Beauty beware! An epidemic of talent agencies sweeps America

Government and trading standards agencies have in recent years received a deluge of complaints about model and talent agencies that promise much and deliver dejection and despair. These agencies have developed a reputation for taking far more in terms of revenues from aspiring models than they seem to return in employment opportunities. The ingenuity and cunning of these talent agencies is worth a second look, for to be forewarned is to be forearmed.
Many bogus talent agencies have been charging hundreds of aspiring young models large commissions of up to $1,500 for assistance in obtaining modeling work. Many though have found themselves with only a collection of photographs or images on a company web site.
One much maligned talent agency, which maintains offices in Greensboro and Orlando, denies any any wrongdoing, as the company's Web site and other promotional materials forewarn that modeling is a tough business, claiming that “ we don't guarantee jobs; we guarantee opportunities". The company, which cannot be named for legal reasons, has had many questions raised about its sales and marketing tactics over many States, which include large sign up fees for exposure on their Web site.
Such companies often use pressure sales tactics and clever psychology to pressure their clients into advance fees in excess of $1,000. Preying upon naivety, optimism and inexperience, the talent agency in question has recently taken to the schools in its attempts to recruit hopefuls from amongst thousands of eighth grade students at County Schools' Career Days.

A Tide of Discontentment

All good (and bad) ideas have a peculiar habit of spreading, and the United States has become littered with examples of copycat schemes sowing seeds of sorrow. In March last year, a judge in North Carolina ruled against Charlotte Company Face National Models for using misleading and deceptive sales practices in order to deceive consumers who hoped to become models, and sought a permanent injunction against Face National, and the cancellation of all contracts and refunds for consumers. The agency was accused of promising consumers a high-fashion, high-paying career as models, many of whom instead found themselves with over-priced photos and a few jobs handing out product samples.
Judge Cooper contended that Face Models deceived consumers into believing the company would find them traditional modeling jobs in print and runway work at rates in excess of $150 per hour, rather than the promotional work handing out product samples at events for $15 per hour, less commission. The Company operated by inviting candidates to attend screening auditions at a local hotel consisting of a runway walk. Nearly all were flattered and then called the next day to tell them that they had made the cut, inviting them to sign a representation contract with Face.
Traditional modeling agencies make their money almost exclusively by taking a commission from income earned by their models, which in certain States such as California may not exceed 10%. Indeed a recent law suit brought by models sought to declare that one California model company claiming 20% commission was acting illegally. Face National however made its money by selling photography contracts, charging its clients around $600 for a professional photo shoot that may have been anything but, and then requiring aspiring models to purchase at least $388 worth of composite cards that showed photographs of a model in several different poses to send to prospective employers. Such companies make a profit by herding sheep, rather than in finding the next famous face in the crowd.
Charlotte has become a hotbed for such modeling scams. In fact about 20% of all modelling agency complaints made to the Better Business Bureaus nationwide last year were regarding Charlotte companies. Charlotte even managed to generate more modeling complaints than New York and Chicago combined.
Most consumer complaints relate on to the cost of composite or “comp” cards, little more than post card sized image portfolios. As the prospective model must commission a photographer and pay for printing, comp cards may cost over $1,000 per batch, often representing a mark up in excess of 90% by the agency. As Face signed as many as 5,000 models in more than 100 towns from 2000-2002, company revenues may have run into the millions of dollars.
In a further successful legal action, Model Select, which has since closed, was ordered by a state court in January to issue refunds and to pay a $25,000 fine. Dozens of Idaho parents filed complaints against a modeling and talent agency "Booking Actors and Models" based in California after a local visit by the company, whilst in Tampa a Modeling agency was accused in court of being a “photo mill”, and of making false promises and selling photographs rather than finding their models work.
Clearly it isn’t just Hollywood hopefuls who are taken in by the promise of the stardom. The Federal Trade Commission has alleged that no less than three D.C. modeling agencies enticed consumers into losing thousands of hard-earned dollars by promising high-paying assignments with industry names. One such company’s talent "scouts" approached consumers in public shopping malls and Metro stations. Another company approached children with the offer of $45 screen tests with a professional "talent director". Parents were then sold a copy of the test, and, if they succumbed, were then pressured into buying an "introduction package" comprising a photo session that could cost up to $800. Despite the promise of a satisfaction-guaranteed refund, parents who didn’t like the photos were refused their money back as the words "no refund" appeared on their receipts, which effectively nullified any guarantee.

Many strands in a web of deceit

The title modeling agency is oft misused. For instance a photographer might use the term when there is in fact only a photo studio. Many so-called modeling agencies are little more than so-called “photo mills”. Often they do not find work for their clients, do little or no marketing outside of model recruitment, and make little or no money from commissions received for paid model work. The bulk of their revenues are derived from producing overpriced modeling photos or comp cards. This type of operation is commonly referred to as a modeling photography scam, or “photo mill”. As many of these operations use their own photographer, nearly all the fee money, often in excess of a $1,000 is profit. Alternatively the “modeling agency” works in collusion with a photographer and shares the spoils.

A gray area in model law

Whilst many people have complained about the procedures of many such companies, the difficulty is that most in fact aren’t doing anything illegal. Caveat Emptor, or buyer beware, applies in this scenario, in that selling to optimism, hope and imagination are not criminal acts in of themselves, in that the agency does fulfil its promotional agreement to list the individual upon its database with a picture, even if the agency does nothing more than submit the model database to a search engine to attract prospective clients. If the model, actor or talent fails to find work as a result of the agency’s recruitment, then no breach of agreement has taken place in effect as no guarantee of work was in effect made.

The International Talent agency is opening a U.S. headquarters in Fort Lauderdale, a move that has been endorsed by the City’s mayor. However some models in the UK complained that they paid advance fees to the agency's parent company, Models Direct, without receiving any work in return, perhaps an inevitable complaint from disgruntled models. Whilst UK law permits advance fees, Florida law does not. However no evidence has been provided to suggest that Models Direct acted in any way illegally or improperly, and indeed the Company boasts a list of clients that includes Mercedes-Benz, Walt Disney, L'Oreal and Coca-Cola.

However other companies are less convincing in their performance. A spokesperson for one Company estimated that as many as 86% of models received a call from an agent. When asked for contact details to obtain interviews with successful models, only one was provided, a winner of the L'Oreal Reflection Beauty contest. While this model claimed that she will appear in magazines, she was not expecting to make any money from the arrangement. As for the claimed client Company endorsements, only eight were pursued and of these only two, New York Models and Boss Models, claimed to have used the talent agency in question. The other six had not and did not authorize the use of their names for endorsements. In the modeling, talent & fashion industries reputation counts for everything.
Icqurimage, January 2004