I am an advocate of models working with agencies. But not any agencies, agencies who actually run an ethical business. As you may already know the vast majority of modeling/talent/etc. agencies have unethical business practices, such as treating the models are clients instead as a coworker or part of the process to gain revenue from the actual clients which should be brands/companies, etc. So to be more clear, I mean these so called agencies charge upfront costs to these models to generate their revenue, no incentives to get them paying jobs or anything as an actual agency is suppose to do. Agency adds on a new model knowingly they can generate more revenue from their clientele, they take a cut of commissions+expenses, not the other way around and agency picks up any joe/jane from the street.
Why I'm mentioning this because the first line of defense I think is the creatives, the non-model/talent creatives choosing to not associate and collaborate with unethical agencies which are destroying our industry of those wanting to work with actual agencies who respect talent and not take advantage of them.
Let me know if you're one of those photographers who DON'T work with these so called "agencies". Heck you may or may not have already worked with them and may not even know it or cared at the time, but I promise in the long run if we together as photography professional creatives we can make these worm suckers die out quicker and not discourage talent/models from being talent cause we all know they'd get discouraged heavily by these companies all the time especially when in some states like mine (PA) its pretty much ALL act the same way and the only agencies I know are reputable are in NYC only.
I think there's a lot of generalizations here, that while you may have good intentions, can be rather harmful. As not every photographer is based in NYC, it's unfair to label every other agency as 'not reputable.'
I agree that there are certainly agencies that act as scams, forcing models to go to their in-house photographers who charge outlandish fees, but there are plenty of respectable boutique agencies, or larger agencies who require models to invest in building their portfolios before signing them to their agencies. There are a lot of factors to consider when it comes to a model's development, and I feel this post is a bit too much of a blanket statement.
I am fortunate that I live near a fashion market, in Miami, so I am able to work with the larger agencies such as Elite, Wilhelmina (not the incarnation in PA), and Next. But, I also work with smaller boutique agencies, that I have researched prior to working with to ensure their business practices were above board.
To accomplish the goal you have in mind, advise photographers to research the entities they do business with, and leave it at that.
I agree, just I don't think any agencies should charge up-front costs is ethical in any case. Heck I'd go so far it should be illegal to do so for certain types of agencies that involve all forms of employment. Let's say if you or I would go to any employment agency for temp or employment work to be assigned they do not charge upfront costs they get paid only by commission or making some sort of deal with the employer like they pay the agency $15/hr for employee and the employee gets $11/hr to make their money. As from what I heard agencies in NYC they get revenue from commission and charge a percentage of expenses per paystub to the model/talent. You pay upfront where is the incentive to get the jobs for the talent, I'd assume their public reputation which can mean something to some agencies and some couldn't care less and charge everything upfront to talent just cause talent are naive to fall for these tactics.
That part I can definitely agree with. If an agency requires you to invest in a portfolio prior to considering you, that is very different than requiring someone to pay them specifically prior to being signed.