Should Models Get Paid (More) for Editorial Work?

[TianSoFine]

^We can't only look at the top of everything because salaries like that don't represent the profession as a whole. Like I've already said, the vast majority of models don't make it very high at all. Some top models are paid a disproportionate amount, so maybe the solution is not paying them so much instead of paying models on the lower end less to compensate.
And another thing is that a lot of models have other sources of income as well. Some like Gisele and Carmen do a bunch of things outside of modeling.

But why JUST the models? The rest of the crew's salary hardly will go up .. waht makes em SO special that they SHOULD get special treatment and get payed BETTER than the rest of the staff? Thats poppycock!

Well, I did say that it shouldn't be just the models. If models get decent wages, so should everyone else. That was the whole point of my original post.

 

[fritmayo]

But why JUST the models? The rest of the crew's salary hardly will go up .. waht makes em SO special that they SHOULD get special treatment and get payed BETTER than the rest of the staff? Thats poppycock!

simply because in the whole staff, the model is the only one for who the editorials are really crucial for her career if she is managed to go in the high fashion direction.

So somehow, if u "need" something more than the other people in the staff, the logic makes that u must accept to do it for less money.
let's be clear, at a moment of their carreer, a model would be even ready TO PAY to be in a top edito, no make up artist or photographer are ever in that position...

 

[ultramarine]

so, let me get this straight ... EDITORIALS are more important for MODELS than FASHION EDITORS?

And no make up artist nor photographer has the possibility of earning as much as a model does ... how much does a top model gets payed for a campaign vs a photographer? She banks buck, he doesnt

 

[fritmayo]

campaign vs a photographer? She banks buck, he doesnt

a top photographer is rather well paid for campaign, and "top bucks" for models dont really concern most campaign.
I know girls who shooted DG campaign with mario testino, models was booked for just around 3000$m testino i dnt know, but certainly much more
I saw prada campaign statement for about 5000$, there too photographer gets more...

 

[ultramarine]

Errrm ... how much does a model get for a CAMPAIGN? How much did Natalia got payed when she got the Gucci exclusive just starting? We all know thats how models do the most of his money .. and you didnt reply to my comment about not getting how you claim editorials are more important to MODELS than fashion EDITORS ... :/

 

[MyNameIs]

It seems models make reasonably well for campaigns, but I do think they need to get more for editorial/magazine work. Likewise for fashion shows, since I don't think getting a t-shirt is sufficient.

However, I think bigger problem is the criminal underpayment for male models. While it may be argued that female models don't get fully compensated for their contributions, at least they make some money. From what it sounds like to me, male models get peanuts compared to female models, which is totally wrong. It would seem to me it would violate some anti-discrimination laws.

 

[tigerrouge]

Summarizing, models are part of the cost that this companies "magazines" want to reduce too, and they do it, BUT NOT BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT MODELS ARE ENOUGH PAID WITH THE EXPOSURE THAT AN EDITORIAL BRINGS, they just do it in their try of eliminating every cost as possible.

In my younger days, any time that I ever had to organise a shoot, the models were earning more per hour than I was, because all costs had to be kept down. Of course, such wise investment certainly retained talented staff for that company...

 

[fritmayo]

Errrm ... how much does a model get for a CAMPAIGN? How much did Natalia got payed when she got the Gucci exclusive just starting? We all know thats how models do the most of his money ..:/

such deal are irrevelant in this topic as it concerns maybe 10 -15 contracts per year in the whole business, so it just concerns a very few girls.
u can not talk in general about "campaign" in talking about such deals, as it does not even 1% of the numbers of "campaign" available on the market.

for the fashion editor parts, i just thought it was also completly irrelevent, fashion editor it is basically their main jobs, so does it have sense to wonder if their main job is crucial for them?
it is not crucial in same way at all...

 

[fritmayo]

It seems models make reasonably well for campaigns, but I do think they need to get more for editorial/magazine work. Likewise for fashion shows, since I don't think getting a t-shirt is sufficient.

. From what it sounds like to me, male models get peanuts compared to female models, which is totally wrong. It would seem to me it would violate some anti-discrimination laws.

The whole male modeling make less money than the girls for simple business reason.
the whole male fashion industry, clothing, advertising, price of ads for male clothes is just miles away from the women industry so obviously the difference is also in the model tariff.

it is the same in tennis for example women makes much less than menm just because they generate less money in the tennis industry, tickets are cheaper to watch the girls, TV pay less to broadcast girls competition and so on....

About fashion shows, dont also think that all shows just bring T-shirt to models, some shows are well paid and a girl can bill a lot of money if she is successful in that field.

 

[MyNameIs]

^I don't know about all majors, but I believe women get the same prize money as men at the US Open. That's despite all those differences you mentioned (but in reverse) and despite the fact that men have to win three games while women only have to win two. Saying more on this subject would be off topic so I won't.

I don't disagree that market doesn't dictate some of the difference in pay between male and female models, but I don't believe it's to the extent that it's been. I believe David Ghandy has spoken out against it.

 

[softgrey]

Maybe that's the problem. Certainly, there are some editors who have a great eye, such as Grace Coddington, she and some others seem to not be photographers mostly because they don't get of on the type of technology geek stuff that all photographers must love. But it seems to me photographers generally have a better eye for what works as an image.

Yeah, I confess, I don't work with this so perhaps I should stfu but the fact remains that I have collected fashion magazines for a while, and for whatever reason they are just nowhere near as good now as they were before the mid 90s. And it seems that perhaps the technology obsession combined with the editor as being in charge could explain why the standard has gone down. From the perspective of fashion photography as art, that is.

Besides, the model is extremely important. As important as editors or photographers. Sure, you can get decent shots with the proper body, but you can't get great shots unless the model is great. Unfortunately, the qualities that makes a model great - youth, a certain state of mind - are all fleeting qualities that you can't rely on for any length of time (a matter of 2-10 years) and that takes down the importance of the model. After all, why should you pay respect to someone who is only going to be there for a short time?

the whole industry has changed and creativity is simply not as prized as advertising dollars at a magazine these days...
everyone has to play it safe now just to keep from going out of business...
this is true across the board with all creative industries...
but especially with publishing...
it started around the time of 9/11 and has only been getting progressively worse...cause of the economy, the internet...etc...
so that is what you are seeing...
it has nothing to do with editors or photographers in terms of talent, etc...
because a great many of the very same editors and photographers are still the ones who have a lock on all the big editorials...
...
**it's really hard to break through for newbies cause- unlike models- editors and photographers keep working until they keel over and die!...
......

it's just that no one has the same level of creative freedom anymore...
sad, no???...


what i do think technology has done is change the overall 'shininess' of fashion imagery...
computer retouching has taken a lot of the 'grittiness' out of fashion photographs...
which i think can also somehow remove some of the 'soul'...
it has given rise to certain photographers whose entire signature is this completely retouched look-
mert and marcus come to mind (and they are great imo)...
*polish certainly has its place...but so does grittiness...
and we've lost a lot of that...

but i think that's off topic, maybe?...


just to point out...
a model often becomes great because she works with really experienced editors and photographers who coach her...
*meisel is known for this especially...
and i can give you a list of major girls who i have watched climb up from cluelessness that i watched get coached by senior editors...
of course they have to be smart and listen and do what is asked of them...
but modeling isn't some magic thing...
it is learned...
all the good ones are very good at taking direction...
and yes, they do make it easier on a shoot...
and bad ones get sent home from shoots on a regular basis...

anyway...i think everyone should get paid the same...
and everyone should get paid more!
but that's not gonna happen...

so...
this is all pretty much a waste of time...
i think i'm gonna retire myself from this thread now...