
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
Tags: Liya Kebede



Jason Wu for Target Fallout: 11,000 Items Currently on eBay and Two Re-Sellers Buy Out the Entire Collection in a Miami Target (We've Got Video)
Watch: Anna Wintour Defends Her 'Bitchiness' on 60 Minutes
Karl Lagerfeld Thinks Adele Is 'A Little Too Fat' and More Highlights from His Unfiltered Interview in the Metro
BB Creams Are the Hottest New Product to Hit the Beauty Aisle--Here's What They Can Do For You
See All of Madonna's Givenchy Super Bowl Halftime Looks
Quite a few tourism boards will cover the travel/hotel/location expenses of the entire crew – if not fully, then they’ll at least provide a GENEROUS discount. Ends up not really costing the mag anything as their “budgets are soooo small.”
(this coming from a recent former tourism publicist)
I normally love when they use models, solely for the fact that I love their beautiful faces (and it’s always fun to ID them), but lately I have been disenchanted with the use of them, particularly Vogue’s Steven Meisel white studio editorials with jumping Caroline Trentini. BORING. Yes, the point is to show off the clothes, but at the same time, give them life and show how they can be used in the world (even if a trip in Bali with Natalia on a white horse is a slightly fantasized version of day-to-day life). If all I’m getting is Caroline Trentini in a white studio, I rather just look at the runway shots, thank you.
Another thing, and I know this is contradictory, but it still needs to be asked — aren’t models supposed to showcase the clothes? Have the clothes be the star (for the most part)? So if Vogue and other mags are trying to make celebrities out of the “top models,” wouldn’t that make us focus more on the models than the clothes?
What I appreciate about the regular-person features is that they usually provide interesting back stories and I always love to see how people incorporate thousand-dollar items into their personal style. Unlike model editorials, these features aren’t blatant advertisements to me, but more like inspirational guides on how to put together my own style.
I’ve been getting so tired of almost every spread in Elle being some tan model in Cavalli on some tropical locale loaded up with expensive jewelry. EVERY month!
But I do love seeing both models and real-life women…….a variety is nice.
Oh, and I meant to also say that some of the best fashion advice I’ve heard is from articles in Vogue about real women, like beware of prints at cheap retailers like H&M or XXI (Amanda Brooks) and to only wear eyeliner on top during the day, and on top and bottom only at night (some insanely chic french woman Plum Sykes interviewed like 6 yrs ago)
…as a fashion stylist i can honestly say that big bucks are spent on photoshoots and it usually goes to location, food, hair/makeup, and photographer+assistants. everyone else takes a cut because we want to work on such fun projects. but our bread and butter work is definitely NOT editorial, and neither is the models. it would be nice to get paid my usual day rate and not a cut rate. it’s nice that more and more magazines are finally giving stylists a name credit, but if getting paid means using some real women…i say, YES!
Agreed — models usually cash in when they land big campaigns and (surprisingly) catalogues.
Really, Sunshine? Im a location manager for movies and I occasionally do photo shoots and…I havent really found that, especially not in the past year or so, when people have been looking at my crew way more as a disuption and annoyance than a chance to shine. Lately I’m axe-ing possibilities left and right because the costs are so much higher than they used to be, and its hard to find people that want to work like this…You need to hook me up with who you were working with!
Annmarie, I’ll give you a hint – several locations in the Caribbean are more than welcoming, including a particular US commonwealth that has some gorgeous remote beaches. Reach out to the tourism board directors first before reaching out to the publicists – have your circulation numbers, impressions, and demographic info handy. If you can get the directors really excited, which isn’t hard if you’re a known outlet (read: anything that’s notable, and not some teeny newspaper in upstate PA or something), they’ll encourage the publicists, who will, in turn, set it up.
Oh, also have handy: the number of people who will be on location, the number of hotel rooms and airline tickets you need, and have an idea of what locations you want (super easy to Google, or just visit the island’s website). The more you know about your shoot and the location, the better.
Hope this helps :)
If you want even more specific info, AM, email me at yellowcupcake@gmail.com :)