Model Management Group

My complaint remains unresolved as MMG continuesto merely repeat and negate all points madeI will not address most statementsas they are aforementioned in previous responses but I will call for aninvestigation of said agencyI also suggest looking at consumer-generatedcontent in response to MMG as evidence of experiences similar to my ownMMG isnot an esteemed agency, as is being claimedI was mismanaged and mislead thusappropriating the claim of improper and inferior service Theagency representatives are vehemently protesting my complaint stating that I am"contradicting myself" or somehow providing irrelevant information toprove my claimI never stated being ecstatic with the outcome of the photoshootI was never provided with hair styling as is claimed and contractuallyassignedMy hair upon arrival remained literally untouchedThere was nostyling during the shoot, beyond the movement provided by an on set automaticfanI also did not shoot "almost entirely in the stylist's wardrobe."I provided the majority of the items photographedMy photos did not arrive inthe time stated, as I have repeated inordinatelyI insisted on retrieving thehard copy out of sheer frustration after over three months of waitingI wouldnot have elected to had I been treated appropriately and professionallyIwould also like to know what "training" is being referred toI can'timagine what "training" a commercial model would need besidesexperience itself, which I was not allowed to obtain due to mismanagementThe "Talent Manual" and contract should be reviewed andassessed for legitimacy relative to industry standardsThere is no reason whysigned talent should ever be obligated to submit themselves to castingsIt isunheard of and bafflingI understand that images are needed in order to beproperly marketedI have no objection to thisWhat I object to isspecifically pushing a photographer, the quality of the photographs, the priceof said photographs and other marketing materials, the time lapse betweenoperations, the way I was marketed and the manner in which I was handledoverall Theconcept of "remaining proactive" by searching through free websites,filtering through lowbrow positions for oneself is ridiculousIt is anassertion of where MMG stands as an agency and negates the need for talent [redacted] s and booking offices"This is especially helpful for the lowerpaid jobs our booking agents do not have time to work on but could be morefitting for someone like [redacted] just trying to break into the industry andhas a much higher chance of booking smaller jobs." Does this not indicatethat more experienced talent were given more time and effort in being marketed?After going through the process of signing with this agency, are they notobliged to market me accordingly? They blatantly admit to "not havingtime" to market me appropriatelyThis is my definition of disregardAs Ihave previously stated, none of this process was revealed to me prior to thephoto shootIf it had been, I would never have proceeded with MMG Itwas only after funds had been appropriated and photos rendered did I receivedetails of this operation Inever used the free sites required because I did not deem the jobs listed thereof caliberThey were lowbrow positions mainly targeted towards acting, theaterand playsThey were not worth my time and the direction of my career thereforeI sought work independentlyI do not believe that they are "the leadingsource of castings in America and Canada" but that is open to debate anddependent upon what type of work one is seekingI was not "dedicated tomy career" in the way MMG requires of its' talent because it is aprimitive operation I do not wish to be a part ofThis did not become clear tome until after everything had transpired, meaning the shoot, time lapse andassessment of contractThese are the reasons why I did not keep in contactwith them and ultimately terminated my contract Thepoint most startling is that MMG claims to have paid for fees out of pocketbecause they "believed in my marketability." This was neverpersonally addressed and is surreptitious of them to never mention until now.It was never even mentioned in casual conversationI could not attend thebooked job because it coincided with a flight I had planned months priorImight also note, I was asked to drop everything and attend this booking merehours beforeThat is not professional or feasibleThe dispute and terminationof contract happened months after said bookingThe booking was mid-October,the dispute and termination happened the following JanuaryWas that notsufficient time to be personally addressed of the matter? "Because ifshe had attended the job she could have discussed this with other models whoseweb fees were not covered by us and we wanted to avoid this until we got achance to sit down with [redacted] and explain in person- which clearly neverhappened due to her canceling her contract and the onset of this dispute."This evidence is non sequiturWhy would they hope I discuss something socentral to their system with other models? Why would they not immediatelyaddress the issue after being unable to attend said booking? They had months toschedule a meeting or inform me personally through any mediumIt was nevermentioned until this pointThis is another example of what I have referred tothroughout this testimony as disregard Imaintain that I am seeking retribution in the amount of $2,totalIfthey need the cardholder to personally request a refund, it will be doneIfully maintain my claim of improper and inferior service rendered by the agencyMMG

*** *** is not entitled to a refund of services rendered*** *** has been using this web service for the past months and the money has been paid out to the third party who runs the website; Therefore the money is no longer available to return*** *** has been in possession of the link to her online portfolio for any necessary personal use and our team has been using this portfolio to submit her for workThe models *** *** referenced in her complaint were either signed exclusively to our agency or are not featured on our website (since the service is optional)Because the exclusive models are bound to only complete work with MMG and no other management companies or agencies, we are able to ensure we will make the money back through payments to those models made by clients/jobs on which we have booked themNo place in our contract or other documents does it state that you must use our web database*** *** opted to use an optional system to increase her marketability and was not eligible for a refund once those services were rendered.
Please let me know if any further clarification is necessary
Thanks!
*** ***
*** ***
*** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** * *** *** ***
*** *** *** * *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** ** ***
* *** *** * ***
* *** *** *** *** * *** *** ** *** *** ***
***
***
*** *** ** ** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** * *** ** ***
*** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * *** ***
* ***
***

