pay – Walt-O-Matic

This blog addresses solutions that are fair, as well as touching on factors that go into deciding amounts, why that’s the case, and what models can do to their profiles to avoid being skipped over aside from not making common photographic mistakes.

It’s understandable that models would prefer paid shoots, but it’s also important to recognize that the photographer does as well.

For a model, the photo session ends with the last shutter click, but for the photographer that’s when the real work begins. This reveals why photographers can be so expensive. Add risk, like missing an important wedding moment, at the pricing tier jumps again to astronomical levels.

In all cases, I believe a model should be fairly compensated. The debate will boil down to what that compensation is and that expectation should always be spelled out up front before anything progresses.

There are many factors that go into what value compensation should be set at. There are three big ones.

Expertise, in particular, plays a large part because an experienced model arrives on time (and sober), knows how to interact with the camera and the photographer with minimal direction, assumes appropriate poses naturally that fit the context of the scene, pauses at the right times as to minimize the number of discards, and she can make facial expressions look genuine. The higher compensation comes from making the photographer’s job easier and producing higher quality product in a shorter timeframe.

The model’s looks also play into the equation, primarily because that sets the demand for the model and in turn that affects availability. Basic economic models of supply and demand clearly state the higher the demand, the more things cost. Hence a model that isn’t in as much demand will likely be unable to command rates that one is. This is why models should to TFP deals to build their portfolios in order to raise their demand, even if just from gaining additional experience.

And the other primary factor which affects cost is how much skin the model is willing to show and what she’s willing to do in front of the camera. Unlike looks, this is one area where all models have total control. It can also be one of the bigger money makers.

The photographer has to determine a rate that factors these accordingly, and many other things (availability, short-term notice, …) as well into the compensation rate.

Just because both models are willing to stand in front of the camera for equal time does not mean they are providing equal value to the photographer. [It is also true that multiple photographers do not provide equal representation value to a model, which is why one looks at a photographer’s portfolio before accepting a trade-based assignment. Skill, equipment, and post-processing abilities are the parameters the photographer has to measure up to.]

Here’s a reasonable compensation paradigm that is actually fair to both parties equally:

If a model is hired by the photographer, the compensation is cash. (Pose for me.)
If there is a trade of services, her compensation is the photos and his the model’s time.
If the photographer is hired by the model, the compensation is cash. (Make me a portfolio.)

This makes sense from other business methodologies: if you were hired to do a task, such as frame a painting, you get paid, you don’t get a copy of the painting, free frames, or free framing services. An expert framer, incidentally, would be paid more too, and the resulting craftsmanship would be obvious. Quality, not time, is what’s sought.

The task a photographer is hiring for is to have someone take specific direction so they can produce a precise product. To get cash and photos would be double compensation and thereby a double hit on the photographer; most likely that would be the last time the photographer ever cast or recommended the model.

That said, there is nothing wrong with the model requesting some pictures in leu of some portion of the cash. Sometimes the photographer can do this, but quite often if the photographer has been hired on behalf of client, it’s stipulated in the contract that he can not. Hence the cash, which usually comes from a budget that the photographer may, or may not, have control over.

If a model wants photos and tear sheets, that should be negotiated up front, not after the shoot. Again, the photographer may have contractual bindings.

Some models will be fortunate enough to find photographers who will give away photos in addition to cash. Models, if you get cash, don’t expect this, but be grateful if it happens to you — the photographer has figured out a win-win situation that you both can benefit from. Don’t be mistaken, this action is somewhat self serving to the photographer, as he’s looking for extra visibility and word of mouth advertising from you to widen his client base.

Paying gigs are more likely for models when the client needs a specific look. If there’s just a generic need, photographers are going to draw more from TFP/CD deals. Knowing this, the more variety a model can pull off in her portfolio, the easier she just made it for the photographer to just to cut a check than to keep searching.

There does seem to be a subset of models that have a higher impression of their own market value than the market will actually tolerate. New models don’t seem to have this problem much, experienced models have a very good sense of worth (and a portfolio to prove it), but it’s most common among the narrow my-portfolio-is-cell-phone-pictures / I-want-a-job-pay-me modeling-wannabes. These models are usually difficult to work with and are problematic after the shoot, having shifting expectations of the deliverable. Photographers will actively try to avoid them and anyone that fits that stereotype.

Models: if your portfolio reeks of indicators that you fall into this pile (whether you really do or not), be aware that you’re hurting your chances to get a casting call, profile comments, TFP/CD deals, and valuable experience. If you want higher compensation, simply do what those did who are earning it. Their profiles are right there in the open on many modeling sites. Your chances of getting directed casting calls will increase.

Comp Time is your company’s secret weapon, not just to employee happiness, but to productivity.

Some companies define comp time as earning 1.5hrs for every overtime hour worked. This article assumes a 1:1 ratio to make its points. Our focus is directed at human behavior when comp time is (and isn’t) available and the side effects of being able to borrow from past and future reserves.

We’ll examine two companies. A, which does not implement comp time. And, B, which does implement comp time.

Let’s start with the assumption that the normal work week is five days long and eight hours each.

Work-To-The-Rule vs. Simple Flex Time

Company A’s Average Is Lower Than They Realize!
Company B’s Average Is Above 100%
Productivity!

It’s a well known fact that if one imposes strict clock watching on employees, they spend far more time watching the clock and complying with it than they do actually working. Yes, you’ll get those forty hours, but while the chair may be occupied, productivity isn’t what it could be. This is often called “Work to the Rule” or “Malicious Compliance.” Above we see Company A mandating strict attendance policies, but the reality is that they’re really following the techniques in the White Collar Slacker’s Handbook.

