when I was being kind of vague as well. I guess I better get back on that and be a little more specfic.

I mainly did not want to be reeled into a fucking development program where I can give all of my college education money to some modeling school. I'm not for these schools  because they play it up to be more than what it is. They give people the hope of making it because they "made it" through their phases of entry. So that is why I don't like it. I know all of this because my friends have went through one here where I live. They give you a little too much hope if you're willing to buy into it; but on the flipside it's a great business idea. haha

I guess you can see it as a dream scammer more than a actual scam.

But back to Modellogic; I got a reply that said they are an agency and have a  development program. But she said that I live too far in her opinon to go through the program; not that I would want to. [I don't have the money to go through college right now much less have the money to go through a modeling school that costs about the same.]

So the answer to the question came back pretty quickly.

Brandy Engle wrote:
But back to Modellogic; I got a reply that said they are an agency and have a  development program. But she said that I live too far in her opinon to go through the program; not that I would want to. [I don't have the money to go through college right now much less have the money to go through a modeling school that costs about the same.]

So when you get back to her, and she answers you, let us know if they make it a condition of signing you on at the "agency" that you also complete the "$975 development programe." That is the KEY question at this point.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
So when you get back to her, and she answers you, let us know if they make it a condition of signing you on at the "agency" that you also complete the "$975 development programe." That is the KEY question at this point.

Studio36

My boyfriend made a good point about how I decided last night that I won't bother because I found out about it and they're trying to talk me back into it.
I'm sure one of these girls will find out what the deal is before I do. Either way I'll end up paying for something by the time it's overwith. (Whether it's a program or a comp card.)

Charisse D wrote:
Hey OP here...lol.Thanks to all who replied to this for me. To answer some questions: No I don't have to take classes to sign with them, she just told me about the development program that is offered, which is separate. She said the next step would be for me to get a comp card which I can choose my own photog for.

So far, so good.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
One positive thing in their favor is this directory listing:

AFTRA-SAG [actors guild]
Virginia
These agents are not franchised, but are authorized by the Guild to represent union talent and collect commission in accordance with the codified agency regulations.

MODELOGIC, INC.
PO Box 12143
Richmond, VA 23241-0143
(804) 644-1000
www.modelogic.com

Listed with 4 others that AFTRA-SAG also "authorise" in the VA area. and three that AFTRA-SAG "franchise" themselves in Maryland [Washington/Baltimore area]

Studio36

Understand that the SCREEN ACTORS GUILD (SAG) does not have an agreement between the guild and a lot of talent agencies.  In 2002 there was a big contract negotiation between the guild and ATA/NATR that failed to come to an agreement.  When it ended so did ageny many agency franchises.  Basically all the top agencies are no longer franchised.  CAA, ICM, UTA, Endeavor, Paradigm, William Morris, Gersh, etc.  You may go to www.sag.org and read the MEMBER UPDATE ON TALENT AGENTS to learn more.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
The real question to me is whether the OP intends to remain in her small market?   If she does, as long as they are not asking for any advance fees, then I see no harm in signing with a small, reputable local agency.  Whatever bookings she gets is more than she has now.

WRONG WRONG WRONG! There could be major harm in signing anything.  Please READ your contract.  Every line.  Hire an attorney if you're not good with all the legalese.  You need to know what you are signing.  Agency contracts are meant to protect the agency's interests more than yours.

I'm guessing a few people here watch ANTM.  Remember the cycle where Tyra had the models sign contacts.  They were so happy just to be wanted that they signed a contract that was not good.  I think it allowed Tyra's company to commission them over 50% for life or something like that.

Things that should clearly be stated are:

1.) What percentage of commission do they take?  And for what type of work.? Talent agencies can only take a 10% commission.  Talent managers take 15% but the trend has knocked that down to 10%.  Other people here can tell you what legit modeling agencies take for commission.

2.) Length of contract.  How long will they be representing you?  1 year?  3 years?  10 years? If you decide to leave do they still get your money down the line?  If so, for how long? (do models get residuals?)

3.) What, if any, are your out clauses?  Writers Guild, Director Guild, and Screen Actors Guild contracts have a 90 day out clause.  It basically means that if they don't secure you work within 90 days you may terminate the contract.  There are other types of outs.  Find out what yours are.

4.) What area of work will they sign you?  Are they signing you as an actress or signer or model or writer or director or dancer?  If they are signing you in all areas, is the commission the same for every area?

5.) What will they commission? Will they commission you if you get work on your own?  Will they commission your job at the Olive Garden?  Don't laugh.  A vague contract could mean that they could commission ALL your gross earnings no matter where you earned them.

