Matt_582 wrote:
They seem good,
they're not a Ford/Elmer Olsen, etc..

but they're on the next tier




besides, if i get a good look going in my test shots
I can always use them to shop to another agency





Matt

Matt_582 wrote:
An agency (veloccimodels.com) offered me a contract,
but it involves a bunch of fees including comp card fees (90 something for infinite comps), and an initial test shoot (4 looks) for my port/comp card
that'll cost between 200-400

This sounds standard,
correct me if I'm wrong?






Matt

Ask them will they sign with you in the case if you provide your own shots/photographer/compcards.

If they aren't ok with that, I wouldn't sign with them.

Steve Roark wrote:
I watched some news magazine do a lengthy story about so-called talent agencies who played to people's dreams by telling them they had 'the look' to be successful...all they needed was about $200 worth of test shoots from a photographer on the agency's list. Then more and more expenses kept cropping up until people paid a few thousand bucks without getting a single paid assignment.  The gist of the report was that if an agency really thinks that you look good enough to get a lot of bookings, they'll take care of the expenses and make their money from the commissions.

First rule of any con is to appeal to the victim's ego...in this industry, it must be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Just my 5 minutes of cynicism...

I think most of the talent agencies that make the news like that charge way more than $400.

DFWlens wrote:

I think most of the talent agencies that make the news like that charge way more than $400.

Well frankly, I've WORKED with one of the photographers
they use to test shoot... so.. um... I'm sure its not a scam

Not to mention, the agency was recommended to me by
an agent at Ford?




Matt

Julia wrote:
Ask them will they sign with you in the case if you provide your own shots/photographer/compcards.

If they aren't ok with that, I wouldn't sign with them.

WRONG!!
    Agencies NEED to have photos done by photographers the agency chooses for one very important reason.  If left up to the llamas the quality of the images will vary so much that not only will some llamas be at a dissadvantage when it comes to getting work but the agency will not have a consistant image in the uniformed promotion of their llamas.  Keeping "some"images in the llama's file that have been shot by various photographers chosen by the llama is ok, but the principal images used on the agency website or official book need to be consistant in quality for the image of the agency and the llamas.
    I know agencies that have allowed llamas to choose their own photographer verses using the agency photographer and the llamas who chose their own photographer got as much as 70% less work than the llamas who used the agency photographer.
    On the other hand....I know agencies who have had 100% of their llamas choose their own photographer with a list of required images and then sent the llamas to a printing company to have the images that best represent the llamas put into comp cards that had a uniformed look representing the agency.

Matt_582 wrote:
besides, if i get a good look going in my test shots
I can always use them to shop to another agency
Matt

Make sure you can use photos taken for one agency for another agency later.  Some agencies will restrict you on use of images taken for their agency.

AllenC wrote:
Agencies NEED to have photos done by photographers the agency chooses for one very important reason. If left up to the llamas the quality of the images will vary so much ...

[i]Ditto! Each agency has a different personality

Allen Coefield wrote:
WRONG!!
    Agencies NEED to have photos done by photographers the agency chooses for one very important reason.  If left up to the llamas the quality of the images will vary so much that not only will some llamas be at a dissadvantage when it comes to getting work but the agency will not have a consistant image in the uniformed promotion of their llamas.  Keeping "some"images in the llama's file that have been shot by various photographers chosen by the llama is ok, but the principal images used on the agency website or official book need to be consistant in quality for the image of the agency and the llamas.
    I know agencies that have allowed llamas to choose their own photographer verses using the agency photographer and the llamas who chose their own photographer got as much as 70% less work than the llamas who used the agency photographer.
    On the other hand....I know agencies who have had 100% of their llamas choose their own photographer with a list of required images and then sent the llamas to a printing company to have the images that best represent the llamas put into comp cards that had a uniformed look representing the agency.

Nope  --If the agency will not allow the llama to choose the photographer then move on to one that is more professional.

The agency "should " be working for the llama and we know the photographers the agency picks are working for the agency for the kick back . Some times the photographer is acting as the agency too and that is even worse .

Remember the "real" agencies will suggest good photographers but "always" allow you to choose your own . Now if you bring them some bad images you will not get work but they will also be honest about the shots you present because they only get paid if you do.

Steve Roark wrote:
The gist of the report was that if an agency really thinks that you look good enough to get a lot of bookings, they'll take care of the expenses and make their money from the commissions.

