Tony Lawrence wrote:
Years ago a model reach out to me for a clothed glamour shoot.  I offered her $50.00 an hour for a three hour session.  One of my buddies wanted to shoot and I mentioned that to her.  She replied back she wanted $80.00 an hour.  I told her no and moved on.

I got how she felt but three hours is three hours.

Not sure if I'm comprehending this correctly, but you offered a model $50.00, an hour for a three hour shoot? Then you wanted to add a second photographer and she responded by saying she wanted $80.00, an hour? That would have reduced your cost to $40.00 an hour if you split it with your friend. Without your friend the session costs you $150.00, and with your friend it costs you $120.00, and you said no? That seems like a completely reasonable ask on the models part.

JQuest wrote:
That seems like a completely reasonable ask on the models part.

100%! You choose to understand the model's side and not act like models are either asking if you want fries with that or modeling. Some people really believe turning down a lowball offer is a mistake. It never is a mistake.

JQuest wrote:

Not sure if I'm comprehending this correctly, but you offered a model $50.00, an hour for a three hour shoot? Then you wanted to add a second photographer and she responded by saying she wanted $80.00, an hour? That would have reduced your cost to $40.00 an hour if you split it with your friend. Without your friend the session costs you $150.00, and with your friend it costs you $120.00, and you said no? That seems like a completely reasonable ask on the models part.

I'm guessing this was to be a studio shoot.  I could have a model for 3 hours for $150.  Or share the time with another photographer for $120 and probably have 1 1/2 hours with the model.  I agree with Tony's decision.

rxz wrote:
I'm guessing this was to be a studio shoot.  I could have a model for 3 hours for $150.  Or share the time with another photographer for $120 and probably have 1 1/2 hours with the model.  I agree with Tony's decision.

Wait what? Tony already had the 3 hour $150.00 dollar deal, he then wanted to add a 2nd shooter and you think the model doesn't deserve to be comped for that?

rxz wrote:
I'm guessing this was to be a studio shoot.  I could have a model for 3 hours for $150.  Or share the time with another photographer for $120 and probably have 1 1/2 hours with the model.  I agree with Tony's decision.

It is considered reasonable for a model to increase their hourly rate if extra photographers are involved in a photoshoot. While every project is different, increasing rates in this scenario is common practice due to several factors involving increased workload, usage, and logistics.

Professional models tailor their pricing to the project. When the project scope changes (i.e., from 1:1 to 1:2 or more photographers), the price should adapt.

Camera Buff wrote:

It is considered reasonable for a model to increase their hourly rate if extra photographers are involved in a photoshoot. While every project is different, increasing rates in this scenario is common practice due to several factors involving increased workload, usage, and logistics.

Professional models tailor their pricing to the project. When the project scope changes (i.e., from 1:1 to 1:2 or more photographers), the price should adapt.

I used to work in food production and I'd be moved to a new line when our machine broke down or we were doing a new product.  No extra cash.  While working in a factory isn't quite comparable to modeling.  The session was at the same spot.
No extra work was needed.  To me, three hours is still three hours.  I've attended a lot of workshops/groupshoots and models were paid a flat fee no matter how many photographers joined in.  The model I referenced was an amateur model with limited work.  We were shooting at a local park with life size art pieces.  No releases just a fun day where I was treating my buddy to a model shoot.  I have no desire to debate this though.

Thanks for your input.

Tony Lawrence wrote:

I used to work in food production and I'd be moved to a new line when our machine broke down or we were doing a new product.  No extra cash.  While working in a factory isn't quite comparable to modeling.  The session was at the same spot.
No extra work was needed.  To me, three hours is still three hours.  I've attended a lot of workshops/groupshoots and models were paid a flat fee no matter how many photographers joined in.  The model I referenced was an amateur model with limited work.  We were shooting at a local park with life size art pieces.  No releases just a fun day where I was treating my buddy to a model shoot.  I have no desire to debate this though.

Thanks for your input.

Fair enough. I understand we see this differently

LightDreams wrote:
I did a poor job of explaining things (above), so let me try a different approach...

Tony, please consider some of the following examples:

- You go to a half empty movie theater and tell the manager that you should be allowed to bring in your whole family for the price of just your ticket.  That's because his costs are absolutely identical whether it's just you, or your whole family, watching the show.

I.E.  The (I'd suggest faulty) logic is that there's no "added value" for the additional people attending the movie.  It should only be based on the theater's fixed costs to show the movie, and NOT the additional "added value" it brings (don't try that IRL!).

- A model should, apparently, be the paid the same for a major international marketing campaign shoot just as if it was for a local neighborhood newspaper ad.  After all, the model's time (and preparation, etc) is the same.  Supposedly, the model shouldn't be paid extra for the additional "added value" they provide (in this case, the market size usage).

