Should Models Get Paid (More) for Editorial Work?

[cologne_rocks]

I wonder how niche boutiques who focus on editorial and high fashion adertisement are supposed to pay their rent? They will hardly operate in the black with booking 20 blue chips covers a month, plus converting casting agents & magazine editors to the agency's column seems not very favourable, either.

 

[theBlueRider]

The way I see it is that choosing modeling as a career is a bit of a gamble. It's possible to make it really big and earn millions, but not everyone makes it to the top and it's more common to not get paid those millions. A person makes their own choices on what they will take in gambling, so if you lose, it's not the fault of the person you made the bet with.

And a lot of people here are saying that prestige doesn't mean anything. Maybe not to most of us, but it probably means something to the models, since they were the ones who chose the high fashion route instead of the commercial route in the first place. HF doesn't pay as much as commercial, and models know that. They made that choice for themselves.

This is part of my point. The others here are talking about top top 10% models in the top top 10% editorials: Vogue, V, Numero etc. But the girls who are able to get into those magazines in the first place are not the new unknown fashion girl who has to try to first get into the less prestigious magazines like Mirage, Surface etc who do not have the corporate means to pay or even offer a rate. Every model understands where she stands in the ladder. And she can communicate with her booker that she wants to make some money (easy money for high fashion girls is booking them for shooting Bergdorf's website, Saks, Neiman's, Lane Crawford, Bloomingdales, Henri Bendel etc--tons of B-list fashion girls do several thousand a day jobs doing these and it is very easy to book. But if a girl just has tests in her book and has only done no-name designer presentations in the past, she will most likely not be working with those clients).

It's funny because the other members here talking don't know the models and bookers personally whereas I talk about this type of stuff with my friends (who are all models) because it is a part of my life. A lot of this is speculation and a lot here don't have a good grasp (sure you may read as many blogs as you want and know a few here and there but you're not the ones who are truly involved in the lives). I can pull up excerpts of my charts for you as proof and if you want, call sheets and describe what my daily life is like for you to gain a better understanding.

I work regularly as in I get a handful of paying jobs a month(I've only had one Vogue edition tearsheet. One single page). And for me, all the jobs I get within a year are worth the 8 days a year I get to shoot an editorial and the 6 days my booker makes me test/practice in front of the camera.
When I first started with just tests in my shoot, I made the rounds in castings and couldn't get a good paying job to save my ***. It took my booker to push me for some small paying jobs to compensate for what I wasn't making. That's why we focused on getting even one editorial in my book (and my first was not with a big publication). The difference in getting jobs was light and day. So if you take that and project it on a more prestigious level--if a girl is shooting regularly for Vogue, that is not considered the "bulk" of her charts (but that is what her fans will see as her "work" and post all over the blogs etc but it's not considered a "job" for us) because she will definitely have priority over girls like me for good paying jobs. And I can assure you that my friends who have had multiple stories published in Numero/W etc can command much higher rates for runway (one of the 50+ catwalkers). So compared to how much I'm making, yes, it pays off and yes, there is a difference.

So that is why a lot of models consider shooting any editorial an investment in time--it's the minority of bookings that will happen 365 days a year (and many times, you will never get to see the results of our paying jobs unless you're a super model stalker! it's easier to see your favorite model doing her thing buying a magazine off a newstand and that's why the fans don't get it. they think it all she does but it's not)
It's just like the new girls who have their agency advance money for a strong test, that's an investment--it will help her at castings over the other new girls who are shooting free tests (shooting with a very very new photographer). If a girl can take those tests out of her book because she booked 1 editorial story, she will be in better standing to get multiple paying jobs within that year and even direct bookings for paying jobs (also if her booker still believes in her).

 

[theBlueRider]

I wonder how niche boutiques who focus on editorial and high fashion adertisement are supposed to pay their rent? They will hardly operate in the black with booking 20 blue chips covers a month, plus converting casting agents & magazine editors to the agency's column seems not very favourable, either.

Which ones? All the top 10 agencies in NYC have their blue chip stars but they also have girls you may never heard of and girls they do not put on their website (this is very very common!!!). Even the ones the public sees as super cool, too cool for commercial book their girls on less glamorous type of work that pays really well on a regular basis but that type of stuff isn't publicized.
But in the end, a lot of the private owned (all of them are private except for Wilhelmina actually) have investors backing up the agency and if there are no investors (which to my knowledge are the newer, start-up shops) they have a harder time surviving if they don't branch into the commercial and teen/junior fashion market. Investors are usually...very very rich men who don't have anything to do with fashion (and this plays a role in a lot of the shadiness...and scary things you may hear happen to new models...).

 

[fritmayo]

I wonder how niche boutiques who focus on editorial and high fashion adertisement are supposed to pay their rent? They will hardly operate in the black with booking 20 blue chips covers a month, plus converting casting agents & magazine editors to the agency's column seems not very favourable, either.

