A relative is interested in starting her child (almost 5 girl, extremely photogenic, wants to 'be in the magazines'- and honestly, has a great look)in print. I can tell her about the profit/loss aspect of commercials and theatrical, but don't know a lot about print.

I've made it clear that very few people actually make more than they spend while being involved in this business. And that the money earned is the child's. That is understood.

The parent's plan is to get their child started and let her stick with it as long as she's happy - so they have a healthy attitude about the work.

They also believe that enough could be earned to offset college expenses. Is this at all realistic?

Bottom line, if a child (a girl - probably different for boys) is doing print exclusively, and is moderately successful, is print profitable?

We are not experienced in this but also have a dd close to the same age. First, I think it depends on where they live and what their traveling expenses will be. If they happen to live in the city, where they are only taking public transportation (with little expense), then there won't be much output for them. Starting out, they will only need one great snapshot (that their agency approves of) to bring on go-sees. They also need to have a parent who can drop everything at a moments notice to go out. The quickest way to stop getting called for go-sees is to say you're not available a couple of times. They have plenty of children who are available so that is an important aspect. For us, any money that dd makes goes into her own account for her future. I have talked with parents who have been in the business for many years and their children have a great little nest egg to pay for their college, but it's not always the case. I think that as long as they approach it with a healthy attitude, they will be fine with whatever happens.

print is notorious for paying very low for the biz. Thus print agencies tend to have huge client rosters so that they make some money. The average print rate (in so.cal) is 125 an hour usually an agency will say with a 2 or 3 minimum. So, after agency cut, taxes and your expenses (gas, head shots etc) It is definitely the LEAST lucrative in the biz. Even large campaigns like Ralph Lauren which you would think pay huge....um, not so much. Hope this helps! Good luck!

quote:

Originally posted by somuchtodo:
They also believe that enough could be earned to offset college expenses. Is this at all realistic?
Bottom line, if a child (a girl - probably different for boys) is doing print exclusively, and is moderately successful, is print profitable?

It is very hard to build a college nest egg doing just print. Only in very very rare instances do top print kids find enough $$$ success to fund college. Most super-successful print kids are able to cross over to commercial and legit and that is where the money is made. (ie Brooke Shields) Some might land a big campaign where they become the face of a product and that could be lucrative. I know two very successful print kids, one boy and one girl. Both of these kids are pretty much doing only print, no acting...one by choice, one not by choice. Here's what I was told.

I had a conversation recently with the mom of one of the most successful print kids in NY. She wishes her kid could break in to commercial and legit where there is much more $ to be made for her kid's college fund, but it just isn't happening for the kid right now. The kid is fantastic. The camera loves the kid...the kid knows how to work it. I see the kid everywhere in print & modeling (cataloges, newspaper ads, circulars, websites, in store. editorial, cover, runway, etc), but the mom says a good chunk of the money goes in to covering expenses as they live kind of far from the city. They hope that eventually the kid will start booking on the acting side and will be able to make the cross over to showbiz.

I know another top print kid who has been doing print only (no commercial or legit) for many years. This kid loves print and is not at all interested in the acting side of the biz. The family lives close to the city, so they have fewer expenses. The mom tells me the kid has earned some $$$, but certainly not enough to completely cover college and certainly nothing to invest beyond paying for part of college. This kid's face has also been everywhere.

Both of these kids are working in print all the time...usually several days a week, yet neither one has seen a huge financial return on their career investment.

The rate structure for print is so different than commercial or film/tv, particularly union work. Most print work does not offer residual payment for usage rights. This is one, among many of the reasons print income can't compare to commercial or TV/film income. Print pays a flat fee. The fee is sometimes based on a buyout, such as for an in store or billboard campaign, or an hourly rate, for editorial, some ad work, circulars, toy packaging. It's hard to bank a lot of money on print when the majority of work is paying under $200/hour. If a kid were lucky enough to work 2-3 hours a day, 3 times a week, every single week, they would take home maybe $800/week after taxes, agency fees and operating expenses. Not many kids work even that much every week.

HTH.
kip

Kipmil is right. Print can be lucrative for a tiny percent of kids, but we also know kids who have been at it a year and have not even made enough to cover compcards, website and messenger fees (you know when the agency sends out your cards for requests? Guess who pays the messenger fee?), let alone gas/tolls and parking.

On a slightly different note: I know every family's financial circumstances are different but we have no intention of making our kids pay for college if we are able to swing it. After all, we will be paying for our non-working kids' college, why is there a difference? My dd works very hard and gives up a lot of normal kid activities. Our hope is that she will have a nest egg to start life with. I am not sure that I agree that paying for college is the right goal. I know others will disagree but that's my two cents.

We live in a VERY small market, but my kids have been fortunate enough to book continually with a local/national company where they have days that they have made over $500 (however there aren't many of these days in a year!). When they were toddlers and first started, I used to think it would be put away for college. However, it became clear rather quickly that although they were making good money for anyone per hour, never mind a child, they wouldn't even put a dent in an annual college tuition. At that point we decided that they could spend their money on things that they might not otherwise be able to have/do: i.e. plane ticket to Disney World, electric guitar, etc. They also have to pay their taxes, ho hum, and sometimes pay for head shots/comp cards, although my husband and I absorb some of those costs as well.