Message: The complaint states that *** *** was "presented with a specific photographer, *** *** and manipulated into using her service"As previously discussed we offer suggestions of photographers we trust and talent are welcome to work with those photographers or find their own photographersAs long as they provide us with marketable photos we are able to use those photos regardless of where they were obtainedUpon coming in with no professional photos, *** *** had planned to use a photographer she found on her own - which was approved by her *** *** *** - but upon that shoot falling through contacted *** and asked her to work with *** ***(Since ***s english isn't perfect *** set up the shoot for ***, explaining exactly what type of shots we needed in order to market *** properly and ensuring that the outcome of the shoot was up to the standards necessary for her to book workYou can reread ***'s notes on this as well as portions of ***'s emails below: This individual had opted on her own to use a suggested photographerShe was not forced or manipulated into purchasing a photoshoot, stylist or composite card*** had attending an open call which anyone is welcome to attend at our companyShe asked what she needed to get started in modelingI explained that since she had absolutely no experience or marketing materials that the first step would be to acquire professional photos as no modeling agency can submit a model without photosI recommended my favorite photographer to which she replied that she already had a photographer in mindI stated that this was fine and to send me the photos when they were ready. She was by no means required to shoot with the suggested photographer or any other photographer for that matterA few days later she contacted me to inform me that things had fallen through with the photographer she had in mind as asked if I could give her more information on my suggested photographerI then received the following email: *** ***
*** ** *** *** * *** ** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** * *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** * *** * *** *** * *** *** ** *** *** *** * *** *** ** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** * *** *** *** ** *** *** *** * *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** * ** *** ** ** *** ***
*** ***
*** I again did not protest thisI did not even answer this email as I was out of townI then received an email weeks later stating the following: "*** *** ** * *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** * *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
*** ***
*** Since she contacted me for the photoshoot, it is clear that she was in no way manipulated or forcedI can provide copies of these emails as well, which will denote the date and time of correspondence. Next she states that at her open call she was told "what I would need to purchase in order to be offered a contract"This is a completely allegationThere are NO fees whatsoever to be represented by our agencyThe only thing we require is that the talent have suitable photos for us to submit them with - otherwise we can't submit them to clients and taking them on would be unfair to them as they would not be able to get any work with no photos*** was told that she would need to obtain photos and we would suggest photographers if need beAgain, she opted to use her own photographer and we said that would be fine and to send us the photos when they were readyOur contracts are standard non-exclusive freelance agreementsWhile there would be no need to discuss specifics of this freelance agreement until she had suitable photos she was more then welcome to request a copy or ask any specific questions she may have had prior to having suitable photos ready She goes on to explain that the photos were "fair or satisfactory" but she was unimpressedIn her initial complaint *** stated that she was very happy with the outcome of the shoot so this new complaint is a contradiction to what she had previously told both our staff and the Revdex.com in the first placePlease see the excerpt from ***'s initial response" Please note, as stated in ***'s claim that she was VERY happy with the outcome of the photosSomeone paying for a service (photoshoot and stylist) which was administered to her satisfaction does not qualify for a refund of said services*** was not only satisfied by the experience of the shoot itself but was very pleased with the outcome of this service (the final images) which were strong enough to get her requested on a direct booking for a Television Segment (Inside Edition) seeking models to pose in Bridal DressesThis is considered a big win in our industry She goes on to complain about the makeup and hair (which wasn't an issue that was ever expressed to us OR in her initial complaint)She states there was no hair stylist on setThis is correct - ***, the photographer, also styles the models hair between looksThis is explained to the talent when the shoot is bookedThe package *** purchased covers Hair and Makeup Styling however no where is it implied that there would be separate hair and makeup artistsMost photographers have the makeup artist also do the hair*** happens to be great at it herself and prefers her own styling rather then having the maartist do itAgain, this was never addressed in correspondence with our staff or the Revdex.com so it seems pretty clear that *** *** is trying to throw in additional concerns that are coming across as irrelevant to help support her claimsShe had chosen to have a wardrobe stylist present and had been photographed in the clothes the stylist brought. We instructed her that although the stylist would be present she should bring any footwear, undergarments and a pair of jeans that fit her wellShe is now claiming that she HAD to bring her own wardrobe for the shoot which is incorrect and can be evidenced by the fact she is shot almost entirely in the stylist's wardrobeAs she states, she is not an editorial model so it is unclear why she expected a more editorial styleThe photos on a photographers editorial website will always be slightly different then a shoot being focused toward the commercial and beauty marketsHer photos are beautiful and perfect for what we need them for which was evidenced by the fact she booked a job directly from her portfolio imagesOnce again, this is a rarity in the industry and would never have happened if she had sub par photos We always quote that contact sheets (unretouched images) will be ready - weeks from the shoot dateThis is perfectly in line with when her photos arrivedOnce that happens we need to choose the correct images for marketing before the photographer can begin the retouching phaseAs *** stated in her message, "the process of selecting and retouching also took unreasonably long" since her and her *** disagreed on which shots would be best and therefor went back and forth trying to decide on the final imagesMany ***s will NOT ask the talent's opinion and will simply choose the most marketable images - but we wanted to take ***'s choices into considerationIf we were going to simply "override" her choices there would be no reason to approach her to help select in the first placeOnce those are finally agreed upon the retouching phase beginsThis can take a couple weeks as the photographer spends several hours on each photoThis is the amount of time that is always discussedAs far as us not mailing out her disk, she had specifically asked us not to ship it and that she would be picking it up from our office so that is what occured As far as being forced to purchase comp cards, please see ***'s response below: I did not push the talent to purchase comp cards, nor did I ever claim they would increase her marketabilityI told her in an email on 7/"Comp cards are important are important to bring to castingsIt's something for you to leave behind with your information on it, think if it like a business card"In a meeting she inquired about how to buy them and went as far as to choose the lay out her self contradicting the one I had chose *** is