Not this again . . . .

Just once I'd like to read one of these threads when somebody doesn't claim that agencies "take care of expenses".  Pictures and comp cards are expenses the llama pays.  At best SOME agencies for SOME llamas will advance the money and take it back out of earnings.  But many will not.

Allen Coefield wrote:
Kick backs are a part of the business no matter what anyone says.  If it fills the need of the agent, llama and photographer equally and the amount the llama has to pay for promotional photos isnt more than the market average....or is at least a bargin of a price (therefore being a benefit) then there is no more wrong with that than there is your getting a $100 kick back for refering a friend to a dealership you bought a car from a month ago if they buy one as well.  If the amount the llama has to pay is unreasonable then that is a different story

I don't agree with this.

Yes, there is no question that kickbacks are relatively common in the industry, especially among the weaker players.  But they are far from universal, and are not ethical.

Julia wrote:
Why would the agency insist on their photographer only?
If they don't like the pictures that will show up on the comp card they can just refuse them and tell llama to go use another photographer, while he doesn't bring the ones that would be satisfying.

But if they don't want the llama unless the llama is paying for the pictures, that is something I'd be really concerned about.

In response to your first question....why would the agency be willing to waste time in the llama finding a photographer (which would end up being uncle bob or the GWC across town), going over the photos with the llama, then having to get permission from the photographer to post the photos on the agency site or book or other promotional material used to promote the llama or the agency....IF they like the photos?  If the agency does not feel the photos do the llama a service they will say so...then the cycle starts all over again.  On the other hand...if a shoot is done with an agency approved photographer all that stuff is already agreed upon with the exception of picking the photos the agency thinks best represent the llama.
   As to your second question....if you feel that the agency is going to accept or decline you based on that issue then you dont need to sign with them. 
    The agency may be interested in working with a llama based on the llama's look face to face at the initial signing, but if the llama is not willing to provide them with images that best represent the llama then what they think about the llama first hand is meaningless.  When agencies allow llamas to provide the images via their choice of photographer it usually ends up as a waste of time and effort on all parties sides.  Why not make it easy and get it done once and move on to getting work..........oh wait...I know the answer to that one....the llamas will go get photographers to do TFP shoots..thereby allowing the photographer to foot the bill to create images the llama will tryto make thousands with....I see how that works now

TXPhotog wrote:

I don't agree with this.

Yes, there is no question that kickbacks are relatively common in the industry, especially among the weaker players.  But they are far from universal, and are not ethical.

So it would be wrong for you to send a paying customer to me to shoot and for me to say thank you with a portion of it in return?  Dont respond with "that is different...we are photographers."  Business is business.

Julia wrote:
Why would the agency insist on their photographer only?
If they don't like the pictures that will show up on the comp card they can just refuse them and tell llama to go use another photographer, while he doesn't bring the ones that would be satisfying.

But if they don't want the llama unless the llama is paying for the pictures, that is something I'd be really concerned about.

Allen did a great job of responding to this issue but I'll add quite often llamas
get images that just don't always work for their look and market.  A good example
are the endless thong and booty shots on MM.  Great to look at but most agencies
could never use them.  A agency approved photographer at least has a good ideal
of what the llama may need.  Agencies don't force llamas to use their photographers they sometimes give llamas a rounds list of people to work with.
(Tx. has more info on that.)

Using photographers that you know may work but getting photos and or a Zed card
done may be a waste of time with images that don't work well.

Allen Coefield wrote:
So it would be wrong for you to send a paying customer to me to shoot and for me to say thank you with a portion of it in return?  Dont respond with "that is different...we are photographers."  Business is business.

Yes, it would be wrong, and in fact some states have laws against it.  It might be more ethical if I were to do that and fully disclose the kickback to the llama, but in practice that never happens.

A referral should be given for only one reason:  because the person being referred is right for the job.  If a referral is compensated, that changes the dynamics of the referral process to where the client can no longer count on the motives of the person giving the referral.

Julia wrote:
Why would the agency insist on their photographer only?
If they don't like the pictures that will show up on the comp card they can just refuse them and tell llama to go use another photographer, while he doesn't bring the ones that would be satisfying.

But if they don't want the llama unless the llama is paying for the pictures, that is something I'd be really concerned about.