- How many photography students, photographers or even spectators, should a photographer be allowed to also attend for the same modeling fee?  Zero, five, ten or even fifty?  After all, according to you, the model's time, and direct costs, are exactly the same.  Regardless (apparently) of how much more added value she may be bringing to that many more people.

Just like the hotel room for two, that charges extra for each additional guest that stays in the same room.   Those extra guests get added value from it, EVEN THOUGH the hotel costs are exactly the same.  They are still charged extra for that "added value" they are providing.  That added value may not be as high as if four people stayed in two separate hotel rooms, but it still has an added value to the guests using the service.  Sound familiar?

---

In a nutshell, the whole "but the (model's) costs are the same" completely misses the point.

The businesses (or the models) are charging for "the added value" that they are providing, depending on the situation.  Whether that's for additional people, or market usage, or what-have-you.

I know, I said I wouldn't debate this but those who know me....
When I travel and I do a fair bit the hotels I stay at don't charge for an extra person.  It used to be just me and my ex but when I was married we'd bring the kids, same amount but I get your point.  I attended Click Con its second year and none of the workshops paid extra to photographers.  " A model should, apparently, be the paid the same for a major international marketing campaign shoot just as if it was for a local neighborhood newspaper ad.  After all, the model's time (and preparation, etc) is the same.  Supposedly, the model shouldn't be paid extra for the additional "added value" they provide (in this case, the market size usage)."  Is very different than what I and frankly many offer models.  This was not for print publication as my work is focused on sites like FB and IG.

Your movie theater example is curious because everyone who attends a screening is charged.  Lets be candid.  Most of the models on MM are amateurs who in general aren't being paid unless its nude.  Having someone offer $150.00 for three hours of your day to do fun poses in clothes you bring at a cool location seems like a pretty good deal.  Apparently for some of you, its not.  Guess what though.  I found another model who was fine with the payment.  Whew, I'm glad she didn't ask you folks what you thought.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Having someone offer $150.00 for three hours of your day to do fun poses in clothes you bring at a cool location seems like a pretty good deal.  Apparently for some of you, its not.  Guess what though.  I found another model who was fine with the payment.  Whew, I'm glad she didn't ask you folks what you thought.

Why not pass the extra cost on to the other photog? That's why she bumped the rate up, right?

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
ANY business has to factor the ability of their customer base to pay for their product or service. Or they can stand on their pride and go out of business.

Supply, demand. Demand, supply.
People who are really in the business know this. Those who do not know probably aren't in the business. It's as simple as that.

CalebSampercy wrote:
this is a fair question i would love to hear what your suggestion is on a price range you think we should take. that might help a little. so we could see how to move forward

Supply, demand.
You may look up the US Bureau of Labour Statistics for information regarding median and average income of models in the US.

TomFRohwer wrote:
Supply, demand.
You may look up the US Bureau of Labour Statistics for information regarding median and average income of models in the US.

There is no way that would be accurate, since many models are also creators. For example, I have always filed my taxes under a business code for internet publishing, and no 1099 I ever got from photographers or producers said "model."

Model MoRina wrote:
There is no way that would be accurate, since many models are also creators. For example, I have always filed my taxes under a business code for internet publishing, and no 1099 I ever got from photographers or producers said "model."

Same. I don't file taxes as a model. I'm generally filing as an artist or photographer (I do quite a bit of self portrait and client photography). I don't think I've even once paid taxes where I listed my profession as model. I suspect this is very common, and I'd very much doubt the government info because of that.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Having someone offer $150.00 for three hours of your day to do fun poses in clothes you bring at a cool location seems like a pretty good deal.  Apparently for some of you, it's not.  Guess what though.  I found another model who was fine with the payment.  Whew, I'm glad she didn't ask you folks what you thought.

It's not about doing fun poses in cool locations. It's my job. I happen to enjoy my job, but it's still my job.
If you liked your job a lot, and you knew you could make three times what was being offered, would you suddenly just do it for a third of the price for heehees and hahas because it's a cool and fun little time? I doubt it.

So yeah, it's not a "pretty good deal" to do my job for a third of the price.
But I'm glad you found a model who thinks it is! Maybe one day she'll wise up to the game. It took me a solid four months of doing this job to figure it out, but I suspect it takes some models a bit longer (sad).

Liv Sage wrote:

It's not about doing fun poses in cool locations. It's my job. I happen to enjoy my job, but it's still my job.
If you liked your job a lot, and you knew you could make three times what was being offered, would you suddenly just do it for a third of the price for heehees and hahas because it's a cool and fun little time? I doubt it.