complaining about the fact that she had been signed for month (it was actually months) without having a single audition and had booked one jobWell, it is important to understand how we workFor modeling opportunities we use our portfolio system to send out packages of our talent which include all of their photos, measurements, tearsheets, video/audio content and resume which acts as the first "casting" so the models are only asked to audition in person IF the *** *** selects themWhile we were actively submitting *** we have no control over which *** ***s request to meet her in personBooking a job in the first months of a model's career (keep in mind she wasn't an established model, she was a BRAND NEW beginner model) is a HUGE successThe acting projects are done through two sites that come at no cost to the talent - the "free" acting sites Actors Access and Casting Networks - which *** states she did NOT utilize (I will touch on that later)As *** stated in regards to her concerns over bookings during the first several months: These four months happened to occur during the slowest time of the year for bookings (over the winter holidays)That is an extremely short amount of time to be signed with a model management company and any/all of our other models who have booked work in such a short time period have been thrilled. She goes on to explain that more jobs SHOULD have been available for her because her look is "universally appealing and praised by many industry insiders"*** needs to understand that there are many pretty girls in the world and in this industry specificallyJust because someone has a good look does not automatically mean they will get tons of jobs right awayMost models and actors spend years training and working at their career before they start booking paid workDedication to ones career has a lot to do with it and it seems *** has been more dedicated to lodging complaints against us then being proactive in her own careerShe has done no training, no test shoots, failed to follow our instructions and failed to check in with us (which is something that we not only suggest verbally but is written into our Talent Manual that the talent must check in periodically)She references the "*** ***" agency who (I have never heard of but) upon research seems to be ranked at 14,on IMDBpro - A site that ranks agencies with being the best in the world(We are currently ranked at for comparison purposes)And states that he "likes her look"We wouldn't have signed her if we didn't think she was good so of course we think that others will feel the sameThis point is completely nullNow she is saying that she is trying to work with other agencies (Like Bella, ranked 2,on IMDB Pro) who has told her she needs to shoot againI would expect another complaint from her in several months on these "new agencies" since it seems like they are also trying to advise her of what materials they need for their purposesThis is a ***'s job! To pretend that she can be submitted without adequate photos would be unfair and unjustIf we are a "scam", "crock", bureaucratic mill of an agency, as stated by *** *** then it is surprising that we outrank rank the aforementioned "real agencies" by thousandsAny one doing a quick search on various Social Media Sites (*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***) or IMDB pro can see that we are not only "real" but have a proven track record of success We do not require talent to submit themselves for jobs as *** is statingWe have a full time booking staff whose job is to get our talent work (hence how she BOOKED the Inside Edition job)We also allow our talent to remain proactive by letting us know if there are jobs they hear about through other actor friends or see on the free "actors only" site they can access from home that they would like to be considered forThe more serious talent send things in anywhere from periodically to daily so their ***s can double check with the booking staff and make sure that talent has been submittedThis is especially helpful for the lower paid jobs our booking agents do not have time to work on but could be more fitting for someone like *** just trying to break into the industry and has a much higher chance of booking smaller jobsThe reason that *** was seeing "little to no pay" jobs is because the system (Actors Access) which our talent can access from home is the sister site of Breakdown Express which is for agents and ***s onlyIt lists every casting going on in the country and SOME of those are then posted on Actors Access ONLY if the *** *** allows the breakdown to be seen by the "general freelance market" of actors available on Actors AccessThis is ALWAYS explained to talent when showing them how we work and how we will market them as well as what is expected of themShe is saying that she never used this site, but used other sites (which she will not name) and garnered interestedWhy would she not use the FREE site that we "required" her to set up which is the leading source of castings in America and Canada? She is only proving that she was not dedicated to her career or putting in the little bit of effort we expect from our talent in order for them to stay proactiveShe also said that "[***] has no idea what I submit myself to or which castings I attend"Why is this? As her management team we are supposed to be informed of these thingsIt seems like she wrote us off from the very beginning and decided not to do anything we asked of her or keep in touch with usThings that can be detrimental to our ability to submit her properlyPerhaps if she had been more proactive there could have been more opportunities - however I still maintain that booking a job in the first months is highly impressive and feel that we did a great job for *** - especially in light of how difficult she has made it for us by blatantly disregarding everything that was asked of her ***'s message stated: "Upon realizing that *** had not yet set up an important system we could use to get her more opportunities, we contacted her in an effort to walk her through the set up process"*** *** states that this never happenedShe writes: "I was never contacted in any way by the company regarding these mattersI was completely disregarded.." The booker (Rachel) who reached out to *** in this specific instance has forwarded me the correspondence which happened on 1/*/which I will forward to you upon the completion of this messageThis will prove that *** was in no way "disregarded" and was actually one of the first people contacted upon the start of the year to make sure she got set up on another of the systems she admits to NOT using. The online portfolio system I explained previously is ran by a third party company who charges us monthlyWe activated her system since there were projects we wanted to submit her on - like the one she BOOKED - although we needed to cover the cost of this systemWe did this because we believed in her marketability and thought it was a good business move to get her activated and cover her monthly costsHad she attended this booked job it would have made it worthwhile for usJust as a frame of reference this one job would have paid enough to cover her web fees for over monthsThis cost of this site had been discussed with herUs taking on the expense of it ourselves had not been discussed with her for two reasons: (1) because we made this decision at the spur of the moment in order to submit her on said job; (2) because if she had attended the job she could have discussed this with other models whose web fees were not covered by us and we wanted to avoid this until we got a chance to sit down with *** and explain in person - which clearly never happened due to her canceling her contract and the onset of this dispute As *** stated: In summation, *** was never delivered any improper or inferior serviceShe was pleased with her services and happy with the resulting photos and composite cardsThese materials proved to serve their purpose when she was directly booked (without even an audition - meaning she was booked solely off those photos and