phcorcoran wrote:
Well I don't think you really know what a commercial gig is worth, but a loose rule of thumb in the commercial world is that models are paid half of what photographers are paid, and in the commercial world photographers are indeed paid based upon usage (plus labor, plus expenses).

But your theoretical case doesn't happen anywhere except on television.  Commercial models aren't just hired for their looks.  General Motors isn't going to shell out big money for an unproven model, no more than they would for an unproven photographer.

Whence commeth these gems?  I see nothing in your profile to indicate that you have ever booked professional models for major national clients.  I would think you ought to have some experience in the field before telling an industry professional how it works.

Quite simply, you are wrong.  Alan accurately described how the mainstream industry works.  Pay is based on the job, not on experience.  New, inexperienced models get hired all the time (that's how they become experienced) and they get paid the same as everyone else.

I disagree a bit with Alan's recommendation:  on the 'net the usage is typically zero, or so close to it that it might as well be.  That would seem to indicate zero pay for the models.  What really happens (often, not always) in commercial work is that there is an hourly or day rate for labor, and a bonus for usage.  It's common for the bonus to be greater - sometimes much greater - than the labor rate.  That seems to me to be a better business model for the Internet.

TXPhotog wrote:
I disagree a bit with Alan's recommendation:  on the 'net the usage is typically zero, or so close to it that it might as well be.  That would seem to indicate zero pay for the models.

J Merrill Images wrote:
First, I don't think Alan's response was a rant. I often hold a very different view from his but, I respect his answers because they are made with sincerety and a perspective that his borne of his experience and the segment of the industry that he "lives in."

Where I differ is in my view of what modeling is, and will be, to 99% of the models who post on MM, OMP and the like, is in what their future will be. While there are models who will fall right in to major gigs, and there may be "a lot" of them when viewed in a "micro world," in the bigger picture damn few will be so lucky. And that is precisely why an internet model with no book should not be following in the footsteps of similarly ill advised models with a high "demand quotient." They just doom themselves to failure before they even start because no one is going to pay them the inflated rates that seem to be what these threads are about.

Thanks for the comments.  Interestingly, all three of us are saying the same thing, but we are looking at the same issue through different windows.  First, J. Merrill, you and I couldn't agree more.  Most models aren't going to make it.  That has nothing to do with them being good or bad people, cute or ugly, the fact is that the industry is selective and only a few make it. So you and I don't differ here.  If becoming a successful model was easy, everyone would do it.

TXPhotog, you and I are also on the same page here.  Models should strive to get paid.  You are totally right about base rates.  My post wasn't to suggest that models should always work for free.  Indeed, I never do TFP.  If I am guilty of doing anything, I tend to be overgenerous with the rates I pay my talent.  I think they need to make a living too and are entitled to be properly for what they do since I am certainly making money off of them.

The reason the three of us are differing in our views is that you are both looking at my post from the perspective of the model, or what the model should do.  I am writing from the perspective of the photographer and what HE/SHE should do.

Constantly telling a model that I can't or won't pay you because she is inexperienced is both disingenuous and it is wrong.  What I am trying to do is to get photographers to approach models and suggest, for example, "I am shooting for my portfolio, would you be willing to accept $25hr for fashion since these photos are not being released?"  A photographer could say the same thing an offer TFP.  But that is an honest approach.   Adding experience to the equation, is, in my view, a way for a photographer to blame a model because he hasn't the money to pay them. 

If the offer is framed in usage, it then comforms to the way the industry works and becomes more palatable.

I happen to agree that there are models asking a lot for their time and will never get what they ask for.  There are also some models who ask for competitive rates and end up getting them as well.  I agree that models should try to move to the next level and get paid but many will never make the move.

But look at it from this point of view.  Let's say a photographer decided to produce and sell a calendar.  He needs twelve models.  He picks ten that are experienced and pays them $500 each.  He then finds two newbies and argues they have to do it for free since they are inexperience.  That makes no sense at all.  The photographer will make the same amount of money on the pics whether the model was experienced or not.

Offers should be based on usage and the customary rate paid by the photographer.  Get experience out of the equation and we have an equity based system that is more palatable for all.  In the end, shooters may, in many cases, get newer models for less money for smaller projects, but that is because the project is small.

In the end though, we are actually agreeing here more than we disagree.