So yeah, it's not a "pretty good deal" to do my job for a third of the price.
But I'm glad you found a model who thinks it is! Maybe one day she'll wise up to the game. It took me a solid four months of doing this job to figure it out, but I suspect it takes some models a bit longer (sad).

Sage, why post and then deactivate your profile?  Its taken me a long time to learn not to take things personally.  A lesson, I still struggle with.  Lets be frank.  Most of the models on MM, Facebook and IG are not professionals.  These aren't people signed with agencies or model for the majority of their income.  This is a site where most of the work is unpaid.  However it isn't my place to say to what YOU or ANYONE should accept.  In my case she wanted more because my friend was coming.  In my opinion three hours is three hours.  All this nonsense about terms being breached and where the photos may be published or doubling the posing time...  Two different creative visions?  I remember doing a shoot at
ClickCon where at least 25 photographers where shooting the same models who weren't being paid.  I've been at workshops and group shoots where models were being paid and everybody had a fun time and sometimes people got good images.

Several years ago I went to a Nikon event with agency models.  You signed up on-line and as far as I know the models weren't paid more because of how many people showed.   BOTH models were and are signed, published agency models.   I know what they were paid because I spoke with one of them.
They didn't sign releases and I've seen a few of the images done from that day on IG.  I didn't hear anything about multiple creative decisions or multiple personalities.    I missed where it increased the complexity and mental load of the shoot for either model. 

My shoot was planned for a nice day at the Skokie Art Park.  I was treating my friend to a fun day.  Some people here make things more complex and complicated than needed.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Sage, why post and then deactivate your profile?  Its taken me a long time to learn not to take things personally.  A lesson, I still struggle with.  Lets be frank.  Most of the models on MM, Facebook and IG are not professionals.  These aren't people signed with agencies or model for the majority of their income.  This is a site where most of the work is unpaid.  However it isn't my place to say to what YOU or ANYONE should accept.  In my case she wanted more because my friend was coming.  In my opinion three hours is three hours.  All this nonsense about terms being breached and where the photos may be published or doubling the posing time...  Two different creative visions?  I remember doing a shoot at
ClickCon where at least 25 photographers where shooting the same models who weren't being paid.  I've been at workshops and group shoots where models were being paid and everybody had a fun time and sometimes people got good images.

Several years ago I went to a Nikon event with agency models.  You signed up on-line and as far as I know the models weren't paid more because of how many people showed.   BOTH models were and are signed, published agency models.   I know what they were paid because I spoke with one of them.
They didn't sign releases and I've seen a few of the images done from that day on IG.  I didn't hear anything about multiple creative decisions or multiple personalities.    I missed where it increased the complexity and mental load of the shoot for either model. 

My shoot was planned for a nice day at the Skokie Art Park.  I was treating my friend to a fun day.  Some people here make things more complex and complicated than needed.

Deactivate my profile?
I assure you I’ve done nothing of the sort.

I don't know why so many of the photographers here are so allergic to the idea of models making enough money to pay their bills, but it's getting very old.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
However it isn't my place to say to what YOU or ANYONE should accept

That part is all too true.

If only the rest of your campaign was consistent with that.  You know, "3 hours being 3 hours" and that models should charge based on time spent, without factoring in things such as the number of photographers, etc.

I.E.  How the models are (supposedly) doing it wrong, not to mention all the "nonsense" (as you put it) regarding the terms of the photoshoot....

Tony Lawrence wrote:
In my case she wanted more because my friend was coming.  In my opinion three hours is three hours.  All this nonsense about terms being breached and where the photos may be published or doubling the posing time...  Two different creative visions? 

My shoot was planned for a nice day at the Skokie Art Park.  I was treating my friend to a fun day.  Some people here make things more complex and complicated than needed.

In your case Tony, the model did absolutely nothing wrong.

Tony, let's look at the facts in your case. You had negotiated and/or were in the process of arranging a one-on-one shoot with a model for an agreed fee of $50 an hour. Then you (not the model) decided you wanted change the scope of your agreement by introducing a second shooter. That's okay, but only if the model agrees. What is not okay is for you to blame the model for doing what under industry standards is an accepted practice. i.e. renegotiating her hourly rate.

You can keep your entrenched point of view, but don't try your blame shifting onto the model, or to justify your decision to walk away from this shoot based on all the lame reasons you use to avoid responsibility, because it was you and only you who was the root cause for the breakdown in negotiations.

Next time a young model stands her rightful ground ... try doing the honourable thing and accept responsibility for your actions and give yourself a pat on the back as you move on to retry your negotiating skills on another model.