materials)Lastly, *** herself requested a refund of services however *** did not pay for any of her servicesThese services including the photoshoot, stylist and comp cards were paid for by her boyfriend so she is not personally entitled to any refund and/or retribution. In her last letter *** states that "the claim [that she herself is ineligible for a refund because she did not pay for the services herself] is completely inaneIn my experience, the cardholder is the person who would need to request a refundHowever, services here were ALL rendered and products [comp cards] created and deliveredSo once again we do not feel she is entitled to any sort of refund and definitely no sort of retributionIf anyone should be entitled to "retribution" it should be our company who PUT OUT the money for her web service; BOOKED her a job where we had to forfeit our commission because of ***'s inability to show up for her first booked job; And took up our staff's time gathering evidence and responding to these ridiculous claimsThe payments that she made went directly to the photographer and to the printing press that printed her comp cardsShe has paid us NOTHING for representation I will be following up now with the email from the booking department and have *** respond with additional supporting documentsPlease let me know if there is anything else you need Thank you! *** ***
*** ***
*** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** * *** *** ***
*** *** *** * *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** ** ***
* *** *** * ***
* *** *** *** *** * *** *** ** *** *** ***
***
***
*** *** ** ** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** ** ** *** *** *** *** ** ***
*** *** ** ** *** *** *** *** ** ***
*** *** *** * *** ** ***
*** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * *** ***
* ***
***
*** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** ** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** ** ** ** *** *** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ***, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
[Your Answer Here]
I stand by my testimony and do not accept this resolutionI was presented with a specific photographer, *** ***, and manipulated into using her servicesThis act signifies the agency and photographer systematically work together, which is unscrupulous and a tell-tale sign of a scamManipulation is oftentimes very subtle, as in the case of *** ***The email excerpts she provided are copied and pasted to her advantageThey are not reflective of my experience with MMG and are therefore nullThey were written with enthusiasm at the commencement of our relationship, prior to what I have now endured I did attend an open call where I was explained what I would need to purchase in order to be offered a contractThe contract itself was never explained to me until after the images had been produced and paid forIf I had known the logistics of their operation, I would have never gone through with the shootI was wary of what was being offered but went against my better judgment, placing trust in the hands of my *** *** and the agencyThe shoot was postponed due to lack of funds until my partner decided to pay for it, in the hopes of cementing my vocational ambitions as a commercial modelThe shoot itself was not at all what I had expected from viewing the photographer's portfolio and prior workThe mawas sub par, there was no hair stylist on set and I had to provide my own wardrobe (supplemented by a stylist I paid $more for)I was expecting the images to look more editorial (although I am not an editorial model), as is shown in ***s work, as opposed to glamour shots similar to those displayed at local malls for a quarter of the priceThe images produced were fair or satisfactory, as stated in my initial complaintBoth my partner and I were unimpressedI was not ecstatic, as my former *** *** is allegingShe is somehow claiming to understand my subjective experiences and emotions, solidifying her defensiveness and distortion of the truth I was told the images would take three weeks to be returned to me for selection along with a hard copyThe shoot took place in early May and I did not receive the hard copy until AugustI had to physically retrieve it, out of frustration, as it and it had been there for weeks Yes, the images had been sent prior to the retrieval of the hard copy in August but were still inappropriately timedI was told three weeks, the emailed images took nine weeks and the hard copy itself took three monthsThere is no reason or excuse for such a time lapse. The process of selecting and retouching also took unreasonably long as my selections were overridenThere were very few pictures I felt reflected my true beauty and imageMy hair and mawere inadequate as were my poses and expressions (the shoot itself was very controlled)*** insisted on specific pictures, disregarding my selections as not marketableAgain, I went along with the suggestions of my *** *** assuming she had greater knowledge than I*** also convinced me to purchase comp cards costing $200, stating they would "increase my marketability." I was willing to do whatever it took to get work and build my portfolio, placing myself in her handsThe comp cards were in the layout I had chosen, as *** stated, but served no ultimate purpose as I did not attend castings of any sortI literally did not attend a single casting call in five monthsI directly booked one job during that time that I was unable to attendIt is thoroughly implausible that I was appropriately marketed and frequently submittedRegardless of my age and lack of experience, my look is universally appealing and praised by industry insiders, such as *** *** of the *** *** agency: ***Because of MMG's failure to produce appropriately marketable images, I now have to invest in another photoshoot in order to obtain work with actual agencies, such as Bella. MMG is a bureaucratic mill of an agency, which automates its talent submission indiscriminately. As aforementioned, I was not explained the contract until after the photoshoot had been fully paid forNo real agency would ever require talent to submit themselves to castingsIt is infeasible and nullifies the purpose of the agentI never used the "actors only" site, as *** is alleging, which I was required to create a profile forThe projects listed were little to no payI used other sites which I will not mention and received a significant influx of interestThe castings which I attended were not 'low-scale projects,' as she is claimingI would never waste my time, not to mention she has no idea what I submit myself to or which castings I attendHer entire concept of me is a constructShe has conjured an image of me so as to deflect from the veracity of my account, as exemplified by the strategic placement of quotes, emails, times, etcas well as blatant prevarications. "Upon realizing that *** had not yet set up an important system we could use to get her more opportunities, we contacted her in an effort to walk her through the sprocess." I was never contacted in any way by the company regarding these mattersI was completely disregarded and upon wanting to break ties with said company called delusional, explicit in emails I do not feel the need to attach"We believed so much in ***, we actually took on the cost of her portfolio, meaning we paid ourselves for her to be marketed to our clients." I find it suspicious that this point was never addressed to me personally but ever so conveniently in response to my complaintIt is also incredibly unlikely considering I was nickel and dimed for every service offered to no availFinally, *** makes the point of ineligibility of refund or retribution based on the fact I did not personally pay for the shoot (although the comp cards are under my name and card)This claim is completely inaneImproper and inferior service is grounds for a settlement, regardless of who appropriated the fundsI am requesting a settlement in the form of $2,for the improper and inferior services rendered.Sincerely,*** ***
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

