TFP or not TFP - a model of opportunity or exploitation?

Tyra Banks and the ‘Inside Edition’ have recently investigated the pitfalls and hardships endured by young models in their search for self-esteem and the good life promised by a career in modeling. Both shows exposed what they believed to be the sharp practices and shady activities of many of those associated with the industry. As expected a fierce debate ensued, featuring a line up of the usual suspects and the usual questionable activities. After all the angst and acrimony subsided, the central question remains - how does a young person achieve their dream and become a model?

The popular perception prevails that becoming a model requires uncommon beauty in combination with an indefinable mystique created by a legendary photographer, and until this blend of alchemy is achieved there can be no promised land. This is a widely held illusion which has been well woven by those who seek to satiate their appetites for profit and promiscuity. Perhaps the essential truth is that a modeling career is unique to each and every individual, and as such is often only acquired through a culmination of good fortune, perseverance, extensive networking and repeated market exposure. After all, no individual or company can guarantee a model continuous exposure within all relevant markets - at best they may only offer a door into one. Therefore it is perhaps disingenuous for any one individual or magazine to promise a young person a ‘career’ in modeling in return for service or unpaid work.

This has not however discouraged a thriving industry of TFP photographers, comp cards and modeling academies, even though a gym membership, a diet book, and a 101 in make-up artistry would probably represent a better investment. Within the tinsel towns of Hollywood and high fashion there seem to be a hundred salesmen for every successful model. Perhaps a thriving modeling career owes more to an indefinable cocktail of personality, grooming and genetics than to ‘education’, a rare social chemistry which often ebbs and flows with age. When a model is asked how they maintain their figure, the enquirer may anticipate tales of dietary deprivation, of beauty sleep, and of long, painful hours in the fitness studio. However, many leading models seem to relate stories of junk food on the run, drug and alcohol binges, missed meals and small hours spent at the night club. So much then for the triumph of nurture over nature; the essence of beauty seems to reside within the genes and youth.

These days, high expectations and personal insecurities lead many aspiring models to pay photographers handsomely for a portfolio, if only in return for the social distinction and self-esteem that the title ‘model’ conveys. Other debutantes may enter the middle ground of ‘TFP’, or ‘Time For Prints’, where photographers allow their subjects the use (but not resale) of their own images in exchange for the commercial rights to the shoot. Given that the images of models are the essential product of the industry, and that many magazines and websites make healthy profits from their publication, this practice may seem unfair. Although those photographers and studios that practice TFP work might appear unscrupulous, they are in fact operating comfortably within the law. If a change is to be made within the industry, it will have to be effected through the legislators. For example, the lawful ownership of images might be transferred from the photographer to the model, legally requiring the payment of royalties to the model for their use or reproduction. Another positive change would be to define all modeling activity as work and therefore subject to payment.

On the other side of the desk, perhaps the hardest task befalling anyone in the industry is suggesting that a prospective model is unlikely to succeed, even if it is from behind a firewall of Emails and computer screens. Although there will always be those who relish the opportunity of proving others wrong, perhaps the real cruelty would be in persuading them otherwise. The practice of encouraging a young woman to believe that she could become a professional model in order to gain ‘access’ to youth has engendered the murky reputation that surrounds the industry, especially when exciting promises of videos and photo shoots yield no dividends. Although the genres of bikini, glamour and adult modeling support a diversity of looks and body forms, the world of fashion modeling is especially restrictive in terms of height, weight and physical appearance. The facial eccentricities and exotic forms which may define an Uma Thurman or an Anna Nicole Smith only serve as impediments to entry into the mode of fashion. Given that most of today’s supermodels are or were fashion models at one time, it is not altogether surprising that it is the catwalk and its exclusive designs which attract most young models. Although many who find the doors of the fashion houses closed to them may succeed within the lucrative demimonde of adult and glamour modeling, it is the fashion models who gain access to the tables of high society.

TFP or not TFP?

TFP remains one of the most fraught and heated debates within the world of modeling. Many industry insiders regard it as a rite of passage, whilst others perceive it to be a pure form of exploitation. Established figures argue that a prospective model must undergo test shoots and build up a portfolio, and the only way to persuade a quality photographer to give of his or her time for such ends is TFP. Many would view TFP as valuable experience gained in front of the camera with leading photographers, showing that the model is of sufficient caliber and ready to ‘work’. There is also a prevailing argument that photographers need to perform test shoots in order to hone their skills, test new equipment, and develop creative ideas. As independent fashion photographers have given way to corporate entities and to ‘in house’ studios which are closely tied to the industry, so the rules for test and photo shoots have become those for entry into the profession itself. Given that the commercial fashion houses and men’s magazines usually commission these shoots, such ‘rules of entry’ are broadly applicable. The reality may well be that it is simply so hard to gain the time of a good photographer, that a young model may well have to pay or provide his or her time and image for free simply to gain a foothold within an industry where the supply of debutantes exceeds even the rapacious demand for fresh talent.

Others however argue that most TFP photography performed today, especially within the leading fashion capitals, is actually performed by beginners or enthusiastic amateurs. As these photographers often lack the skills, the equipment, or the experience to produce publication standard shoots, the argument that TFP is a route to a professional portfolio that opens doors into the industry seems false. TFP portfolios often portray the aspiring model as an amateur with an enthusiastic admirer or boyfriend rather than as a professional. Such test shoots are unlikely to inspire confidence when costly studio time has to be set aside for an important client or magazine. Others take an even more hostile view, regarding the abundance of advertisements for TFP and ‘time for experience (TFE)’ that abound on popular sites such as Craig’s List and Model Mayhem as representing nothing short of a scam culture. One leading glamour and fashion photographer, Michael Azzopardi, publicly decries the culture of soliciting staff and models for shoots in return for only experience or exposure. Michael Azzopardi asks whether there is any other industry that expects young people to work long hours and not be paid. Believing that such TFP and TFE activity is ‘Fuelling the ever diminishing amount of paid work for professional people’, and claiming that profitable ‘Magazines and websites are getting content for nothing, [thereby] dropping the bottom out of the market for those people who actually do this for a living’. We shall give Michael Azzopardi the final rebuttal to Adam Smith as he argues, ‘If everyone charged, then the magazines and companies would have no choice but to have to pay for people’. After all he reasons, ‘Why should they pay for someone when they can get someone for free? They're not stupid!’ No Michael they’re not, and they’re not starving or undersexed either...