Conversely, if you’ve hired professionals and treat them like professionals, they tend to act like professionals. Company B also has the same 40 hour work week, but its policy is such that employees are free to jiggle their time around via flex hours.

If an employee doesn’t feel well, he leaves, without infecting the rest of the office, making it up later. If an employee takes a long weekend, he can beat traffic, yet still make up that time without burning himself out. If he’s being unproductive, and knows it, he can just stop — suddenly company B isn’t paying for unproductive hours. Even better, when the employee gets a burst of inspiration and is in “the zone” creatively, he’ll naturally work as long as it takes; people enjoy feeling productive. This amount is often well above what’s asked. Finally, the employee can use the extra accumulated time to reward himself; company B doesn’t have to shove out as many bonuses.

Management at Company is confusing attendance with productivity (the stuff that actually gets done), but all they really have is a bunch of disgruntled clock-watchers. Company B is a different story, because the actual productivity often exceeds 100%, plus its people are happy (and happy people don’t jump ship).

Large Blocks of Comp Time

Let’s try to even out the playing field by improving Company A’s corporate policies. Let’s say that Companies A and B are both in the same line of business, doing identical work, with identical talent. Both have simple flex time, and both even have comp time. The difference being, that while both bill their customer on a monthly cycle, Company A ties its comp time policies to a two week pay period, just because. Company B, also with a two week pay cycle, allows comp time within the one month billing cycle.

All you really need to be looking for what actually happens in a company when a real-life event bumps up an artificial boundary. The conclusion, as we’ll see, is that the broader the comp time window is, the more benefits befall to the company.

Employee Illness

Let’s look at the case where an employee gets sick at the end of a pay cycle in Company A.

Company A’s Productivity Is Lower Due To Missed Time
AND They Are Now Behind Schedule!
Company B’s Average Is Unaffected By The Absence!

Inside Company A, if a person gets sick at the end of cycle, they’re unable to make up the time. As such, this time deficit usually comes out of a benefit pool of personal time off (such as combined vacation and sick time).

Employees do not like touching this reserve, primarily because it is a safety buffer that accounts for emergencies. Additionally, there’s the perfectly valid conception that vacation time should be fun time, and that one might want to use it in large sized blocks.

Company A has two rationalizations for making the employee consume vacation time. One, forcing them to draw against it is a disincentive to stay home. Two, not having any left means the employee won’t be out for an extended period, keeping him around. Both are self defeating in the long run.

First, it’s true, the sick employee may drag himself into work, simply to be there. However, someone who’s sick often doesn’t perform well, and in the case of software development, coding in a mental fog can actually do a project serious damage. Meanwhile, the rest of the office gets sick, which cycles back around to making recovery difficult. Now you know why flu season affects some companies and not others.

Second, people function better after breaks. Having an employee continually working on a project non-stop tends to induce burn-out, often leading not to continued productivity, but to the employee leaving for another job, presumably with better working conditions.

Either way you look at it though, Company A has lost time on the project due to the employee being out.

Company B, however, has a different perspective. Because their policy allows the time to be recovered, the employee has a strong incentive not to consume his vacation pool. As such, he works longer in the days that follow, recovering his time. From a project standpoint, it regains the ground that was previously thought lost.

Additionally, because the project isn’t behind schedule, planning becomes easier and more accurate, allowing Company B to let the employee take a long vacation, scheduling around it so that it has no impact. When the employee returns, he’s refreshed and back to producing at peek performance.

The Schedule Crunch

Comp Time also provides enormous benefits when an extra effort is needed. Let’s look at the case of a forth coming demo, preceded by an extra surge of pre-demo preparation activity.

Company A’s People Put In Less Extra Effort, And Are Unhappy.
Company B’s People Go Above And Beyond, Willingly.

Due to circumstances, the demo day is at the start of the next cycle. That means, for Company A, any extra time put in before the demo won’t be recovered, it’s just lost. Human behavior dictates under such conditions any push will be met with passive resistance, and while Company A may get overtime in crunch mode, it won’t be all it could be. Slow burnout is on the horizon. in the short term they pay for a week of attendance and poor productivity.

Meanwhile, Company B’s staff is willing to go beyond the extra mile, primarily because they know that what follows the demo is a significant block of downtime. Company B gets the time when they need it, and the employee doesn’t feel taken advantage of. They return rested and ready, sooner.

The lesson is clear: the larger the block of allowable comp time, the more value the company gets. The effect does not appear to be linear, either. A company with monthly cycles gains more than having two back-to-back bi-weekly cycles of time reconciliation.

Making Comp Time Work

Company A’s fear is that the employee will borrow from the future and not work it back. There’s are several easy ways to deal with this.

Should an employee cross a comp time boundary with a negative amount, it simply get drawn from vacation, and if no vacation, then salary. The primary risk to cover is the case of the employee borrows time and then quits, the solution is just to set policy so that no comp time can be borrowed more than the employee has resources to cover.

Another way to allow borrowing forward is to actually draw from vacation, though allowing comp time to return back time to the vacation pool.

Ideally, though, the best solution is to allow banking of time to fill in gaps. You’re no longer borrowing from future time, but normalizing from reserves. Turns out, employees will settle in on this optimum strategy without having to be shown, anyhow.

Benefits of Comp Time

Concluding, note that the longer the comp time period extends, the more the company itself actually benefits — its workers are more productive, they’re happier, they’re able to go the extra mile, people are healthier over all, etc. The employee feels more freedom, as the job integrates with life instead of dictating it. Yet still, on average, the employee willingly spends more time for the company (which is also happens to be the better quality time), and still gets to enjoy long vacations (that now don’t disrupt schedule).

It’s a benefit that’s very easy to provide, and it makes Company B have the competitive edge over Company A, all things equal.

Tag: pay

Model Compensation

Comp Time: Your Company’s Secret Weapon