MMG has mislead myself along with other new models to pay fees once offered a contract to MMG. No where in their contract and fee form does it state that any of the fees are optional. If there was an opt out option, any individual would knowingly opt out of paying hundreds of dollars to have an agency market them.  Upon the first meeting with a representative from MMG, it was made clear that once I provided MMG with pictures, I would then be able to sign with MMG and have my pictures included in their database. As previously mentioned in this statement and others, NO OPTION to opt out was neither stated nor included in their forms or contract. Regardless of the fee already being paid out to a third party for the database usage, it is MMG at fault for capitalizing on new models and should provide a refund.  In addition, I no longer want MMG to charge me to use their database.   Answer Here]
 
 
 
 
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

At MMG we submit off of two different database. One of these databases does charge while the other is free. Since there is a fee to be on one of the databases, we do make it completely optional. With out knowing who the other model she was talking to, it is difficult to determine the true nature of...

the situation. It is very possible the other model just did not opt to be on the database which requires fees and that the job in question was booked through the other database. It is also possible the other model in question is under an exclusive contract with us. In this case, site fees are initially covered by MMG and then taken out of paychecks in an agreed upon payment system. Since [redacted] is a non-exclusive talent this wouldn't be an option. She was made well aware of the various options for representation and was offered a non-exclusive contract. She decided to move forward and to be on the MMG database. Here is the link to her online portfolio as proof of services rendered: [redacted]

My complaint remains unresolved as MMG continuesto merely repeat and negate all points made. I will not address most statementsas they are aforementioned in previous responses but I will call for aninvestigation of said agency. I also suggest looking at consumer-generatedcontent in response to MMG as evidence of experiences similar to my own. MMG isnot an esteemed agency, as is being claimed. I was mismanaged and mislead thusappropriating the claim of improper and inferior service.           Theagency representatives are vehemently protesting my complaint stating that I am"contradicting myself" or somehow providing irrelevant information toprove my claim. I never stated being ecstatic with the outcome of the photoshoot. I was never provided with hair styling as is claimed and contractuallyassigned. My hair upon arrival remained literally untouched. There was nostyling during the shoot, beyond the movement provided by an on set automaticfan. I also did not shoot "almost entirely in the stylist's wardrobe."I provided the majority of the items photographed. My photos did not arrive inthe time stated, as I have repeated inordinately. I insisted on retrieving thehard copy out of sheer frustration after over three months of waiting. I wouldnot have elected to had I been treated appropriately and professionally. Iwould also like to know what "training" is being referred to. I can'timagine what "training" a commercial model would need besidesexperience itself, which I was not allowed to obtain due to mismanagement. The "Talent Manual" and contract should be reviewed andassessed for legitimacy relative to industry standards. There is no reason whysigned talent should ever be obligated to submit themselves to castings. It isunheard of and baffling. I understand that images are needed in order to beproperly marketed. I have no objection to this. What I object to isspecifically pushing a photographer, the quality of the photographs, the priceof said photographs and other marketing materials, the time lapse betweenoperations, the way I was marketed and the manner in which I was handledoverall.           Theconcept of "remaining proactive" by searching through free websites,filtering through lowbrow positions for oneself is ridiculous. It is anassertion of where MMG stands as an agency and negates the need for talent[redacted]s and booking offices. "This is especially helpful for the lowerpaid jobs our booking agents do not have time to work on but could be morefitting for someone like [redacted] just trying to break into the industry andhas a much higher chance of booking smaller jobs." Does this not indicatethat more experienced talent were given more time and effort in being marketed?After going through the process of signing with this agency, are they notobliged to market me accordingly? They blatantly admit to "not havingtime" to market me appropriately. This is my definition of disregard. As Ihave previously stated, none of this process was revealed to me prior to thephoto shoot. If it had been, I would never have proceeded with MMG.  Itwas only after funds had been appropriated and photos rendered did I receivedetails of this operation.          Inever used the free sites required because I did not deem the jobs listed thereof caliber. They were lowbrow positions mainly targeted towards acting, theaterand plays. They were not worth my time and the direction of my career thereforeI sought work independently. I do not believe that they are "the leadingsource of castings in America and Canada" but that is open to debate anddependent upon what type of work one is seeking. I was not "dedicated tomy career" in the way MMG requires of its' talent because it is aprimitive operation I do not wish to be a part of. This did not become clear tome until after everything had transpired, meaning the shoot, time lapse andassessment of contract. These are the reasons why I did not keep in contactwith them and ultimately terminated my contract.           Thepoint most startling is that MMG claims to have paid for fees out of pocketbecause they "believed in my marketability." This was neverpersonally addressed and is surreptitious of them to never mention until now.It was never even mentioned in casual conversation. I could not attend thebooked job because it coincided with a flight I had planned months prior. Imight also note, I was asked to drop everything and attend this booking merehours before. That is not professional or feasible. The dispute and terminationof contract happened months after said booking. The booking was mid-October,the dispute and termination happened the following January. Was that notsufficient time to be personally addressed of the matter? "... Because ifshe had attended the job she could have discussed this with other models whoseweb fees were not covered by us and we wanted to avoid this until we got achance to sit down with [redacted] and explain in person- which clearly neverhappened due to her canceling her contract and the onset of this dispute."This evidence is non sequitur. Why would they hope I discuss something socentral to their system with other models? Why would they not immediatelyaddress the issue after being unable to attend said booking? They had months toschedule a meeting or inform me personally through any medium. It was nevermentioned until this point. This is another example of what I have referred tothroughout this testimony as disregard.           Imaintain that I am seeking retribution in the amount of $2,400.00 total. Ifthey need the cardholder to personally request a refund, it will be done. Ifully maintain my claim of improper and inferior service rendered by the agencyMMG.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

MMG did not explain that there were different databases that they use to represent their models, depending on whether the contract is exclusive or not.  Once again, this contradicts everything that I have learned from talking to other models. One of the models that I am referring to is [redacted], the other model I was booked on the [redacted] with me.  Another model is [redacted]. Here is the email response from [redacted] after sending her my pictures for her to review:
[redacted]
**
* 
[redacted]
* 
[redacted]
* 
* 
[redacted]
* 
[redacted]
* 
[redacted]
** [redacted]
In addition, the payment form and contract did not give any options to opt-out of paying fees for being in their database.  However, other models that are also in non-exclusive contracts with MMG did NOT have to pay any fees to be in their database. 
 