Dealing with photographers who constantly rely on deflecting responsibility and pointing fingers must be totally exhausting for models.

Camera Buff wrote:
Dealing with photographers who constantly deflect responsibility and point fingers must be totally exhausting for models.

It is. I've dated a few models, have friends who model, and they feel (THEIR overall words and feelings, not mine) that these types of GWCs are the worst, for they feel that their "talent" outweighs their ego. They try to undercut them, talk down to them, and feel that they're God's gift to a camera. They'd MUCH rather shoot with a GWC with an open wallet than someone like that.  It's also part of why modeling sites have lost the modeling subs, activity, and growth they had before COVID.

I'll never forget this one time my then gf had a guy on speaker, steady name-dropping people he (probably didn't) know in the business, and how he worked for some agency, and how published he is, and how he could open doors for her. He was painfully arrogant about it, too. After all his barking, she simply said her rate is her rate. He hung up, and she moved on to a paid shoot. I normally have a "my rate is my rate" when it comes to paying models, but I'll negotiate based on their experience. It's turned out to be beneficial to what I'm currently shooting.

I think people, mainly photogs, forget that MODELS get paid to model, and TFP is for hugs, smiles, and likes on social media, especially for rookies.  Photogs trying to live off of models paying them will be living under a bridge, that's not how this works lol.

One thing's for sure, though, models these days, no matter how you see them, are about their coin purses. Maybe that's why so many active profiles haven't been updated in almost 10 years.

Liv Sage wrote:
Deactivate my profile?
I assure you I’ve done nothing of the sort.

I don't know why so many of the photographers here are so allergic to the idea of models making enough money to pay their bills, but it's getting very old.

He's been doing this on here for 20 years. I recall several troubling entitled posts from him over the years that were almost "creep alert aisle 7" type things. People like him think they know how "the business" works (especially now) and it couldn't be further from the truth. They live in a weird fantasy world and it is quite exhausting to see.

We professional models must not know what we're talking about even though some of us have been doing this for half of our lives FOR A LIVING.

3 Leaves Left Imaging wrote:
I'd have to agree, I became comfortable paying $150 an hr (mostly non nude) but I have recently been taken aback when a model requested $200 for portrait/implied. And increasingly the $150 rate is inching up to $175 an hour. Yup, everything has become crazy expensive and I so wish I could keep paying the ever rising hourly rates, hell if I could afford it I'd pay $500 an hour. But I can't and I may have to just step back and just work some of my wonderful friends who model. It's all relative and $150 is about my limit.

Agreed there are much less expensive options and $150 and hour for non-nude or implied is too rich for my blood when so many other less expensive options are out there (depending on your location.) All things being equal. The beautiful model that charges $60 an hour for non-nude will work way more than one that charges $150 for the same genre. I just shot with one. Check my profile. In the past a stunning Blond model from NJ was shooting with me several times a week for free. Just for access to the photos. I mean off the charts beautiful. I found beautiful model in Florida that will do Implied for $400 for 5 hours.
Models that say they don't shoot nudes are a red flag for me. I don't waste my time with them unless they are sub $100 Like the $60.00 per hour model I just shot with.

3 Leaves Left Imaging wrote:
I'd have to agree, I became comfortable paying $150 an hr (mostly non nude) but I have recently been taken aback when a model requested $200 for portrait/implied. And increasingly the $150 rate is inching up to $175 an hour. Yup, everything has become crazy expensive and I so wish I could keep paying the ever rising hourly rates, hell if I could afford it I'd pay $500 an hour. But I can't and I may have to just step back and just work some of my wonderful friends who model. It's all relative and $150 is about my limit.

Agreed there are much less expensive options and $150 and hour for non-nude or implied is too rich for my blood when so many other less expensive options are out there (depending on your location.) All things being equal. The beautiful model that charges $60 an hour for non-nude will work way more than one that charges $150 for the same genre. I just shot with one. Check my profile. In the past a stunning Blond model from NJ was shooting with me several times a week for free. Just for access to the photos. I mean off the charts beautiful. I found beautiful model in Florida that will do Implied for $400 for 5 hours.
Models that say they don't shoot nudes are a red flag for me. I don't waste my time with them unless they are sub $100 Like the $60.00 per hour model I just shot with.

Robert Stites wrote:
It's a trend that I think I'm seeing that many models are pricing themselves out of the market. I recognize that there is value for the effort and preparation for modeling, it's that many models are charging more than I can justify spending.

The question is:

How much of the hourly rate models want is based on ego verses the actual cost of preparing to model and a "reasonable"  profit?

For me at least, most models on MM have made their hourly rate so high I can no longer afford to hire them. Granted, I shoot for the fun of it and not as a way to derive income. I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on this.