Should Models Get Paid (More) for Editorial Work?

[Bgeltunsd]

I have a little experience in modeling and I have rarely been paid ANYTHING for magazine publication. I've been given the same explanation: it's exposure, blah blah blah. I obviously got screwed over because exposure is a good argument when the photos appear in big magazines, otherwise you're pretty much giving free content to a mag that makes money off your back.
However, I find these numbers shocking. I knew editorial wasn't paid much but I tought a magazine like Vogue would pay way more than that.

As for the people who say modeling requires no work: being photogenic & having a good body/face might be luck, but you do have to work your *** off to keep them in perfect condition. A model's work does not start and end in front of the camera, it's a full time dedication.

 

[softgrey]

and now you see why i say that if the fashion industry had to actually follow the law in terms of paying a living wage and giving adequate breaks and paying overtime for anything over 8 hrs etc...
the whole industry would come crashing to a halt...


yes- its all true...
editorial rates are $150-$250 for each and every person on the team...
unless the photog is selling the story and getting paid per image...
* in such cases...the photog is the ONLY one getting paid...
everyone else is doing just for the published 'tears' to put in their portfolios...
it is pretty much standard and more often than not...
photographers put their own money into stories for mags like vogue italia, etc...
because their budgets aren't big enough to accomplish everything the photogs want to do...
they do advertising in order to pay for the privilege of doing editorial...
literally...

as for usage rights...
i think it's total BS that only the model and photog get that...
everyone on the team is creating the images..
but because the photog is behind the camera and the model is in front of it...they are the only ones who get paid any usage fees...
everyone else only gets paid for the time on set...
which totally SUCKS...imo...

i mean...there wouldn't be any pics if there wasn't a stylist there with great clothes...
and the amount of time and effort a stylist has to go through to prepare for a story is mental...
everyone else just shows up on the day of the shoot...
but the stylist is running around before and after to get all the clothes and then return them on time...
and they never get paid for the actual number of days they work...
*ie- you might get paid for two days prep...
but you are really working on it for 6 days before and a couple of days after...
it's all quite ridiculous...

 

[holaloha]

For those who don't know, as a general rule, major fashion magazines like the various editions of Vogue do not pay models for their appearance in their magazines or they are paid very little, like the $150-250 payment noted in post #1 plus expenses.** The logic / justification for this way of doing business is among other things:

• working for a major magazines and being shot by a top photographer is prestigious and highly coveted and that in and of itself is a form of compensation;

• 
  
  
  That's all very true. Being in a magazine like Vogue will definitely boost a models career, and that in itself is a great career move and shouldnt require a large payment

 

[j.cruz146]

What sort of prestige comes from working a job that's high class and is expected to pay high class and your only working for $150! I'm not saying a model should be getting paid in the millions or something.. But at least something descent.. I'd say anywhere between 2,500 to 5,000 if it were for Vogue and then less depending on the magazine. It does take time and skill to be able to take great photographs.. Obviously looks don't matter in this industry because all models are different and are celebrated for it..

I do agree that not just models should get paid more.. But photogs and make up artists and stylists as well..

This industry does nothing for some people, and everything for others..

An editor-in-chief would not be where they are if not for these people! So why not pay them more!

I honestly hate this "if I don't do it, somebody else will" rule that they have for models.. Is stupid to think that somebody else is going to disgrace them selves for something like a "job"..

Also, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a model got paid for two things.. Their image being used and for their work. Could it be that the $150 is for their work and maybe is not showing what their getting paid for their image?

 

[fritmayo]

I do agree that not just models should get paid more.. But photogs and make up artists and stylists as well..
or their work and maybe is not showing what their getting paid for their image?

i think the idea that people have in this thread that photograher are not paid more is just plain wrong.
A publication like Vogue just use very established photographers, and even if their tariff for edito are of course much lower than their tariff for commercial works, dont think that photographer of top level takes their camera out for just few hundreds $ per day...

