Photographer
Solas
Posts: 10390
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
But what does he profit? Is that revenue or...what?
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 but yes good point.
Photographer
Digitoxin
Posts: 13456
Denver, Colorado, 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.
Photographer
Digitoxin
Posts: 13456
Denver, Colorado, 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.
Photographer
Solas
Posts: 10390
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Miroslava Svoboda wrote: Karl you are not speaking the right language here but yes good point. meh, math and numbers confuse me enough...;_; lloll you got the point
Photographer
AJ_In_Atlanta
Posts: 13053
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'... 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
Photographer
Culturally Destitute
Posts: 551
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...
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15973
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
Maybe the journalist who wrote the article had problems with maths and missed the decimal point $ 5.8 Mill.
Photographer
zaxpix
Posts: 1988
New Brunswick, New Jersey, US
Haters gonna hate. Ballers gonna ball. Z.
Photographer
Mark Salo
Posts: 11708
Olney, Maryland, US
Karl Johnston wrote: But what does he profit? Is that revenue or...what? Yes, net or gross?
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!
Photographer
DavidHbad
Posts: 22
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
zaxpix wrote: Haters gonna hate. Ballers gonna ball. Z. +1. Didn't see you already said it. Glad to see someone gets it.
Photographer
Guss W
Posts: 10964
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?
Photographer
LdG
Posts: 155
Seattle, Washington, US
Image Magik wrote: Yes, and they say there's no money in photography anymore... There's not, Richardson has it all.
Photographer
Al Green XM
Posts: 383
Townsville, Queensland, 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.
Photographer
Marcio Faustino
Posts: 2811
Hamburg, Hamburg, 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.
Photographer
Image Studios
Posts: 177
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.
Photographer
Michael Zahra
Posts: 1106
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.
Photographer
Chicchowmein
Posts: 14585
Palm Beach, Florida, US
L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote: ChiMo wrote: http://gagadaily.com/index.php?showtopic=52518&st=0 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.
Photographer
Laubenheimer
Posts: 9317
New York, New York, 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....
Photographer
Chicchowmein
Posts: 14585
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.
Photographer
Chicchowmein
Posts: 14585
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
Photographer
udor
Posts: 25255
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!
Photographer
Mortonovich
Posts: 6209
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!!
Photographer
Camerosity
Posts: 5805
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.
Photographer
Robert Lynch
Posts: 2550
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.
Photographer
Robert Lynch
Posts: 2550
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.
Photographer
Kaostika Studios
Posts: 271
New York, New York, US
58 million is more then all of MM makes.
Photographer
Mark C Smith
Posts: 1073
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
He's a shrewd businessman in general, photography is far from his only income stream.
Photographer
SoCo n Lime
Posts: 3283
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Jakov Markovic wrote: money can't buy you love. im pretty sure it can 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
Photographer
Laubenheimer
Posts: 9317
New York, New York, US
Mark C Smith wrote: He's a shrewd businessman in general, photography is far from his only income stream. income stream.... i dunno...
Photographer
EyeCanShoot
Posts: 1198
Orlando, Florida, US
Miroslava Svoboda wrote: lol Bahahah!
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Maybe they meant 5.8 million.
Photographer
Pics
Posts: 649
Salisbury, Maryland, US
Wow, I thought Terry just did photography for the chicks.
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10747
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Christopher Hartman wrote: HA! nononononononnnnnnnnoooooo terry is real. mediamass is fake
Photographer
Jirrupin
Posts: 1755
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?
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15973
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
Maybe the $58M is the value placed on his work by Art Capital as with Annie Leibovitz images.
|