Some agencies just like to show to public their "high fashion" side, but still have more money jobs beside that they just to choose not to really advertise.

beside that keep in mind that modeling is one of the few business field in the world full of people with very deep pocket , ready to make cheque regularly to keep business loosing money alive sometimes during years and years...

If only the agencies actualy making any money would stay in the market, probably 70% of the agencies would close tomorow...

 

[blueorchid]

I find it interesting how models are the least important part of a magazine (I mean, aside from posing they really have no imput or authority in the production of the magazine) and yet the most important part of it (how many people would buy fashion magazines if there were no editorials) at the same time.

 

[loladonna]

^I buy magazines like People Stylewatch which feature celebrity candids, no editorials and page after page of nothing but shoes clothes and accessories. I just like looking at fashion. I honestly don't care for fashion the way it is rendered in most high fashion editorials. It seems to be more about the model than the clothes plus the clothes are never presented in a way I would actually consider wearing them.

 

[fritmayo]

and yet the most important part of it (how many people would buy fashion magazines if there were no editorials) at the same time.

i think the average TFS audience is probably not very representtiv of the average whole audience of readers.
i truly would be interested to know it exactly, but i highly doubt that the biggest part of readers considers the editos' as the most interesting part of the mags...

if u check vintage magazines, you will find out that the "fashion" part is nowadays much less important in pages proportions compare to before, i guess it has to do with what readers like...

 

[theBlueRider]

i think the average TFS audience is probably not very representtiv of the average whole audience of readers.
i truly would be interested to know it exactly, but i highly doubt that the biggest part of readers considers the editos' as the most interesting part of the mags...

if u check vintage magazines, you will find out that the "fashion" part is nowadays much less important in pages proportions compare to before, i guess it has to do with what readers like...

i couldn't have said it any better. the tfs audience is hardcore and not exactly the most realistic

The reason why Anna Wintour is iconic in the publishing industry is because she took advantage of how celebrities can sell as opposed to just a model. (of course today it is arguable that Wintour really needs to freshen things up) She was the vanguard who put celebrities on covers and made them relevant to the fashion audience. She was also the first to introduce high fashion with "low fashion" (like the idea of incorporating jeans into an otherwise very expensive designer outfit)--how the real women puts an outfit together. Now we have many younger magazines that are modeled after the same ethos like InStyle, Allure, Lucky etc. Celebrities sell--I would never buy an InTouch or People Magazine but many other people do.
This plays an influence on the lessening role of the model and nonetheless, the nonexistent supermodel today.

 

[ng19]

wow guys I just saw the list of payments on the first page and I'm kind of shocked. I've always wondered how much these pretty girls are earning in order to be beautiful, but these numbers are insane - $125??? for French Vogue really? have nothing to say...

 

[agee]

The reason why Anna Wintour is iconic in the publishing industry is because she took advantage of how celebrities can sell as opposed to just a model.
This plays an influence on the lessening role of the model and nonetheless, the nonexistent supermodel today.

Just because celebrities sell fashion better in certain markets / niches does not mean that models do not sell fashion at all. Selling and presenting clothes has always been a model's job, and sales is a vital part of any organization / industry and fashion is no exception. Secondly, the niches that the publication serves matters, yes the American and British editions of Vogue are celebrity oriented, but the same does not apply to the French, Italian and Japanese editions. Also the celebrity orientation mostly applies to the cover and accompanying ed and a few random profiles, models are still featured on many of the pages of British, American Vogue and the like.

To me not paying models for playing a key role in a profit making endeavor, and most magazines are for profit entities, is based on anachronistic reasoning, but the attitude is so steeped in the psyche that everyone is continuing to act as if the rationale that applied years ago still applies today. We live in a time where information is quickly and readily available, and also the real movers and shakers in fashion, for better or worse, are a relatively small group of people, so between runway shows, backstage beauty shots and word of mouth, there is plenty of "information" about a model with which to make a decision about a campaign and therefore the "editorials are investment and exposure" argument no longer applies to the same extent as it once did. I am not making this up, you can see this based on the timing of announcements / blind items / "rumor has it" commentary about campaign castings.

Furthermore, clearly the people who cast for campaigns do not need to see lots of editorial printwork given the number of newbies who snag campaigns right out the gate, in some cases, they haven't even done a proper runway season, so some of these models are true unknown quantities. Thus in many cases, freshness trumps experience and having some kind of indicator / proof that a model can carry a campaign. So really my previous point about getting substantial information from the runway shows is actually an overstatement because those casting for campaigns don't even need that. It should also be noted that lots of campaigns go to experienced models, but both extremes kinda prove my point, you have one set of models who snag campaigns with little or no printwork or you have models who have so much printwork, including current stuff, that there is plenty of proof of what she brings to the table.

As I stated upthread, I am not asserting that there are not circumstances where it makes sense for models to work for free / scale, but it should not be the norm for an established model.

 

[markese91]

I would just like to point out that I don't think that celebrities move merchandise as much as they move magazines. Celebrities are on the cover of the magazines to get people to buy magazines but models are still used for the editorials and for the inside pieces to move merchandise.... Just my observation.