It's a valid concern, but only a yellow flag, not a red one.  To the degree the agency offers the llama choices, the flag turns greener.

This is one of those grey areas for which there is no clean-cut dividing line between scam and legitimate agency activity, at least based on external observables.

Real, ethical agencies almost always have a list of approved photographers that they can provide llamas with.  In principle, the llama then makes whatever deal they can with the photographer, and the agency has no financial stake in the outcome.  In fact, if a kickback deal is in place, it's very hard for the llama to know it.

Sometimes they don't have a list.  Agencies in smaller cities may find that there is nobody, or only one person, in the area capable of producing the kinds of pictures they want.  When that happens, they will refer to only that person (with or without a kickback), or bring in someone from outside the area to do the shoots.

When an agency in a larger city brings in outside shooters, however, it is much more likely that a kickback scam is going on.  They have perfectly qualified people available to them where they are; there really is no incentive other than financial to bring in a "test shooter" from another city.  Such things are yellow flags.

Real, ethical agencies also frequently select one photographer from their list and send the llama to them.  There can be perfectly good "artistic" or stylistic reasons for that, or even good financial reasons.  There is nothing inherently wrong with it, except that it enhances the appearance of a kickback scheme, whether or not there really is one in place.

TXPhotog wrote:
Yes, it would be wrong, and in fact some states have laws against it.  It might be more ethical if I were to do that and fully disclose the kickback to the llama, but in practice that never happens.

A referral should be given for only one reason:  because the person being referred is right for the job.  If a referral is compensated, that changes the dynamics of the referral process to where the client can no longer count on the motives of the person giving the referral.

I know it is illegal in some states....but I assure you...it doesnt stop it.  Again though, me point is...when you leave the selection of the photographer to the llama....and he or she chooses photographers who are not on an agency list....you get photos that cannot be used at least 60% of the time.  Waste of time and efforts.  Agencies are doing llamas a service by having approved photographers....IF...IF...IF the photographer is charging the llama at or below the standard rate in that market for the photos going to the agent.

Allen Coefield wrote:
I know it is illegal in some states....but I assure you...it doesnt stop it.

I thought I made it clear that I knew that.  Your question to me, however, was not "is it done?" (yes, it is done), but "is it ethical?" (no, it is not).

Allen Coefield wrote:
Again though, me point is...when you leave the selection of the photographer to the llama....and he or she chooses photographers who are not on an agency list....you get photos that cannot be used at least 60% of the time.  Waste of time and efforts.  Agencies are doing llamas a service by having approved photographers....IF...IF...IF the photographer is charging the llama at or below the standard rate in that market for the photos going to the agent.

I agree with all of that.  However, that perfectly legitimate explanation does leave the door open to unethical arrangements which appear to be perfectly legitimate.  And as you point out, they are common.

TXPhotog wrote:

Allen Coefield wrote:
I know it is illegal in some states....but I assure you...it doesnt stop it.

I thought I made it clear that I knew that.  Your question to me, however, was not "is it done?" (yes, it is done), but "is it ethical?" (no, it is not).


I agree with all of that.  However, that perfectly legitimate explanation does leave the door open to unethical arrangements which appear to be perfectly legitimate.  And as you point out, they are common.

The sad thing about great discussions like this is...it never adds to the correction of the wrongs that are done.....and never brings to light the good that are created either...........One reason is...the industry is so diverse from market to market that there will never be a right way or wrong way for standards in the industry to be conducted.   

Ever get the feeling that these subjects reach a successful conclusion much in the same way there will be national champion in football without a playoff?

Matt_582 wrote:
whew,
and to think I sparked this whole debate? ;p

thanks for all the interest guys




Matt

your welcome......bottom line....good conversation and no matter what your views are...everyone can see what all the sides of the issue are.  That is how educated opinions are created.  Thanks for bringing it up and I hope it helps your need to know

