Models Are Not As Expensive As Hollywould

WWD has an article about how magazines' are cutting costs: Using fewer models in their editorials, and more "real" women. We've all seen the spread i
Avatar:
Author:
Publish date:
Social count:
0
WWD has an article about how magazines' are cutting costs: Using fewer models in their editorials, and more "real" women. We've all seen the spread i
Image Title1

WWD has an article about how magazines' are cutting costs: Using fewer models in their editorials, and more "real" women. We've all seen the spread in Vogue where a Harvard physicist talks about the designers in her closet, and the many features in their little sister mag about the purchasing habits of celebrity offspring. But is this really a way for magazine's to save money? Yes, but it's not by replacing Jessica Miller with Tinsley Mortimer. At least not directly. Model labor comes cheap; one of our model sources says "You might make $300 a day for an editorial shoot (unless you're Gisele, and then you get more)." It's not the models who are expensive; it's the trappings of the projects they're hired for. When ELLE uses a model, they usually shell out for an exotic location-based shoot (flying a whole production crew to Tahiti is not cheap), or a pricey studio. They also spend lots of money on elaborate props (giant balloons! robots!) , hair (Orlando Pita, whose day rate is much more than $300), and make-up. But when a magazine shoots a "real woman" wearing her real clothes, it's not a huge production - it's usually at her house, in her own outfits, and she's not posing with a mini-spaceship (like Liya Kebede did for Bazaar). So even if the "real" women get shot in $10,000 couture gowns, it's still a cheaper production than a high fashion spread. --ANNA FIELDING GRIGGS