 

[blueorchid]

as for usage rights...
i think it's total BS that only the model and photog get that...
everyone on the team is creating the images..
but because the photog is behind the camera and the model is in front of it...they are the only ones who get paid any usage fees...
everyone else only gets paid for the time on set...
which totally SUCKS...imo...

I think this sounds good, but I don't know how realistic it would be to pay EVERYONE on set for usage fees. I think a similar example would be like the sound mixer getting royalties for every album he worked on (maybe they do get royalties, i have no idea) or the casting director getting residuals from every episode of a tv show she cast. It seems a bit exessive at some point. There has to be a median.

 

[softgrey]

I think this sounds good, but I don't know how realistic it would be to pay EVERYONE on set for usage fees. I think a similar example would be like the sound mixer getting royalties for every album he worked on (maybe they do get royalties, i have no idea) or the casting director getting residuals from every episode of a tv show she cast. It seems a bit exessive at some point. There has to be a median.

the more accurate comparison is that every member of the band gets the same royalties...not just the lead singer...
because every member of the creative team is contributing to the final image...
that includes-
photog, stylist, model, hair, make up, ...
these are the people who are directly contributing ideas and making creative decisions...
so those are the people who should be compensated equally...

imo...

 

[fritmayo]

the more accurate comparison is that every member of the band gets the same royalties...not just the lead singer...
because every member of the creative team is contributing to the final image...
that includes-
photog, stylist, model, hair, make up, ...
these are the people who are directly contributing ideas and making creative decisions...
so those are the people who should be compensated equally...

imo...

it is not exact at all, there is really just a minority of band that it is the case.
Do you think that ron wood had the same royalties as Jagger and Richards just to add the bass line to their song?
And for solo author singer with band, the band is just pay at daily tarif and that's it, they have absolutly zero royalties

 

[softgrey]

i know that solo singers have a back up band that are just hired musicians...DUH!...

but there are NO SOLO artists on photo shoots...
there is a TEAM...
to be honest...
the stylist is the one with the ideas most of the time- so they are the SONGWRITER in this example...the main person driving the idea with the photographer...pushing and often directing the photographer, the model and the hair and make up...
this is the nature of editorial...

anyway...
that's the facts...like it or not...

 

[franki]

i have to agree with MulletProof and softgrey
IMO, of the a) model b) stylist c) creative director d) photographer, the model IS the bass line. these are the key people to a shoot but the model is the most dispensable unfortunately. if that model is sick there are many other models who could take her place (unless of course it is for a campaign or if we are talking about one of the top 5 girls and icons).

yes, i think pay for an editorial sucks, but i think the pay needs to be in line with the other key people on the shoot. and i think all a-d should get royalties for images produced. i don't know how realistic it is though. but i don't think that just because the models face is used should make her/him have any more right to $$. it is their job after all, they are to be seen, they are models. and the styling/composition etc is the work of the other people involved. without them there would be no image.

 

[iluvjeisa]

i know that solo singers have a back up band that are just hired musicians...DUH!...

but there are NO SOLO artists on photo shoots...
there is a TEAM...
to be honest...
the stylist is the one with the ideas most of the time- so they are the SONGWRITER in this example...the main person driving the idea with the photographer...pushing and often directing the photographer, the model and the hair and make up...
this is the nature of editorial...

anyway...
that's the facts...like it or not...

This seems a bit bizarre to me. It really should be the photographer who leads a photo shoot. It's only the person looking through the lense who can really see how the picture is going to come out...

Maybe this is the explanation for why so many fashion photographs look averge today...it's too much focus on the fashion pieces, forgetting the medium.

 

[franki]

^ i could be wrong but i think it might be that the stylist/creative director (Depending on the scale of the shoot this could be the same person) has the strongest direction from the client as to what they want from the shoot. particularly if its an ed and an in-house stylist from the mag. they might have the greatest say in the direction the shoot takes?? like i said, just my perspective, i could be wrong. i'm sure it varies case to case

 

[LegsXI]

Well it makes sense for models starting out. Could somebody answer me this, what about established models? Why do they bother for $100?

