LONDON Photo Art wrote:
I recently discovered a different website, signed up, and posted a TFP casting there, and got swamped with responses -- a number of which are models I'd be happy to work with. The quality of models on that site seems significantly higher.

I'm doubting that and very skeptical of that claim.

LONDON Photo Art wrote:
My guess is they don't have the "dirty old man with a camera who wants you to take your clothes off" reputation that MM has acquired.

That's your opinion or what you like to think that is the case.

Instinct Images wrote:
In 2014 MM had 290,000 users that had been active in the last 90 days. By Aug 2016 it was 206,000. Today it's 118,729. The trend is obvious.

In addition, the rate of new users has dropped substantially. From June 2014 to Aug 2016 MM added an average of 4,615 accounts per month. Since Feb 2017 when MM hit 1,000,000 "active" (LOL!) users the rate has dropped to an average of 1,741 new accounts per month. There have been 222,813 active accounts in the last 365 days. Down about half from 2016.

I can't help but wonder how much of the decline is due to social media and how much is due to the changes made to MM such as not allowing out of network messages.

You are an old timer here and I can take your word for it. I too was on this site like 5 years ago before going on a hiatus. When I came back it looked like a shadow of itself. The forums are just about dead and the castings are not even relevant. There are still a number of models but they too are in just for the money. Some say its Instagram or Facebook. I know in part I have more leads in FB but MM still has a niche on getting models with stats your looking for granted they keep the profiles up to date. In FB its more complicate. I think the 2017 changes deterred many. The membership costs are just as they were so I guess people don't want to pay. Its a bomber for me because it was more active and this site caters to portraits. Thats what I do. I hope in some shape or form the crowd returns.

LONDON Photo Art wrote:
I've heard from many, MANY models that, if they are on here, they're constantly being hit up with various sexual proposals.

That's hardly a new phenomenon and it's not just MM.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
One of the other items that may slant the numbers is that MM members no longer have to log in to read private messages.  Members can read them through their own email.

I don't think that option was available in 2014. People had to log in to read the messages.

Good to know!
I’ve been wondering why someone who hasn’t logged in since 2015 has managed to have current work with other togs.
Yes, I know there are other platforms but this is one potential explanation for how it one can communicate without triggering the last login date to update!

Orca Bay Images wrote:

That's hardly a new phenomenon and it's not just MM.

True, but sites can do much more than MM does to try to protect models.

Chuckarelei wrote:
I'm doubting that and very skeptical of that claim.

LOL? Ok.

LONDON Photo Art wrote:
sites can do much more than MM does to try to protect models.

Such as?

Orca Bay Images wrote:
Such as?

Like I originally mentioned: have a system where feedback can be left without the recipient having to 'approve' of it. Like eBay seller reviews, Amazon seller reviews, Yelp reviews, AirBnB reviews, or... really anywhere else.

And, since folks who have profiles with lots of bad feedback are likely to ditch that profile and just create a new one... profiles where the user verifies a phone number, a website, or something else that doesn't change as easily would have a badge on their profile indicating this verification.

Profiles that have more verification -- and have been around longer and have reviews -- could be more trusted.

Additionally: there should be a policy in place where models can report "photographers" who solicit them for sexual favors and/or are unprofessional in similar ways. If this conversation happens via a message within that website's messaging system, an admin should instantly and permanently ban that photographer from the site. Additionally, the website should keep track of 'linked' phone numbers / websites for that photographer, so that if he attempts to re-apply using a new email, he cannot verify his account with those numbers / websites, as they are blacklisted.

Note: we're talking about clearly unprofessional and inappropriate sexual propositions here, not minor quabbles (he-said, she-said.... someone was late... someone didn't pay enough...)

The other website I used recently to post a casting seem to be already doing much of what I've mentioned above.

LONDON Photo Art wrote:
I recently discovered a different website, signed up, and posted a TFP casting there, and got swamped with responses -- a number of which are models I'd be happy to work with. The quality of models on that site seems significantly higher.

And just WHY are you keeping its name a big secret? You won't get banned here for mentioning other sites from what I can see. FB and IG accounts with better results, and specialty sites as well, are discussed here all the time.

Modelphilia wrote:
And just WHY are you keeping its name a big secret? You won't get banned here for mentioning other sites from what I can see. FB and IG accounts with better results, and specialty sites as well, are discussed here all the time.

Posting competing websites will be taken down as competition to MM.

Speaking from experience: I am running the largest FB group for casting calls for the NYC Tri-State area and the link on my MM profile was removed and posts during discussions with a link are being removed as well, as it's in direct competition to MM's business model... even tho, I am not making money with that service I  and my volunteer mods provide.

At around 47,500 members, it's not a small, but a regional group. MM OTOH is nation- and worldwide. I am hardly a competition to MM.

LONDON Photo Art wrote:
Additionally: there should be a policy in place where models can report "photographers" who solicit them for sexual favors and/or are unprofessional in similar ways. If this conversation happens via a message within that website's messaging system, an admin should instantly and permanently ban that photographer from the site. Additionally, the website should keep track of 'linked' phone numbers / websites for that photographer, so that if he attempts to re-apply using a new email, he cannot verify his account with those numbers / websites, as they are blacklist

We've had a policy like that in place for many years and we do permanently ban the offenders. We use far more sophisticated tools than those you suggest to prevent them from returning.

Additionally, we extend the policy to non-members, so models that are not on MM can also contact us to report inappropriate behavior.

