[Chronicler]

Ego trips.

[Chronicler]

I see what you mean. There is a huge difference in getting pictures as opposed to personal interaction, whereas with music, the product translates almost just as well to both formats.

[Zasha]

 

Quote:
 But in practice, there would be girls not contributing with equal effort, girls not showing up on nights when business is traditionally slow, some girls claiming that their knockout bods were the reason that customers came to the club thus they should be entitled to a higher percentage than other girls ...

And that's exactly why I'm an independant dancer, and only part time.  The "company girls" all get tipped out equally:  It's not fair to the girls that really "work it."   I've seen girls tip out for $500 that weren't even there.

Thus, while the cooperative is a great idea, it just doesn't pencil out if you factor everything in.  If you don't believe me, switch industries.  Ask gOOber how much his local farmer's cooperative actually helps its members.

[Chronicler]

Yeah and then you get into the unionization factor, and ultimately your principles become watered-down. All I'm saying is that the demand is there, and I'd rather think that the women should be th ones to profit from it rather than everyone else.  

[Windlord]

A "federated" system might do the trick tough. It will only require a central billing & authentification system for all sites involved, thus users of the system will be able to switch from site to site (each week) and the time spend on each can be recorded so each site owner get's it's proportional part of the subscription. I've been doing some workings on that area for small shops and merchants and looks it could work.
 

[Chronicler]

Based on what Melonie said, for an online only type of arrangement, that seems like the way to go. Obviously since the money is not really online in this case it does not make sense to spend an arm an a leg just to be able to use the tech, so anything that allows the indies to pool their resources in this area would be beneficial I would think, especially if it is an open-ended, federated type of arrangement, as you suggested.  

[ApesMa]

Quote:
Just like signing with a major label.  They put their marketing muscle behind you and even if you don't make the majority of the record sales, in most cases you make a lot more money than you can as an indie, as well as gaining name recognition.

Try doing a web search for "Steve Albini", "Courtney Love Does the Math", or Janis Ian's article "The Internet Debacle - An Alternative View". Also, look for books by, or the web site of, a fellow who goes by the pseudonym of "Moses Avalon." With very few exceptions, signing with a record label is putting yourself or your band into indentured servitude and ending up making not much more than you would working at a convenience store.  

[ApesMa]

Didn't United Artists start out for similar reasons? I'll go do some research.  

[ggk]

Whatever it says about Courtney love, she is wealthy due to money created by record companies signing her husband. You may have heard of a little signed band called Nirvana.  Kurt Cobain left her is money when he died.



 

[ggk]

 

Quote:
Yeah and then you get into the unionization factor, and ultimately your principles become watered-down. All I'm saying is that the demand is there, and I'd rather think that the women should be th ones to profit from it rather than everyone else.
 

That is what running your own website, and selling your own music allows you to do.  The women profit from each arrangement, or they would not do it. The Musicians profit from each arrangement as well.

[ggk]

 

Quote:
An analogous situation to your suggestion would be a strip club which was owned and operated by its dancers. In theory it could work out great. But in practice, there would be girls not contributing with equal effort, girls not showing up on nights when business is traditionally slow, some girls claiming that their knockout bods were the reason that customers came to the club thus they should be entitled to a higher percentage than other girls ... and when it's time to pay for new equipment or annual fees, there would be arguments about what should be done and who should pay for it. The conglomerate simply does not compute, because in the real world it is a ship without a captain.  

This is the best explanation of why it doesn't really happen this way very often in the real world that I have heard.

I am not sure but I think it was tried by Busty Dusty, Traci Topps, Chloe Vevrier at a place called fantasycafe.com . It was eventually shut down, and 2 out of 3 of the girls dropped out of sight.  Had it been the huge success you would imagine it to be, I don't believe it would be gone now.

[Chronicler]

Well, I think putting the model showcases together is probably a bad idea, excpept at the level of a nuts and bolts only kind of centralized 'management', if that is even feasible. Forget all the stuff about conglomerates for a minute.

Anything where the models give up rights to their content though is bad. They should at least be in a position to go after royalties and not flat one time fees since you are talking mainly about publication in this context, and not live appearances.

I mean some photographer takes a bunch of pictures and claims exclusive rights for a product that can be reproduced en massé while the model is stuck with a one time fee. IMHO it should be the other way around. That is the situation that is similar to how the record companies work, and one that should be changed. Without that model, the 'agency' has nothing, and the business structure has got to reflect that to make it fiscally viable for the model. This flat fee thing is THE biggest problem as I see it becuase it makes it impossible for the models to retain any long-term fiscal viability.

So, I am thinking in terms of publication (mags, vids, pics on the net) something needs to become a viable alternative that uses this type of structure if we truly want to create an environment where it is feasible for the model to go to the lengths they do. If they can at least get paid for what they have done as the demand is filled instead of up front, then it makes them able to keep pace with the market better.

I'm not familiar with the exact figures on what models get paid for posing, so in terms of a magazine publication, a one time fee might be better, but if a model is featured in a magazine, and that magazine sells 1,000,000 copies at $5 a shot, and she gets a full 1% of that publication's sales for being featured, that's $50,000. If I were the one doing the mag, I'd say that's fair because I have to realize that without that model, I'm not going to sell magazines. I have worked for newspapers and done a couple nationally released catalogs, so I know what it involves, and I still think that it could work that way. The numbers might be off, but let's face it, this is not a fad or a trend. Guys like big boobs and it is NOT going to change, so if a company postures itself to not only take care of the girls they feature, but also to create an environment where it becomes fiscally viable for the models to continue doing what they are doing because of the nature of the enviroment they are doing it in, then you end up not working against yourslef by discouraging girls from going this direction.

Noble idea, I know... just thinking out loud. I may be missing a big part of the picture here, so if I am please point it out.  

[ggk]

I think you are probably way oversimplifying the publishing business.  Score pays each model in each issue $50000 to model?  I guess it would certainly end the issue of only getting to model once or twice per year. It would reduce it to zero times per year.  So much for paying your photographers, editors, and printers.  Perhaps someone in the biz could tell us the cost of printing a magazine.

How about it Melonie. Why didn't you suggest to the guys at Score pay you $50,000 per modelling session?  We probably wouldn't ever see you in their magazine, right?

[Chronicler]

I'm talking royalties, percentages, not a flat fee. I might be oversimplifying it, but for the sake of argument, I think I have to because I didn't mean for my post to be a thesis. I'm just trying to throw out ideas, sure they will need some tweaking.

[ggk]

I just think you are leaving out of your equation, the value of being in a popular magazine, or being signed by a record company, whether it be big boob stardom, or rock stardom.  If money were the only value, then the magazines would probably not exist, since the big bust dancers can make more money in a club than a magazine could afford to pay them.