6.) Who gets your checks?  Do they get your gross check and cut you the remainder minus their commission or do you get your check and then write them a commission check?  Either way is fine.

7.) Do you have to recoup any of their costs? I don't know how the modeling world handles this.  Some smaller less reputable literary agencies make clients pay for script copies and postage.  Talent agencies make you supply your own headshots, but they handle everything like postage after that and never charge you.  They make their money from the 10% commission and that's all.

There are many more questions that your contract should answer and make clear before you sign.  These are just things for you to think about.  Don't take my advice.  I have signed with top agencies in other areas, but I am not a model.

Good luck!

Gregory

Gregory Storm wrote:
WRONG WRONG WRONG! There could be major harm in signing anything.  Please READ your contract.  Every line.  Hire an attorney if you're not good with all the legalese.  You need to know what you are signing.  Agency contracts are meant to protect the agency's interests more than yours.

In some ways I agree with you and in other ways I think this is one of the silliest posts I have read in a long time.  Not silly because I disagree with the advice to have a lawyer look at the contract and to read everything that you sign, but you are thumping your chest over things that, a) you seem to have no personal knowledge about; and b) that cannot be as insidious as you are portending.

The comment made to the OP was that there was little harm in signing with them on a NON-EXCLUSIVE basis.  Now if you are saying that the model should read and verify that she is signing a non-exclusive agreement, I have no issue with that.  The question is, what is a non-exclusive agreement?

A non-exclusive agreement is nothing more than a document that essentially does two things.  First it authorizes an agent to submit you for projects; and second it defines how much you will pay if you are offered and accept the booking.  Often times they have no duration since the only seminal purpose to duration clauses is to make sure the agent is paid if the talent is booked for an agent submitted booking after termination.  In general, most non-exclusive agreements are terminable by either party with a sunset clause, but a fixed duration is normally not an issue.

But I agree, you need to read the agreement and understand it.  If an attorney finds a draconian clause, of course, you shouldn't sign.  I suppose the biggest danger is that it is not, in fact, a non-exclusive agreement, but then it would be inappropriate to sign.  Likewise, the OP was advised not to commit to any registration (or representation) fees.  So assuming that this is, in fact, a typical non-exclusive agreement, I still submit there is no harm.

Your comparison of a non-exclusive model agency agreement with union agreements, such as the DGA is weak at best.  I have been on both sides of the union agreements.  I have been a signatory to union agreements, on more than one occassion, as a producer.  I am also a performer and have done AFTRA performances.  To some degree, the comparison fails, if for no other reason, there is not a single agreement with the unions.  There are regional variations based on geography, and indeed, for many of the unions, there are no contractual requiremnts in areas in which agents are not franchised (read that small market, such as where the OP is in).

The ninety day cancellation privilege you refer to has nothing to do with non-exclusive agreements.  Aparently, you are unaware of the historical basis, or the legislative basis for that matter.  While it does protect talent from an ineffective agent, that really had nothing to do with why it is included.  It goes to the old Hollywood adage:  "You will never work again in this town."

In years past, Hollywood was a much smaller fraternity.  Actors would be Black listed for any number of reasons.  Cliff Robertson is one of the best known.  For years he couldn't get work.   The ninety-day rule was put in effect so that the studios couldn't pidgeon hole an actor.  Basically, if you were on the black list and with an agent exclusively for some number of years, they would simply not get you work, intentionally.  A common practice of the studios was to get you to switch, to what you thought would be a more powerful agent who would then keep the black listed talent off the market indefinitely, until they were essentially unemployable.

The ninety-day rule was put in effect, in part to counter that.  The theory was that if an agent placed you during the black listed period (typically the first ninety days), it would be harder to keep the sanction in place if the actor was already working.

The rules have been codified in the California Labor Code as a result of union lobbying.  But it really has nothing to do with non-exclusive agreements.  Over the years it has become an escape clause for models with exclusive agreements because you obvsiously don't want to put all your eggs into one basket with someone who isn't getting you work.

The other reason the unions are so concerned is because driectors or writers (whose contracts you have equated) are generally signed with only one agent in a geographic region.  Indeed, though, particularly in California, most of the agreements don't even have the ninety-day clause since it is codified in state law and an agent in the OP's market wouldn't be franchised in any case.

In the end your comparison of a non-exclusive agreement to the writer's guild is just being alarmist.  The seminal question that the OP has to look at before signing the agreement, as I have said before, is to verify that it is a non-exclusive agreement and that there are no hidden fees.  She was already advised as to that.

You raise the issue of percentages.  Again, we are talking about a non-sequitor.  Agents typicaly take a percentage ranging from ten percent up to twenty-five percent.  I suppose there are usurious agents out there, but I have rarely, if ever, heard of agents charging more than twenty-five percent.  Agents do often charge a like fee to the client, but that is another issue.

