Skipping Out on TFP

Photographers make note that a good number of models don’t take TFP arrangement seriously, often ending in a no-show or abrupt cancellations. This can make a photographer hesitant about offering them in the first place. But, as a model, should you accept a TFP? Should accepting them as work be in your written profile? Will it get you paid gigs too? And does the ‘F’ in TFP stand for “free?” If so, what do TFP arrangement gain you? Well, here are the answers and some things you didn’t know.

Photographers make note that a good number of models don’t take TFP arrangement seriously, often ending in a no-show or abrupt cancellations. This can make a photographer hesitant about offering them in the first place. But, as a model, should you accept a TFP? Should accepting them as work be in your written profile? Will it get you paid gigs too? And does the ‘F’ in TFP stand for “free?” If so, what do TFP arrangement gain you? Well, here are the answers and some things you didn’t know.

A photographer’s unwritten rule is that if a model is a no-show without an advanced cancellation, never use her again, much less extend a TFP deal to her or her friends, and warn my fellow colleagues that there’s a high element of risk to consider if they think about using her.

Conversely, models that are amazing to work with and are professional, I personally cut steep discounts for, retouch more photos for, provide actual prints to, use as often as I can, bend my schedule for, extend projects to first, and share news of them with everyone I can find.

Obviously, many models are looking for paid work, and many also have a greater sense of their worth than their experience, looks, or willingness commands. Luckily, a model’s portfolio tells a great deal about her than just her looks. If she’s got a lot of photos from a number of different photographers, she’s most likely reliable. If she has a variety of poses, she’s most likely willing to try new things. If she looks great universally, she most likely has actual experience.

I suspect the starting out model doesn’t know her worth and sees it as just standing in front of the camera will turn on the cash spigot. But she also knows that if she can’t demonstrate experience, a photographer will pass her over during casting.

So, to combat this, she tries to cheat the system by indicating she’s willing to work for TFP, when in fact she’s not necessarily fully committed to the idea. An inexperienced model thinks that TFP means “free photos” and doesn’t realize that the photographer is paying her with his time, which often dollar-for-dollar can be very much in a new-model’s favor.

By assigning no “value” to the TFP, she feels it’s something she can walk out on without consequence because it must also be of no value to the photographer, too. Wrong. A number of photographers hold multiple jobs, and if he takes off a day to do a photo shoot and goes through the trouble of setting up the equipment or renting space, the photographer takes it in the shorts not once, but twice. No wonder he may become embittered.

As such the model thinks that she’ll get TFP deals and paid deals, and then elect to only accept the paid ones. Conversely, she might tell herself that she’ll do a TFP deal, but only if it’s a famous, rockin’ photographer. What she doesn’t get (we’re talking new, inexperienced models here still) is that she’s killing her chance to build a portfolio, by extension get a paid gig, or be sought by Mr. Super-Shutter.

Not having anything pan out quickly fuels that impression that there is something wrong with the industry, clearly not her or her attitude, and after one or two cycles of this, the model fades away — being very put off with photographers in an unfair over-generalization.

Photographers: one solution I’ve found that has worked well is to offer TFP deals to scouted new discoveries. Because they aren’t seeking to be models, they are very appreciative and are willing to follow directions. When the reward of fantastic photos pops out the other end of the workflow, they do more word-of-mouth advertising than I could ever afford to purchase for other outlets. The trade-off is that you have to be able to work with inexperienced models and be very, very patient with them. I personally find it rewarding to be there first-hand as someone learns a new, marketable skill. Many valuable friendships follow.

It turns out this kind gesture can open doors for people: other modeling offers, and in one case a small part in a movie that’s coming out soon.

TFP/CD deals are gold mines for models, which explains how some smart models always seem to have that really rich, diverse portfolio with a competitive edge.

MacHeist 3: A Look At Group Purchasing Behavior

Have MacHeist sales stagnated? He’s my take on why, and what can be done to fix it, and how it has to play out… for the better!

As a glossed over quick introduction, MacHeist is a short-run sale of software packages for the Mac that has a twist. You pay $39 for a bundle of software, and some of that software is “locked.” A portion of your purchase price goes to charity, and the more money raised for charity, the more items in the bundle that get “unlocked.” Thus the more people buy, the more you continue to get. It’s a great scheme, only it isn’t working.

MacHeist 3MacHeist, at the time of this writing, is conducting their third “heist” and after some amazing fluster of activity, new sales appear to have stagnated at an alarming rate.

Alarming to bundle purchasers, because if not enough sales happen, bundle purchasers won’t get all the amazing high-cost software at the extreme end of the bundle. What’s important about that statement is that it’s never happened before, and the problem isn’t the recession.

In informal polling, there appear to be two kinds of purchasers: early adopters and frugal purchasers.

The early adopter purchases the bundle early, knowing a good value when they see it, spurred on by the fact that there are additional incentives for doing so.

The frugal purchasers have their eye on either the final packages in the bundle, or are looking at the bundle as a whole. They don’t want to purchase the bundle until they know everything in it is unlocked.

And that’s the interesting part. If no one buys it, nothing gets unlocked. If everyone takes a risk, everyone gets handsomely rewarded, guaranteed. Thus each potential purchaser is waiting on the action of everyone else — it’s crowd mentality, only the driven behavior is idleness.

The secret ingredient is momentum. By carefully crafting a set of software incentives, under ideal circumstances the early adopter crowd overlaps with the late takers. This manifests itself as a steady stream of purchases.

It might be argued that The Directorate which runs MacHeist became victims of their own success and actually caused the problem by marketing the sale too well. Based on all the pre-sale puzzles, rumors, and incentives, there was a flurry of purchases in the early hours of the sale and projections seemed rather high.

However, one of the primary packages in the bundle required what looked like a high goal to unlock, the perception was that momentum was slowing. And perception drove reality. “Hmm, that doesn’t look like it’ll get unlocked, I think I’ll wait to see if it does before I buy,” is all it took to slow the influx of unlocking purchasers.

This was ill-timed, as it also happened to coincide with the reward for the first 25,000 buyers being removed from the table as the 25,000th bundle was sold. Days later, a only mere 5,000 more have sold and questions are being raised if the final packages will be unlocked.

The up-front fast burn created enough of a gap that people who were on the fence at different points became more segregated than usual. This didn’t happen in the last two sales.

So here’s my prediction: they have to fix this. Meaning, new incentives will re-emerge, the goals will have to be re-addressed, and it’s in the best interest of MacHeist to unlock the bundles anyhow at the end of it.

Turns out before I could finish this post, a new bonus was added, and that did stir a little traffic. But the real objective here is to convey there’s movement, specifically enough that the goal could be reached. That will inspire sales again, and in turn actually unlock the software. By re-calibrating the goal levels, this would solve the problem. In fact, the easy solution is to put all the last packages into one final, achievable goal.

The truth of the matter, however, is whatever happens will be remembered, if not chronicled in Wikipedia forever. If MacHeist goes down in flames for not unlocking all it’s bundled packages, people will be ever the more skeptical, and that means early adopters turning into late purchasers. That only exacerbates the problem, killing future sales opportunities.

By contrast, if the packages do get unlocked, whether by purchasers or by The Directorate making its own donation from the profits it receives, then MacHeist will be seen as more of a sure thing in the future, sliding more of the late comers and risk adverse customers into the early adopter side. This would actually increase future sales, because more gets unlocked sooner, enticing the skeptical buyers.

As such, “betting” on MacHeist with a purchase at this point still seems like a safe move. And, even if none of my predictions happen to come true, enough is unlocked already that the $39 price tag is still an awesome buy for the collection of software provided.