Allen Coefield wrote:
In response to your first question....why would the agency be willing to waste time in the llama finding a photographer (which would end up being uncle bob or the GWC across town), going over the photos with the llama, then having to get permission from the photographer to post the photos on the agency site or book or other promotional material used to promote the llama or the agency....IF they like the photos?  If the agency does not feel the photos do the llama a service they will say so...then the cycle starts all over again.  On the other hand...if a shoot is done with an agency approved photographer all that stuff is already agreed upon with the exception of picking the photos the agency thinks best represent the llama.
   As to your second question....if you feel that the agency is going to accept or decline you based on that issue then you dont need to sign with them. 
    The agency may be interested in working with a llama based on the llama's look face to face at the initial signing, but if the llama is not willing to provide them with images that best represent the llama then what they think about the llama first hand is meaningless.  When agencies allow llamas to provide the images via their choice of photographer it usually ends up as a waste of time and effort on all parties sides.  Why not make it easy and get it done once and move on to getting work..........oh wait...I know the answer to that one....the llamas will go get photographers to do TFP shoots..thereby allowing the photographer to foot the bill to create images the llama will tryto make thousands with....I see how that works now

You is make sense very litlle.

IF the llama goes to a photographer that s/he chooses, s/he gets the copyright from them. 
So your first argument isn't very clear.

then, Remember, that people have language, that they use to communicate, with the help of their communication skills they could certainly TELL you what look they are looking for and what is suitable for that market.

TFP shoot .... What? who said it would be a TFP? Is that personal issue for you or something?

Keeping in mind what I just said it is simple for the agency to say: Yes, you can use your own images, as long as you have the copyright for them and we find them suitable.

Easy as that.

I know that some agencies acutally charge llamas for the shoot, and then pay a photographer... well... needless to say that they keep a part of the amount a llama payed for the shoot.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Allen did a great job of responding to this issue but I'll add quite often llamas
get images that just don't always work for their look and market.  A good example
are the endless thong and booty shots on MM.  Great to look at but most agencies
could never use them.  A agency approved photographer at least has a good ideal
of what the llama may need.  Agencies don't force llamas to use their photographers they sometimes give llamas a rounds list of people to work with.
(Tx. has more info on that.)

Using photographers that you know may work but getting photos and or a Zed card
done may be a waste of time with images that don't work well.

Right, but there is a different issue here: "What if a llama is being forced to use agency's ONLY photographer".
A llama could already have the photos that the agency could at LEAST review and see if they find it suitable.  They might be excellent photos, and that would save some time and headache to everyone... well... except for the photographer who wouldn't get paid, once again.

So if the agency refuses to accept any kind of photos/materials from the llama and isists on using their (usually the only) photographer then I would doubt about how much they really want me comparing to the $ I'll pay for putting a comp card together.

Besides choosing a photographer is curicial for the llama.  llama is sort of a self business, and has to decide what direction s/he wants to go with.  So if they give you a commercial photographer who knows nothing about fashion, then you are screwed up pretty much.
I want to be able to choose what my book will look like, because that is what sells me - my book.

If they have a list of "recommended photographers" that's enitirly different then when they charge you for the shoot and provide a photographer.

TXPhotog wrote:
It's a valid concern, but only a yellow flag, not a red one.  To the degree the agency offers the llama choices, the flag turns greener.

This is one of those grey areas for which there is no clean-cut dividing line between scam and legitimate agency activity, at least based on external observables.

Real, ethical agencies almost always have a list of approved photographers that they can provide llamas with.  In principle, the llama then makes whatever deal they can with the photographer, and the agency has no financial stake in the outcome.  In fact, if a kickback deal is in place, it's very hard for the llama to know it.

Sometimes they don't have a list.  Agencies in smaller cities may find that there is nobody, or only one person, in the area capable of producing the kinds of pictures they want.  When that happens, they will refer to only that person (with or without a kickback), or bring in someone from outside the area to do the shoots.

When an agency in a larger city brings in outside shooters, however, it is much more likely that a kickback scam is going on.  They have perfectly qualified people available to them where they are; there really is no incentive other than financial to bring in a "test shooter" from another city.  Such things are yellow flags.

Real, ethical agencies also frequently select one photographer from their list and send the llama to them.  There can be perfectly good "artistic" or stylistic reasons for that, or even good financial reasons.  There is nothing inherently wrong with it, except that it enhances the appearance of a kickback scheme, whether or not there really is one in place.

When they have a "list" of photographers I probably wouldn't consider anything "suspicious", in fact I would prefer for the agency to provide me with that list, because it would save me a lot of time doing the research.

Allen Coefield wrote:
I know it is illegal in some states....but I assure you...it doesnt stop it.  Again though, me point is...when you leave the selection of the photographer to the llama....and he or she chooses photographers who are not on an agency list....you get photos that cannot be used at least 60% of the time.  Waste of time and efforts.  Agencies are doing llamas a service by having approved photographers....IF...IF...IF the photographer is charging the llama at or below the standard rate in that market for the photos going to the agent.