They are now 11 and are very interested in how much each job pays and usually have something they want to buy with a portion of their earnings (they always save some of it). I think it is a good experience for them, although I think they might be disappointed with their future hourly earnings when they are old enough to have a summer job like other teenagers!

I wouldn't advise getting involved for the sole goal of "getting rich". It's not very likely! But, it can provide a bit of a profit if the child is successful.

I almost think living where we live (Maine) has given us an advantage in a strange way. It's helped keep a healthy balance of work and play and we don't usually lose money on shoots: The company pays for mileage, hotel and food.

My children are now doing some work in the Boston market and we obviously incur some loss traveling to jobs out of state, but it hasn't been substantial yet.

quote:

Originally posted by not blond:

On a slightly different note: I know every family's financial circumstances are different but we have no intention of making our kids pay for college if we are able to swing it. After all, we will be paying for our non-working kids' college, why is there a difference? My dd works very hard and gives up a lot of normal kid activities. Our hope is that she will have a nest egg to start life with. I am not sure that I agree that paying for college is the right goal. I know others will disagree but that's my two cents.

I also agree with this. I, personally, wouldn't put dd's earnings into a college account. It would be for her future but not for education. Everyone's situation is different so many people do it to help with education and there is nothing wrong with that either. There certainly isn't any profit in children's print!

So print is best thought of as an entryway into commercial/TV?

Print is NOT an entryway into commercial/tv. Talent agents don't love print kids. They are looking for talented actors. Average looking kids seem to do better since most jobs require kids to look like the kids next door.

Print may be a way to see how your kids handle working and how your family adjusts to the schedule, but it does not prepare kids for acting.

quote:

Originally posted by somuchtodo:
So print is best thought of as an entryway into commercial/TV?

I think many parents view it that way. As "not blond" said, that's not necessarily how it is viewed by CDs or legit agents. Most actors don't put print work on their acting resumes because it really has nothing to do with acting. Print parents, please don't jump down my throat about this comment...I have 2 kids who do a ton of print (and a little acting) and 1 kid who does a ton of acting work (no print). I know what print work entails.

I answered the way i did from personal experience. We, too, thought that the print work my dd had done would be impressive and and an easy entry into the acting world. It took awhile for us to figure out that it was best not to mention it and to concentrate on getting acting training and acting jobs before submitting to agents.

There are many, many talented kids out there...and many of them sing, dance and act and have been doing it forever. Young children can enter acting more easily if they have natural talent, but for those over ten, it is a tough road without training and credits.

quote:
Originally posted by somuchtodo:
So print is best thought of as an entryway into commercial/TV?

quote:
Originally posted by kipmil:
I think many parents view it that way. As "not blond" said, that's not necessarily how it is viewed by CDs or legit agents.

I agree with not blond and kipmil that print is not an entryway into commercial/legit. In addition to not blond's post, print can also help the child be comfortable in front of a camera, be comfortable working with and in front of strangers, take directions well, be more vocal and outgoing, etc. And these skills may help the child foray into acting, if that is the goal.

Kipmil and Not blonde are absolutely correct. In fact, your more likely to get an aye roll from an agent rather than an "Oh wow! Look a successful print kid now wants to act" response.

The two things have nothing to do with one another. Both Innovative and CESD have a large number of print kids to choose from if they want that type. They almost never do. They want actors with training and credits. The biggest mistake print parents make is thinking that doing print is automatically going to lead them into an acting career. It doesn't.

Wow...I've learned so much already! thanks!

I've recently been approached by a very persistent 3 year old, who is sitting next to me right now...saying "I want to be like Hannah Montana and Scooby - Doo!"...this has been going on for over a month! Confused, that day when approached I scrunched up my face and said "you want to do what? be what?" and again, clear as day, said she wanted to be on TV....stunned...I turned her around and confirmed she is INDEED MY KID...I picked up the phone to call a photographer friend and ask her what her thoughts are. She of course told me, my little munchkin is definitely NOT camera shy.

You all, have helped me decide to start her in print to get her comfortable in front of strangers and the camera and to understand, your smile gives you a paycheck and before going into "acting" you will need to understand this is a commitment and a big sacrifice on your youth..although I plan on making sure she has the "best of both worlds..."..ha..ha..i know!

However, I am at loss for whom to contact. We've contacted 3 agents so far *obviously, I have NO clue what I am doing although I grew up with Hollywood as my backyard!* and only ONE was screaming at me *in her NY/Jersey accent* "You never have to pay a thing! anyone that tells you otherwise, is trying to scam you! Send your daughters picture to me, I don't usually take kids under 5 but I'll look her over and tell you what I think". Why oh WHY...do these people actually even try to scam? One person wants $165 for consult and another wants $500 *in Vegas who claims to have kids in Disney, Nick, CBS...* for consult and management and web site...and...*shakes head in confusion*...really? does my daughter already need all this right when she starts? I would think that a LEGIT company will take their payment from my daughters work, if she gets any...why do they need so much up front? and all I get is a packet of "who to send pictures to and how to be a Hollywood mommy...."...for $165-$500? For that, I expect a salad and for higher, at least a steak and some jobs...

Anyone who feels free to educate me...please do so..I'm confused why these people are selling packets and such....

Just printed the thread off so we can discuss it.

I really appreciate the time and thought each of you put into answering this question!