 

[fritmayo]

I would just like to point out that I don't think that celebrities move merchandise as much as they move magazines. Celebrities are on the cover of the magazines to get people to buy magazines but models are still used for the editorials and for the inside pieces to move merchandise.... Just my observation.

i dont think it is correct.
The celebrities are used to sell. Chanel, LV, Dior to name a few for top brands, but also Mango, H&M to name few more popular, all make quiet big use of celebrities to advertise what they want to sell.

If the editorials are a bit protected of that trends it is only because compare to the biggest part of the magazines, the edito is the part the less compromised by commercial "messages".

 

[dphoto]

And for me, all the jobs I get within a year are worth the 8 days a year I get to shoot an editorial and the 6 days my booker makes me test/practice in front of the camera.
.

I think that's the key here that a lot of people don't really see. As someone who shoots both paid, and free tests, trying to land some editorials, that's huge. If I'm doing a free test, which, unless you're a top name photographer, is basically the same thing as an editorial(in terms of compensation), I'm DEFINITELY going to shoot the girl who has put in the work and has a better book with better tests and/or editorials/tears, not the one who is coming to me with polaroids and a smile. If I were paying a model for an advertisement/editorial/lookbook/whatever, I'd pick the same one.

In general I don't think models should be paid MUCH more for editorials than they are. $150-250 for Vogue is a little low, but I also hate the fact that a ton of photographers don't get paid for editorials either at small to medium sized(and most likely some large) magazines.

 

[kimberwyn]

$100-$250 is generous for editorial. The rest of the crew (stylists, photographers, etc) are paid the same, so why should the models (who are just replacable props) get paid more?

 

[Aqua Tofana]

I think models should get a decent salary for editorials, despite all that "investment-advert" B****e.
Two things:
~It requires time
~It requires skills
Therefore, it's work.
Therefore, it has to be payed.

 

[fritmayo]

$100-$250 is generous for editorial. The rest of the crew (stylists, photographers, etc) are paid the same, so why should the models (who are just replacable props) get paid more?

firstly, for a very simple reason, it is that when your "image" is used, you receive money not just for the work in itself but for the use of your image!
make up girl or styilst have not their image used!


and by the way, dont think that top stylist/make up/ photographer work for 150$ a day in top editorials)

 

[ultramarine]

but does a stylist/make up artist makes as much as a model once landing a campaign?

I think not .. and there, to me, its the biggest difference!

 

[purplethistle]

^ but regardless of campaign or not the hairstylist/make-up artists don't have their image plastered all over the place. Models should be paid a bit more for that one reason alone.

 

[fritmayo]

^ but regardless of campaign or not the hairstylist/make-up artists don't have their image plastered all over the place. Models should be paid a bit more for that one reason alone.

exactly.
and the campaign tariff are defined depending of that particular use...a world campaign is paid much more than a US only campaign. A print campaign only is paid less than campaign also on web, etc...

By the way as far as i know, it has also some influence on the make-up or hair fee, but of course not in same proportion as for the model.

I think to compare model tariff and make u tariff has really no sense, it just 2 category of jobs completely different. there are MANY elements which varies a lot which makes the model tariff (as for photographer tariff), for make up, well, there is also no element of that kind at all.

 

[MulletProof]

Haven't been following the entire thread but just to answer the question, I agree they should be paid more but no more than what a stylist/makeup artist/hairstylist/photographer makes in the same story. Beauty campaigns are a completely different story and it is all about their image and the sales they generate thanks to it, editorials are not really about their image, they (ideally) are about clothes, about inspiring the viewer not just to purchase specific pieces but also to establish a trend or a general mood (which a consumer will eventually fall for and adhere to), a model's face and body does contribute by bringing it all to 'human' grounds but not in a more important way than a stylist's assemblage of THE product, which actually requires more training, the same physical work (ironing, sewing, hanging, folding, etc) throughout the shooting just so it's captured by the camera exactly the way it should be (reason why having an assistant isn't even enough- just look at Panos Yiapanis and the entire army he needs just to get every one of these pieces going). And of course, the work of people like Odile Gilbert or Peter Philips, although overlooked by the assumption that the model just looks that way, it's highly detailed, extremely artistic and takes years to master so I actually do think that, although models are hard workers just like anyone else, only a tiny minority of them is irreplaceable, especially at this time and age when they no longer have the creative input Supermodels got away with, so that to me justifies a lower payment.

That being said, $125 is in my opinion a terrible number, not just for a model but for anyone involved in the creation of imagery and I think that, for a Condé Nast publication with some of the most exclusive brands at its advertisers and clearly high standards for who gets to contribute (not any model or any hairstylist or any photographer makes it there), paying less than what a waiter can make in one night is clearly symbolic payment and I think symbolic payments are more appropriate for magazines not devoted to sell, like Encens, instead a major publication where certainly no one makes 'symbolic' appearances or 'symbolic' advertising.