Hello,
We've been with our agency for about a year now and have had a great experience with them for print.

However, at this point I'm feeling sort of over print work--we've done some big shoots and although in the beginning it was really exciting to see pictures of my child published, the novelty of it all has started to wear off, and it has been feeling less and less worth it to make the effort to go to shoots for only ~100-200 bucks per shoot (on average).

We've never been called for a go-see/audition for anything other than print, and when I asked our agent she told me that it's mostly multiples that get these jobs.
However, i see on facebook and have heard from other parents that there are opportunities for single children as well.

Sooooooooooo, I'm wondering...do i need to go with another agent for tv/commercial/film? Do agencies even do that? I feel like i've heard people say that they are with one agency for print and another for something else?

We book a ton of print so i don't know why we wouldn't have a fair shot at doing other types of work as well.
Thoughts???

I believe the opportunities are different depending on the age of the child. For younger kids and babies I think multiples take a lot of the bookings. It is different for older children with speaking parts where the individual child has to act and show a lot more personality. How old is your child?

A lot of the agencies that focus on legit (on-camera) such as JG&D, Gen TV, Innovative, etc., take on kids once they turn 4 or 5. I'm sure there are always exceptions...since your child is such a strong booker it may be worth it to send some photos (via snail mail) and a resume and see what happens.

Yes, legit work for toddlers is very slim if your not a twin
or triplet. Also, if you start doing legit
work with another agency your print agent may
not be happy with that as they probably have a legit
camera division also. Most of the big agencies in NY
that work with kids have both divisions in house.
They may be submitting your toddler to the very few
legit Jobs already without you knowing.

Also, I have noticed that just because a child is a booker
for print work does not mean they will do well for legit.
I have noticed CD for legit jobs tend to like the
"average" toddler child look and the CD for print prefers
more "better then average" looks of the toddler. Again this
is just my observations.

We are not a twin and my toddler has gone to a few commercial auditions.
Have even gotten callbacks for each one. However, every time
they booked twins!!! My child's agent has said they will
stop looking for twins around 4-5 years old.

The agents I spoke with said they do not sign children for legit until age 5, unless they can read. If they have both both legit and print the legit side will ask the print agents for children under 5 when they do need them.

My kids worked very successfully for many years in print & now are doing quite well with legit. That happened because I took them out of their top NYC print agency & signed them with a seperate legit agent. Truth is, the print agents are not going to encourage a move to legit because it often conflicts with print go-sees/bookings. When your child is 5, take him to a legit agent & see how it goes but be sure he is ready! Do not push him in the door if he is not ready to shine because the agent will close the door & possibly not give him another try later. I don't want to sound too jaded because $$100-200 an hour is a lot of money for any child to make but you are correct that print is a lot of running around for less money. If your child is working a lot, it does add up but my children easily make in one low-paying commercial what they made in an entire year of print work. One thing to be aware of: legit is far more competetive than print & looks often do not matter at all. Very very average-looking, even quirky kids with great energy & focus tend to do very well.

Can we please stop calling any kids very very average looking? They may be beautiful to others just not to you. I find it disrespectful and rude to call any child average. There was another thread about this and many of us found it just disgusting.

I have two stunning (to me) children. In the real world of modeling, one is considered average looking. He books lots of toy boxes, pattern packages, things like that. The other looks more "high fashion" and gets more print and runway work. They are both beautiful kids with different looks and talents. I don't see it as "one is not as beautiful as the other" at all. It's just their talents are different.

NYCGal,

First of all, I think you're being very disrespectful jumping on Spunkin like that. The poster offered a thoughtful response from a place of experience. The words "very, very average" were never used. The poster put the words "average" and "better than average" in quotes.

In my world, there are always averages; average height, weight, grades, salaries, apartment sizes, etc. You are in a business that is all about looks (average or not). If one is sensitive about being evaluated, you are in the wrong business. It is not a fair business, or a politically correct business. Saying a child's looks are average is neither good nor bad, it has the same meaning as if one were to say, "She looks like the girl next door".

My youngest is an actor, and he is consistently judged on his height, weight and hair and eye color; that is the reality of this business. I have a teenage child who has grown tall enough to have a try in the adult modeling world. I told him unless he gets himself into top shape(no fat on abs), I won't help him secure an agent. This business is not for those who have a weak stomach, and those who are overly sensitive need not apply.

quote:

Very very average-looking, even quirky kids with great energy & focus tend to do very well

mom2music - I think NYCGAL was directing her comment to the post above and not to Spunkin, which specifically said very, very average.

RJL6146,

Thank you for the correction. I still find NYCGAL's response inappropriate. The use of the word "disgusting" when referring to a well meaning post, is offensive. NYCGAL seems to be overly sensitive and misinformed about the business, and, by the way, there is nothing wrong with a child being average in any area(height, weight, looks ,music, grades, etc)! To say otherwise, IS disrespectful.

I totally agree with mom2music. The post wasn't meant to be offensive. From speaking to several agents, many clients look for the "kid next door" look or "average" look. It has nothing to do with describing the kid themselves, just their "look" as it fits into the advertizement. Of course, each kid is the most beautiful one to their family. But when I am told my child is too unique/exotic looking for a particular project - I don't get offended, knowing that each CD is looking for a specific look, she is still the most beautiful on every level to me.

Yes I agree. My son has gone out for commercial castings
and a few film castings as well. They tend to want the
average looking child for commercials and film.
They look for the "kid next door look" or
mid America look. Like the all American kid.
One that viewers can relate to. It's okay
if my child is considered average looking to
casting or his agent. I feel he is the most gorgeous,
happy and intelligent little boy I know. But I may be
a little biased being his Mommy!

Sorry I offended. It was to the comment of very, very, average which I find has a different connotation from average. Just do. also if you read I did not say that this thread was disgusting I referred to a prior thread that was discussing beauty. We'll have to agree to disagree and I won't post on this thread anymore. I'm not too sensitive and I am thinking of others. My child was signed at an open call for print. I don't ever tell her to her face what I think of her looks. I didn't mean to offend I just thought it offended others so I chimed in. Carry on.

No worries, NYCGAL. Your opinion is just as valuable as any others. Just posting our thoughts.