 
 
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

This individual had opted on her own to use a suggested photographer. She was not forced or manipulated into purchasing a photoshoot, stylist or composite card. [redacted] had attending an open call which anyone is...

welcome to attend at our company. She asked what she needed to get started in modeling. I explained that since she had absolutely no experience or marketing materials that the first step would be to acquire professional photos as no modeling agency can submit a model without photos. I recommended my favorite photographer to which she replied that she already had a photographer in mind. I stated that this was fine and to send me the photos when they were ready. She was by no means required to shoot with the suggested photographer or any other photographer for that matter. A few days later she contacted me to inform me that things had fallen through with the photographer she had in mind as asked if I could give her more information on my suggested photographer. I then received the following email: "[redacted]" I again did not protest this. I did not even answer this email as I was out of town. I then received an email 2 weeks later stating the following: "[redacted] Since she contacted me for the photoshoot, it is clear that she was in no way manipulated or forced. I can provide copies of these emails as well, which will denote the date and time of correspondence. She was emailed the raw (unretouched) images from her photoshoot on 6/**/14 and was emailed the edited images on 8/**/14 after the process of selecting and retouching the photos was complete. This took place within the exact amount of time first quoted to her before setting up the shoot. The photographer then compiled all of the photos from the shoot and burned them to a CD. The disk had not been in the office for weeks, as [redacted] stated in her claim, nor did I fail to mail her the CD. I emailed her explaining that CD's are typically mailed to the model and on 7[redacted]/14 she emailed me stating that she "preferred to pick it up at the office". Again email correspondence of this can be submitted as proof. Either way, the CD had only been in the office for 2 days bef ore she came to pick it up. I did not push the talent to purchase comp cards, nor did I ever claim they would increase her marketability. I told her in an email on 7/** "Comp cards are important are important to bring to castings. It's something for you to leave behind with your information on it, think if it like a business card". In a meeting she inquired about how to buy them and went as far as to choose the lay out her self contradicting the one I had chose. Please note, as stated in [redacted]'s claim that she was VERY happy with the outcome of the photos. Someone paying for a service (photoshoot and stylist) which was administered to her satisfaction does not qualify for a refund of said services. [redacted] was not only satisfied by the experience of the shoot itself but was very pleased with the outcome of this service (the final images) which were strong enough to get her requested on a direct booking for a Television Segment (Inside Edition) seeking models to pose in Bridal Dresses. This is considered a big win in our industry. NYC is one of the toughest markets in the country as far as acting and modeling jobs. It can take years for even the best models to begin booking jobs. It had only been 4 months since we began submitting [redacted] to our clients unti the time she terminated her contract. These four months happened to occur during the slowest time of the year for bookings (over the winter holidays). That is an extremely short amount of time to be signed with a model management company and any/all of our other models who have booked work in such a short time period have been thrilled. We believed so much in [redacted]'s potential so we actually took on the cost of her portfolio, meaning we paid ourselves for her to be marketed to our clients. Her portfolio was submitted frequently but unfortunately a lot of girls her age do have a lot of experience on her and she had none. Known models with extensive resumes do get requested more frequently then brand new beginners. The jobs the talent is claiming to have submitted on her own are low scale projects (which are acting not modeling) that agencies do not submit on. For the low paid/no pay jobs [redacted]s prefer to cast actors directly because it is easier to get "freelancing talent" to work for low rates and they do not need to worry about agents or [redacted]s trying to negotiate higher rates. Low paying/no pay jobs are, of course, a lot easier to acquire auditions for. These jobs are posted to an "actors only" site while the more high profile jobs are posted to "agents/[redacted] s only" site. [redacted] had joined the "actors only" site - which is a free system to create a profile on - under our direction. Acting also works very differently from modeling. While we offered to submit [redacted] for some acting jobs we thought she would be ready for, she was signed primarily as a model. The photoshoot, stylist and composite cards she is talking about are MODELING marketing tools. She never had take or submitted any actors headshots, demo reels, or any other ACTING marketing tools. The individual was never called delusional. Upon realizing that [redacted] had not yet set up an important system we could use to get her more opportunities, we contacted her in an effort to walk her through the set up process. In an insulting response she attacked the company and went as far as to call me "childish" and "pathetic". In defense of myself and my company I simply stated that she seemed to have "delusions about how the industry works". A delusion is a misconception and I do believe the individual had and has many misconceptions regarding how the industry works. It is my job as her [redacted] to educate her on the correct practices and manage her expectations so she can behave and act appropriately to both our staff as well as any clients she may meet through auditions or jobs . In summation, [redacted] was never delivered any improper or inferior service. She was pleased with her services and happy with the resulting photos and composite cards. These materials proved to serve their purpose when she was directly booked (without even an audition - meaning she was booked solely off those photos and materials). Lastly, [redacted] herself requested a refund of services however [redacted] did not pay for any of her services. These services including the photoshoot, stylist and comp cards were paid for by her boyfriend so she is not personally entitled to any refund and/or retribution. Please let me know how to submit the documents supporting this email. Thank you, [redacted] Head [redacted]

Review: I have signed a contract with MMG as a model, and was charged over $600 to have my pictures included in their database for representation. I recently booked a photoshoot without the assistance of MMG, and was able to talk with another model from MMG under the [redacted]. I learned that other models were not charged any fees from MMG. After contacting [redacted] to explain this to me, there was no resolution to retrieving a refund to me, as she continued to give me numerous reasons for the charge, which did not coincide with what I learned from talking to other models.Desired Settlement: I would like a full refund of $625 credited back to my credit card, and no further charges to have my pictures included in the electronic database.

Business

Response:

At MMG we submit off of two different database. One of these databases does charge while the other is free. Since there is a fee to be on one of the databases, we do make it completely optional. With out knowing who the other model she was talking to, it is difficult to determine the true nature of the situation. It is very possible the other model just did not opt to be on the database which requires fees and that the job in question was booked through the other database. It is also possible the other model in question is under an exclusive contract with us. In this case, site fees are initially covered by MMG and then taken out of paychecks in an agreed upon payment system. Since [redacted] is a non-exclusive talent this wouldn't be an option. She was made well aware of the various options for representation and was offered a non-exclusive contract. She decided to move forward and to be on the MMG database. Here is the link to her online portfolio as proof of services rendered: [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

MMG did not explain that there were different databases that they use to represent their models, depending on whether the contract is exclusive or not. Once again, this contradicts everything that I have learned from talking to other models. One of the models that I am referring to is [redacted], the other model I was booked on the [redacted] with me. Another model is [redacted]. Here is the email response from [redacted] after sending her my pictures for her to review:

In addition, the payment form and contract did not give any options to opt-out of paying fees for being in their database. However, other models that are also in non-exclusive contracts with MMG did NOT have to pay any fees to be in their database.