My question to you is, in the end, what difference would the percentage make when deciding whether or not to sign a non-exclusive agreement?  If the agent proposes a commission of twenty-five percent, you could try to negotiate a lower fee.  What if the agent stood their ground?  Does that mean it would be a bad idea for the model to sign non-exclusively with the agent?

My answer is that, if the model like the agency, I would advise them to sign the agreement regardless of the percentage.  In a nutshell, seventy-five percent of something is better than one hundred percent of nothing.  This is a non-exclusive agreement.  You are free to take or decline any job.

If the agent offers you a booking and it doesn't pay enough after the percentage, then turn it down.  But what if the agent offers you a national ad, the cover of a major magazine, etc.  If the fee is $10,000, isn't yoru take of $7,500 better than getting nothing?  If you hadn't singed at all, you never would have gotten the offer and the tear sheet.

In the end, if the agent gets you nothing and there were no fees, you were out nothing.

The issues with small markets is that agents often want exclusive agreements.  Also, in some larger markets, like NYC, being non-exclusive with a small agency might prevent you from getting signed with a big agency like Ford who might want you exclusively.  In a small market though, the danger is small.  An NYC agency isn't going to care about a little mall Southern market, so it isn't going to prevent you from becoming a super-model.

In the end my problem with your post is the theatrics WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

You took a two page thread and focussed on one paragraph and as a result, gave bad advice.  The irony is that your post could have been great.  You were making two points which were good:

1)  If you have any doubt that Modelogic is licensed by Wilhelmina, call them; and
2)  Read what you are signing carefully and have a lawyer look at it.

When you break down everything you said, that is what your post boils down to and I agree with your comments.

The underlying advice is sound.  I happen to know that Modelogic is a Wilhelmina licensee.  I also know the licensing standards Click put in place when they bought Wilhelmina.  I am not realy concerned about the agreement she will be asked to sign because I know the business practices they require.

I stand by my comments that there is no serious danger signing a non-exclusive agreement with an agency in a small market.  As long as it is indeed non-exclusive and does not have any hidden fees, she has the possibility, not the guarantee of getting bookings.

As a practical matter, I haven't seen a lot of models become successful in smaller markets.  I have seen smaller agents co-op models out to larger models where they have become successful.

Good luck to you.  If this sounds harsh, it isn't menat to be.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
The comment made to the OP was that there was little harm in signing with them on a NON-EXCLUSIVE basis...  [blah blah blah]

You never mentioned NON-EXCLUSIVE before.  It is good to see you saw the error in your post and are now revising your statement.

More importantly I NEVER SAID NON-EXCLUSIVE and your continued misquoting of my post is laughable.  I guess when you have no legitamate retort to what someone said, you make up what they said to make your flaccid arguement seem better.  Try that bs with someone else.

The rest of your response is so rife with errors and grossly neglegemnt information it would take me too long to point them out one by one.

For anyone reading this thread, the bottom line is this.  When it comes to your contract with an agent or manager or job...

DO NOT LISTEN TO A WORD ALAN SAYS!

DO NOT LISTEN TO A WORD I SAY!

Read the contract yourself.  Have an entertainment attorney or someone with more legal knowledge than yourself read it.  Understand everything in it BEFORE you sign.  Period!

Diana Moffitt wrote:
So they contacted you?  How did they find you?  Kind of funny how they are using wilhelmenia's name.  But I would go to see how the meeting goes...doesn't hurt to see what they say.

Please...the spelling is WILHELMINA, man that drives me crazy!

http://www.wilhelmina.com/

Gregory Storm wrote:
You never mentioned NON-EXCLUSIVE before.  It is good to see you saw the error in your post and are now revising your statement.

More importantly I NEVER SAID NON-EXCLUSIVE and your continued misquoting of my post is laughable.  I guess when you have no legitamate retort to what someone said, you make up what they said to make your flaccid arguement seem better.  Try that bs with someone else.

The rest of your response is so rife with errors and grossly neglegemnt information it would take me too long to point them out one by one.

For anyone reading this thread, the bottom line is this.  When it comes to your contract with an agent or manager or job...

DO NOT LISTEN TO A WORD ALAN SAYS!

DO NOT LISTEN TO A WORD I SAY!

Read the contract yourself.  Have an entertainment attorney or someone with more legal knowledge than yourself read it.  Understand everything in it BEFORE you sign.  Period!

Whatever, this is not an argument worth having.  This is all about small issues.

Since we both agree that it is important to consult a lawyer or at least read and understand what you are signing, let's leave it at that.

Thank you for your comments.