 

[fritmayo]

i know that solo singers have a back up band that are just hired musicians...DUH!...

but there are NO SOLO artists on photo shoots...

well like it or not...in people's mind, THERE IS a "solo artist" and it is...the photographer.
almost anyone even not much into fashion have heard about Meisel or Testino, but almost nobody could ever said the name of stylist.

It needs also to make big difference about editorial type, a meisel vogue italia edito needs an army because well, let's say that the style in itself i into "big" production.
But there are PLENTY of edito or cover, very basic about style, where the stylist work is rather limited, and wher the lead team is more photopgrapher /art director, with the stylist just beside.

let's keep in mind, that a good photographer, to an extreme can do a great pic with just a girl , a white wall, zero clothe and daylight...

A stylist alone can bring all her clothes and accessories...she still wont be able to make a picture of it on her own

 

[franki]

^ i think you make some interesting points, but i do disagree on one point. i think many people could name 'famous' stylists. sure they may be mainstream stylists, but no more or less mainstream than testino et al.

but i do agree of course that in some cases the stylists work is very limited. i myself see many of these shoots (often black and white, model against a wall, wet/bed hair, wearing a slip dress) and the stylist is credited and think "what did they do??"

but then there are some cases with sos many things going on, from OTT clothes, accessories, props, back drops, locations and it shows the opposite. it can look so wrong, but with the right stylist, it can look perfect.

i guess that shows how the 'solo artist v team' argument (and just who the solo artist is) varies in each situation!

what i do notice is though that many people here are arguing who is more important from the photographer v stylist... not the model... i think that could show something!

 

[rosiecheeks]

For girls who are starting out it would be unfair to just pay them 150-250 bucks for maybe even days of work. But then next to that the opportunity of tens of thousands for the same work, for even perhaps the same girl? It doesn't make sense. So either the commercial work needs more realistic wages (then I'd get to the question: what's realistic here?) or the eds need to pay better...

 

[Kayote]

I absolutely agree with everyone about the editorial pay not making sense.

Yes they get coverage by appearning in the magazine, I also get coverage by having my handsome face on facebook. The editorial is advertising/ core product of the magazine and thereby the magazines should be forced to pay a fair wage to the models (similar to magazines).

Also fashion shows give a huge to the model's portfolio and if we followed the magazines's thinking, they would be paid pennies there as well...

 

[franki]

^ unfortunately many of them are paid pennies for runway work too. or nothing. sometimes its trade at best. most girls love clothes, but you can't eat it or pay the rent with it

 

[rosiecheeks]

I absolutely agree with everyone about the editorial pay not making sense.

Yes they get coverage by appearning in the magazine, I also get coverage by having my handsome face on facebook. The editorial is advertising/ core product of the magazine and thereby the magazines should be forced to pay a fair wage to the models (similar to magazines).

Also fashion shows give a huge to the model's portfolio and if we followed the magazines's thinking, they would be paid pennies there as well...

Well that's obviously a different kind of exposure. Magazines work with certain photographers, make up artists, lighting, the best of equipments. A girl can strut her stuff and show what she's worth here, prove herself to future clients perhaps. But the gap is too wide.

 

[lepetitcouturier]

Models should definitely get paid more. People think that the photoshoots only take fifteen minutes, but it takes twelve hours to three days to get an ad done. And models usually have to get there early and leave at around one am. And magazines should be giving better pay, considering they're able to borrow all of these clothes and get the finest photographer, but they somehow can't afford to shell out an extra thousand for the model who's doing more than pretty much everyone else. To be a photographer all you need to do is be creative, know lighting, and not be paralyzed in the hands. And they're getting thousands of dollars to do one shoots, so models should definitely be getting the equal end.