In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.

Sincerely,

Business

Response:

[redacted] is not entitled to a refund of services rendered. [redacted] has been using this web service for the past 9 months and the money has been paid out to the third party who runs the website; Therefore the money is no longer available to return. [redacted] has been in possession of the link to her online portfolio for any necessary personal use and our team has been using this portfolio to submit her for work. The models [redacted] referenced in her complaint were either signed exclusively to our agency or are not featured on our website (since the service is optional). Because the exclusive models are bound to only complete work with MMG and no other management companies or agencies, we are able to ensure we will make the money back through payments to those models made by clients/jobs on which we have booked them. No place in our contract or other documents does it state that you must use our web database. [redacted] opted to use an optional system to increase her marketability and was not eligible for a refund once those services were rendered.

Please let me know if any further clarification is necessary.

Thanks!

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

MMG has mislead myself along with other new models to pay fees once offered a contract to MMG. No where in their contract and fee form does it state that any of the fees are optional. If there was an opt out option, any individual would knowingly opt out of paying hundreds of dollars to have an agency market them. Upon the first meeting with a representative from MMG, it was made clear that once I provided MMG with pictures, I would then be able to sign with MMG and have my pictures included in their database. As previously mentioned in this statement and others, NO OPTION to opt out was neither stated nor included in their forms or contract. Regardless of the fee already being paid out to a third party for the database usage, it is MMG at fault for capitalizing on new models and should provide a refund. In addition, I no longer want MMG to charge me to use their database. Answer Here]

In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.

Sincerely,

Review: I was forcibly manipulated into shooting with a particular photographer in amounts of over $1,000 to be offered a contract with said company. The photoshoot took place May 2014. I was told my images would be returned for selection and further editing within three weeks. I did not receive my images for three months. My assigned [redacted] justified this by stating the photographer was caught during a move. I was insistent on their retrieval until finally in August, I went to pick up the disc containing these images in person. The disc was not easily found but rather haphazardly thrown among other files. It had been there for weeks as my [redacted] had failed to mail me these materials. I was also pushed into purchasing comp cards, stating that it would increase my marketability. Since the date of the photoshoot in May 2014 to this point, January 2015, I have booked one job. This [redacted] claims bookers send out my portfolio constantly and that it's merely the nature of the beast, considering my age and lack of experience. I find this hard to believe considering I submit myself to auditions and have a call back/interest rate of about 1 in every 8 postings. While the images produced were fair, the way in which MMG operates is unethical, unprofessional and misleading. I was prepared to accept the loss and discontinue my relationship with them until I was emailed in reference to the new year. I responded with my desire for another agency and went on to describe the aforementioned experiences. They negated these addressed complaints calling me 'delusional' and became increasingly defensive. The time lapsed during these interactions and the manner in which I was handled is a clear indication of the improper and inferior service I was subjected to.Desired Settlement: I am requesting a full refund on the services which break down to: $1400 photoshoot, $300 stylist on set, $200 comp cards plus $500 retribution fees.

Total Desired Settlement: $2400

Business

Response:

This individual had opted on her own to use a suggested photographer. She was not forced or manipulated into purchasing a photoshoot, stylist or composite card. [redacted] had attending an open call which anyone is welcome to attend at our company. She asked what she needed to get started in modeling. I explained that since she had absolutely no experience or marketing materials that the first step would be to acquire professional photos as no modeling agency can submit a model without photos. I recommended my favorite photographer to which she replied that she already had a photographer in mind. I stated that this was fine and to send me the photos when they were ready. She was by no means required to shoot with the suggested photographer or any other photographer for that matter. A few days later she contacted me to inform me that things had fallen through with the photographer she had in mind as asked if I could give her more information on my suggested photographer. I then received the following email: "[redacted]" I again did not protest this. I did not even answer this email as I was out of town. I then received an email 2 weeks later stating the following: "[redacted] Since she contacted me for the photoshoot, it is clear that she was in no way manipulated or forced. I can provide copies of these emails as well, which will denote the date and time of correspondence. She was emailed the raw (unretouched) images from her photoshoot on 6/**/14 and was emailed the edited images on 8/**/14 after the process of selecting and retouching the photos was complete. This took place within the exact amount of time first quoted to her before setting up the shoot. The photographer then compiled all of the photos from the shoot and burned them to a CD. The disk had not been in the office for weeks, as [redacted] stated in her claim, nor did I fail to mail her the CD. I emailed her explaining that CD's are typically mailed to the model and on 7[redacted]/14 she emailed me stating that she "preferred to pick it up at the office". Again email correspondence of this can be submitted as proof. Either way, the CD had only been in the office for 2 days bef ore she came to pick it up. I did not push the talent to purchase comp cards, nor did I ever claim they would increase her marketability. I told her in an email on 7/** "Comp cards are important are important to bring to castings. It's something for you to leave behind with your information on it, think if it like a business card". In a meeting she inquired about how to buy them and went as far as to choose the lay out her self contradicting the one I had chose. Please note, as stated in [redacted]'s claim that she was VERY happy with the outcome of the photos. Someone paying for a service (photoshoot and stylist) which was administered to her satisfaction does not qualify for a refund of said services. [redacted] was not only satisfied by the experience of the shoot itself but was very pleased with the outcome of this service (the final images) which were strong enough to get her requested on a direct booking for a Television Segment (Inside Edition) seeking models to pose in Bridal Dresses. This is considered a big win in our industry. NYC is one of the toughest markets in the country as far as acting and modeling jobs. It can take years for even the best models to begin booking jobs. It had only been 4 months since we began submitting [redacted] to our clients unti the time she terminated her contract. These four months happened to occur during the slowest time of the year for bookings (over the winter holidays). That is an extremely short amount of time to be signed with a model management company and any/all of our other models who have booked work in such a short time period have been thrilled. We believed so much in [redacted]'s potential so we actually took on the cost of her portfolio, meaning we paid ourselves for her to be marketed to our clients. Her portfolio was submitted frequently but unfortunately a lot of girls her age do have a lot of experience on her and she had none. Known models with extensive resumes do get requested more frequently then brand new beginners. The jobs the talent is claiming to have submitted on her own are low scale projects (which are acting not modeling) that agencies do not submit on. For the low paid/no pay jobs [redacted]s prefer to cast actors directly because it is easier to get "freelancing talent" to work for low rates and they do not need to worry about agents or [redacted]s trying to negotiate higher rates. Low paying/no pay jobs are, of course, a lot easier to acquire auditions for. These jobs are posted to an "actors only" site while the more high profile jobs are posted to "agents/[redacted] s only" site. [redacted] had joined the "actors only" site - which is a free system to create a profile on - under our direction. Acting also works very differently from modeling. While we offered to submit [redacted] for some acting jobs we thought she would be ready for, she was signed primarily as a model. The photoshoot, stylist and composite cards she is talking about are MODELING marketing tools. She never had take or submitted any actors headshots, demo reels, or any other ACTING marketing tools. The individual was never called delusional. Upon realizing that [redacted] had not yet set up an important system we could use to get her more opportunities, we contacted her in an effort to walk her through the set up process. In an insulting response she attacked the company and went as far as to call me "childish" and "pathetic". In defense of myself and my company I simply stated that she seemed to have "delusions about how the industry works". A delusion is a misconception and I do believe the individual had and has many misconceptions regarding how the industry works. It is my job as her [redacted] to educate her on the correct practices and manage her expectations so she can behave and act appropriately to both our staff as well as any clients she may meet through auditions or jobs . In summation, [redacted] was never delivered any improper or inferior service. She was pleased with her services and happy with the resulting photos and composite cards. These materials proved to serve their purpose when she was directly booked (without even an audition - meaning she was booked solely off those photos and materials). Lastly, [redacted] herself requested a refund of services however [redacted] did not pay for any of her services. These services including the photoshoot, stylist and comp cards were paid for by her boyfriend so she is not personally entitled to any refund and/or retribution. Please let me know how to submit the documents supporting this email. Thank you, [redacted] Head [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