Orca Bay Images wrote:
That's hardly a new phenomenon and it's not just MM.

Yep,  this happens to Females across all social medias.

udor wrote:

Posting competing websites will be taken down as competition to MM.

I'd have to disagree, Instagram posts and links within profiles are rampant.

Weldphoto wrote:
I would like to ask MM what it does to promote itself, to recruit new models, to encourage joining. I have seen nothing. I live in a small college town and would it not be natural for MM to promote itself through college media?  There have been only about 4-6 new model joins this past year here. So, what is MM doing to get new members?  I would love to hear.

That's a great question. I found it because of someone that used to use it about 5 years ago. He wasn't even sure it was still around.

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:
Additionally, we extend the policy to non-members, so models that are not on MM can also contact us to report inappropriate behavior.

Now... THAT is impressive and commendable!

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
One of the other items that may slant the numbers is that MM members no longer have to log in to read private messages.  Members can read them through their own email.

I don't think that option was available in 2014. People had to log in to read the messages.

The option was available in May 2011.  I just checked my email account, and I'd received the text of a pm through that.  I'd recently joined.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
I'd have to disagree, Instagram posts and links within profiles are rampant.

You can disagree, but I am relating my direct experience with MM about this issue.

I don't think it's about the occasional IG profile post, my own IG profile on my MM profile was never in question(!), but mentioning a whole group about casting calls was the issue. Remember that MM is a for profit "community", if a private entity offers casting calls with over 47,000 members for free, it does have a possible negative impact on the bottom line.

Personally, I miss the good ol' times when it was about the community, and exploration and developing talents. The Post-Tyler era of MM was the beginning of the decline, leading to the demise of MM and, unless I will be banned for critical, unpopular comments, I will be one of the first and original members (and moderators) and last members before MM shuts down. Corporate Interests didn't understand the industry and community that MM represented. They killed their own hen.

I will not post the conversations with management, but when I am telling you that my links were removed, even from my MM profile and an explanation were sent to me, after YEARS of having had that link on my profile, I grant you a differing opinion, but I counter with a different, real life experience!

udor wrote:
Posting competing websites will be taken down as competition to MM.

Speaking from experience:. . . my MM profile was removed and posts during discussions with a link are being removed as well

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
I'd have to disagree, Instagram posts and links within profiles are rampant.

Well, I guess I'll stand partially-corrected for now.

Perhaps a Moderator can clarify the policy for us all???

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:
We've had a policy like that in place for many years and we do permanently ban the offenders. We use far more sophisticated tools than those you suggest to prevent them from returning.

Additionally, we extend the policy to non-members, so models that are not on MM can also contact us to report inappropriate behavior.

That's good to hear. I stand corrected.

I wonder if the models are aware of this support. So many who I have talked to in person have told me so many stories about wildly inappropriate behavior from 'photographers' at a shoot, and I don't think the models were aware of support here from MM to ban those photographers.

And a number of others have their age set to 99 or similar, presumably so they aren't showing up in searches and being messaged by undesirables. At least, that's been my best guess.

Modelphilia wrote:
Perhaps a Moderator can clarify the policy for us all???

https://www.modelmayhem.com/education/s … g_services

PHP-Photography wrote:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/education/s … g_services

I believe (and I'm not sure how I can check), but I posted a thread a few years ago regarding a different modelling web site, not meant to promote it, but just asking if anyone was a member and their experience. I was banned for a week. The experience turned me off from engaging more actively with MM forums.

PHP-Photography wrote:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/education/s … g_services

From that set of rules"
"This rule excludes the usage of links to profiles on other modeling, portfolio, or networking sites."

Thus, if OP chooses to post a link here to his portfolio on the competing site, we can all be informed as to it's existence, without there being any repercussions or banning of him from the site. Ergo, problem is resolved for all if he simply does that.

O.P.? What do you say now?

PhillipM wrote:
I'll be bugg'n out of here soon.

And yes, I won't let the door hit me in the ass on the way out.

Not much of a point having a MM account.

No grudges, but it's time.

I'm sorry to read that you'll be bug'n out of MM soon, as I enjoy having the opportunity to view your photography from my remote part of the planet.

LONDON Photo Art wrote:
I recently discovered a different website, signed up, and posted a TFP casting there, and got swamped with responses -- a number of which are models I'd be happy to work with.

Now I am curious.  I stopped using MM for shoots years ago and just decided to duck in today.

I will message you for that other site if I can remember how to use MM.  hahaha

LONDON Photo Art wrote:
a) Models who flake
b) Photographers who are unprofessional

and also...

a) Models who are unprofessional
b) Photographers who flake

Instinct Images wrote:
In 2014 MM had 290,000 users that had been active in the last 90 days. By Aug 2016 it was 206,000. Today it's 118,729. The trend is obvious.

In addition, the rate of new users has dropped substantially. From June 2014 to Aug 2016 MM added an average of 4,615 accounts per month. Since Feb 2017 when MM hit 1,000,000 "active" (LOL!) users the rate has dropped to an average of 1,741 new accounts per month. There have been 222,813 active accounts in the last 365 days. Down about half from 2016.

I can't help but wonder how much of the decline is due to social media and how much is due to the changes made to MM such as not allowing out of network messages.

This is my first post in years.  I used to love the forums and the banter and then the owners decided to make the site more serious (?) 
It just became a boring place to hang out.