emodel.com, Options Talent Group
To Whom It May Concern:
Is emodel.com a scam? Seems to me that it is legitimate.
A.C.
A.,
emodel may certainly "seem" to be legitimate.
But as the saying goes, "All that glitters is not
gold."
The President of the Better Business Bureau has a lot
of experience in dealing with scams, and he did not get
to be President without learning to discern what is and
what is not a scam.
Bill Mitchell, the President of the Better Business
Bureau in Greater Los Angeles, said: "The whole
thing, fundamentally, from beginning to end, is a scam."
That is an extremely powerful statement. And it may
seem too extreme. But it becomes more and more credible
as you research the history and background of the company.
For a company to be a scam in its entirety and from
beginning to end, you might think it would have to be
designed from the ground up by someone or a group of
people with significant experience in and remarkable
success at fraud.
If you start with Bill Mitchell's statement, and give
him the benefit of the doubt, trace the history of the
company from its founder, and see if you notice a clear
pattern.
So far all I have seen is that it is a good way to get
exposed. There is an upfront fee but it is minimal
and compared to the price of professional photography,
it is very little. Have you ever been to the website
or spoken with anybody within the organization?
A.C.
The price is comparable to professional photography,
when you add up the monthly fees for a year.
In theory it is "a good way to get exposed." But
only if the website is visited by modeling agencies.
You are not exposed to modeling agencies if they do not
visit. How is being stuck in a pile of pictures on a
web server that is never seen "exposure?"
emodel cannot guarantee modeling agencies will visit
either the website or your picture; and you cannot make
modeling agencies visit.
If emodel wants to get serious, all they have to do
is mirror the standards of online advertising. You pay
per click through. In this case from a text profile of
vital statistics to a digital picture.
Member signs up sending in the photo. When an agency
clicks on the thumbnail, and downloads your picture,
the models pays x cents/download.
They only pay for exposure. If they do not receive exposure,
they do not pay. That is a fair deal. Otherwise you can
pay for no exposure, and that's not right.
They could also set it up because they have restricted
access only to agencies to where each member (model)
is automatically notified by email when an agency visits
their picture, and they are also sent the name of the
agency.
Then they would have the option of confirming with the
agency that they did indeed use the service (emodel was
not faking it and charging them), and possibly follow
up by phone call, mailing, etc., sending professional
modeling photos.
The new concept is not inherently wrong —it's
the emodel pricing which is out of date. Companies don't
pay any more for advertising, promotion or exposure unless
people actually click on the ad and visit their website.
Why should it be any different for individuals?
I have now been with the company for a short while and
I'm thoroughly impressed. They do not accept everybody
that comes in, therefore, I do not see this as any type
of scam at all, just real talent getting real work. I
plan on staying with the company.
A.C.
A.,
I don't think anyone has ever suggested emodel and now
Options Talent accepts everybody. It is not a situation
of absolutes. If you heard or read that it was a general
statement.
The contention was emodel/Options Talent accepts too
many people, setting the bar far too low. And the proof
of this would be a very small percentage of people they
say they think could be models actually get work.
We all want to see concrete data of real work. Here
is a clip from a news article published in September
2001 that illustrated the lack of critical information
without which it is virtually impossible for emodel/Options
Talent to quash scam claims:
- Brian Davis, general manager of eModel operations,
boasts that 1,000 agencies are registered with the
company, which has 90 franchises nationwide, including
offices in Fort Lauderdale, Clearwater, Orlando, Palm
Beach, Tampa Bay, and Boca Raton.
-
- As for those agencies that haven't signed up with
eModel, Davis says, "If you're an agency and you
make money booking models on jobs, and there's a resource
that's free for you, with models from across the world...
why would you not use that?"
-
- Moreover many models have landed work through
the Website, he claims. Based on an analysis
of agency calls to eModel, Davis estimates that about
85 percent of its clients are contacted by a registered
agent within the first 90 days after they enroll.
-
- He admits, however, that the business has
no statistics showing how many models showcased on
its site have actually procured work.
When you say "real work," can you be more
specific? Are you talking about print work? Or promotional
work.
So far the stories which make the news seem to suggest
most models or people who become members of emodel/OTG
cannot expect much more than promotional work which pays
little and is not very exciting (e.g., handing out footballs).
All we want to know is exactly what modeling jobs OTG
got models, through which agencies, and how much they
were paid. Three things, it's very simple.
The way I see it, you either have a record of which
models got work, or you don't. If you do have the information,
you're hiding it. Because if it was high, you would feature
it in your advertising. If you don't have a record, that
is also a bad sign, because it would indicate the company
could care less if most models/members are not getting
work.
Your company could fake the statistics on call backs,
but it cannot fake the stats for real work, because anyone
could contact the agencies and possibly also the models
to confirm they actually got work.
If OTG was getting models print work, there would be
tear sheets and the name of the publication, which could
also be verified easily and quickly.
|