Yes, it could be a waste of time, but that is for the llama alone to decide.  Or you are trying to say that the agency is so "concerned" about the talent that they would put the contract in jeopardy for using the "right" photographer?

Julia wrote:
Besides choosing a photographer is curicial for the llama.  llama is sort of a self business, and has to decide what direction s/he wants to go with.  So if they give you a commercial photographer who knows nothing about fashion, then you are screwed up pretty much.
I want to be able to choose what my book will look like, because that is what sells me - my book.

If you are signed to a non-exclusive agency you can do that, but it's not a good idea.  At a minimum you would want to have one book that contains your agency's idea of what should be in it, and a second book for your own personal vision.  Use your "personal" book for non-agency clients, if you like.

If an agency sends you to a commercial photographer who knows nothing about fashion, assuming the agency is competent, it's because of two things:

1.  Their client base is not "fashion" (or not "editorial fashion"), but commercial.  For such agencies, "commercial" is exactly the right kind of pictures to use with their clients, and for go-sees that they send you on.

2.  They have judged that you can be/should be a "commercial" llama in the context of their market.

If you use "editorial fashion" shots in places like Madison, Wisconsin, you are likely to confuse (if not downright terrify) most agency clients.  It would keep you from getting jobs that you might otherwise win.

That's the primary reason why you want an agency to select photographers for you, and not do it yourself.  They know not only photographers, but the market.

If you want to go off and get "fashion" pictures for yourself, that's fine, but they won't help you much outside of major fashion market cities.

Julia wrote:
Right, but there is a different issue here: "What if a llama is being forced to use agency's ONLY photographer".
A llama could already have the photos that the agency could at LEAST review and see if they find it suitable.  They might be excellent photos, and that would save some time and headache to everyone... well... except for the photographer who wouldn't get paid, once again.

So if the agency refuses to accept any kind of photos/materials from the llama and isists on using their (usually the only) photographer then I would doubt about how much they really want me comparing to the $ I'll pay for putting a comp card together.

Besides choosing a photographer is curicial for the llama.  llama is sort of a self business, and has to decide what direction s/he wants to go with.  So if they give you a commercial photographer who knows nothing about fashion, then you are screwed up pretty much.
I want to be able to choose what my book will look like, because that is what sells me - my book.

If they have a list of "recommended photographers" that's enitirly different then when they charge you for the shoot and provide a photographer.

Once you decide to sign with a agency then you have to trust that they know
what their doing.  These are professionals and know their market.  You for
example are not that I can see in a fashion market and while you have some
cool images they aren't what will get you paid work because there is so little
fashion work.  You could do as Tx. suggested and have two books and while
you have every right to choose what your book looks like the agencies you may
be signed with with may not be able to help you. 

Many agencies do provide a list of photographers and you can choose who you
like best but again remember the people at the agency must be trusted by you
to help guide your career.  I do agree that your agency should review the images
you already have to see what they think but if their clients are Sears or Walmart
then those cool fashion shots may actually hurt you.

TXPhotog wrote:
[Just once I'd like to read one of these threads when somebody doesn't claim that agencies "take care of expenses".  Pictures and comp cards are expenses the llama pays.  At best SOME agencies for SOME llamas will advance the money and take it back out of earnings.  But many will not.

I'm not sure that you disproved my post. Is it really a coincidence that of the endless throng of people who try to become llamas, only a relative few can turn it into a full-time career...and agencies only advance money to SOME llamas? Could it be that they know 95% of the people beating on their door will want to be race car drivers next week? So why not make them cover their portfolio costs and make little extra for some new office furniture?

I'm not saying the supermodels of tomorrow shouldn't expect to have some expenses in the beginning, but if you find that after you pay the initial fees, they come back a few days later with some other fees that you have no memory of them mentioning, and it happens again, then that's a big ol' red flag. Every con starts out with someone gaining your confidence (with llamas it probably would involve telling you how special you look and you're sure to go far), then they need a little money up front to get things going. Then, something came up and they need a little more, a month later you realize you've paid $2000 and whatever they promised, never happens. Its happened to lawyers, doctors, congressmen, etc...young, desperate llamas would be like shooting fish for these guys.