WebModels Professional Forum is a message board for models, photographers, agents, managers, and others associated with the modeling industry.
| |
WebModels Forum for the Modeling Industry
A Tale of Two Modeling Jobs
Posted By: Roger (64.115.238.173)
Location: NYC
Date: Thursday, 14 October 2004, at 10:52 a.m.
Immediately below this post is one from the latest in the interminable number of "model listing sites", most of which claim they will provide "exposure" to clients around the country. Some of these work more-or-less well within what is really their domain: jobs of a type that mainstream modeling agencies won't support. That tends to mean glamour/nude work or low (or no) paying jobs that are of dubious benefit to the model, and of no benefit to a real agency.
Listing yourself on such a site can serve either of two reasonable purposes: to attract glamour/nude jobs and TFP/low paying jobs, or to have a convenient site to refer people to when you want to discuss modeling for them. In selecting such a site, access to a lot of glamour/nude photographers (for the first objective) or a clean, easily accessible and inexpensive site to meet the second. But to think such a listing will, by its very existence, lead you to much in the way of "mainstream" paid modeling is unrealistic. Here's why:
The title promises a tale of two different modeling jobs; to make the point above, these are with respected mainstream clients. Both of them were booked through a model listing on the internet, so one might think that they are examples of how such sites can really work. Not so.
Like many real-world agencies, we have a website that shows our models to prospective customers. These days between half and a third of our business comes from that site, either because a client found the site on his own and approached us about models he wanted to hire, or because we referred a client to the site as a step in picking models.
So it still sounds like these "model listing sites" might work, right? Wrong.
The reason the site works for us is because there is a real staff of people, with real telephone numbers, and real, ready, willing and able models here where we are who can reliably be booked. We (and other similar agencies) get these jobs because the clients know we will stand behind the reliability of the process and make it easy for them. So, to the two examples, one from two months ago, and one from last week.
Job 1 An international airline with its ad agency in Los Angeles wanted to do a photo shoot in New York at JFK airport. They didn't want to fly in models from Los Angeles (and certainly not from Omaha or somewhere else). They wanted good, professional models where the shoot was to be done. New York models. So they researched New York agency websites, decided on ours, and through email indicated an interest in several of our people.
We called the people they were interested in, determined their availability on the proposed shoot dates, helped and after they had settled on the four they wanted to hire, handled the logistic and administrative details with the models. Part of our conversation with the client was through email (which is better for passing on lists of data) and part through telephone calls (which is more immediate, and better for negotiations). In no case did they contact the models directly; that's our job. They tell us what they want, and we do whatever work it takes to make sure it happens.
Getting a shoot permit for JFK isn't easy in these days of Homeland Security alerts, and the shoot was tightly constrained in time. One of the things we did was make sure that there were backup models of similar type available on call, in case there were any last-minute glitches (which tend to happen in New York). We could have had someone to them within half an hour if need be.
If the client had had to find models they wanted on some listing site, send out individual emails to "models" who may or may not respond at all, let alone quickly, the booking never would have happened. We were able to get the work because we have someone here to respond immediately, to make and receive telephone calls, and to reduce their burden to a single, reliable point of contact.
Model listing sites don't do that.
Job 2 Last Wednesday at 3:55 PM we got a telephone call from the very harried photo editor of Newsweek. She needed three models for a shoot the next day. She gave me the types she needed and then got off the phone to do the many other things editors do when putting out a weekly publication.
By 4:20 I had confirmed availability of some models who met her needs, called her up with their names, and she took a look at them on our website. By 4:25 they were approved and booked, and we called the models to pass on the details of the shoot.
The next day, an hour before the models' show time we got another call from the editor. The specs had changed, could we find a different model and get her to us in time for the shoot? Sure we could. Within ten minutes we had located a suitable model, made sure she was available, got approval for her, and she was booked. The magazine sent a limousine to pick her up, and she made the shoot.
To some of you that might seem like an extreme situation, but as agency jobs go it's not all that unusual. That (although usually with a little more leisurely schedule) is how they work. And internet "model listing sites" can't support those kinds of jobs.
(The picture is a scan of the cover of this week's issue of Newsweek (our fourth cover with them), which was Job 2. On the inside is a picture of the models' faces, which is why approval was necessary for the booking.)
| |
WebModels Forum for the Modeling Industry is maintained by David Blewett with WebBBS 5.12.
©Copyright 1996-2006 WebModels.Com. All rights reserved.
Site Design by DaBlue