[Your Answer Here]

I stand by my testimony and do not accept this resolution. I was presented with a specific photographer, [redacted], and manipulated into using her services. This act signifies the agency and photographer systematically work together, which is unscrupulous and a tell-tale sign of a scam. Manipulation is oftentimes very subtle, as in the case of [redacted]. The email excerpts she provided are copied and pasted to her advantage. They are not reflective of my experience with MMG and are therefore null. They were written with enthusiasm at the commencement of our relationship, prior to what I have now endured. I did attend an open call where I was explained what I would need to purchase in order to be offered a contract. The contract itself was never explained to me until after the images had been produced and paid for. If I had known the logistics of their operation, I would have never gone through with the shoot. I was wary of what was being offered but went against my better judgment, placing trust in the hands of my [redacted] and the agency. The shoot was postponed due to lack of funds until my partner decided to pay for it, in the hopes of cementing my vocational ambitions as a commercial model. The shoot itself was not at all what I had expected from viewing the photographer's portfolio and prior work. The make-up was sub par, there was no hair stylist on set and I had to provide my own wardrobe (supplemented by a stylist I paid $300 more for). I was expecting the images to look more editorial (although I am not an editorial model), as is shown in [redacted]s work, as opposed to glamour shots similar to those displayed at local malls for a quarter of the price. The images produced were fair or satisfactory, as stated in my initial complaint. Both my partner and I were unimpressed. I was not ecstatic, as my former [redacted] is alleging. She is somehow claiming to understand my subjective experiences and emotions, solidifying her defensiveness and distortion of the truth. I was told the images would take three weeks to be returned to me for selection along with a hard copy. The shoot took place in early May and I did not receive the hard copy until August. I had to physically retrieve it, out of frustration, as it and it had been there for weeks. Yes, the images had been sent prior to the retrieval of the hard copy in August but were still inappropriately timed. I was told three weeks, the emailed images took nine weeks and the hard copy itself took three months. There is no reason or excuse for such a time lapse. The process of selecting and retouching also took unreasonably long as my selections were overriden. There were very few pictures I felt reflected my true beauty and image. My hair and make-up were inadequate as were my poses and expressions (the shoot itself was very controlled). [redacted] insisted on specific pictures, disregarding my selections as not marketable. Again, I went along with the suggestions of my [redacted] assuming she had greater knowledge than I. [redacted] also convinced me to purchase comp cards costing $200, stating they would "increase my marketability." I was willing to do whatever it took to get work and build my portfolio, placing myself in her hands. The comp cards were in the layout I had chosen, as [redacted] stated, but served no ultimate purpose as I did not attend castings of any sort. I literally did not attend a single casting call in five months. I directly booked one job during that time that I was unable to attend. It is thoroughly implausible that I was appropriately marketed and frequently submitted. Regardless of my age and lack of experience, my look is universally appealing and praised by industry insiders, such as [redacted] of the [redacted] agency: [redacted]. Because of MMG's failure to produce appropriately marketable images, I now have to invest in another photoshoot in order to obtain work with actual agencies, such as Bella. MMG is a bureaucratic mill of an agency, which automates its talent submission indiscriminately. As aforementioned, I was not explained the contract until after the photoshoot had been fully paid for. No real agency would ever require talent to submit themselves to castings. It is infeasible and nullifies the purpose of the agent. I never used the "actors only" site, as [redacted] is alleging, which I was required to create a profile for. The projects listed were little to no pay. I used other sites which I will not mention and received a significant influx of interest. The castings which I attended were not 'low-scale projects,' as she is claiming. I would never waste my time, not to mention she has no idea what I submit myself to or which castings I attend. Her entire concept of me is a construct. She has conjured an image of me so as to deflect from the veracity of my account, as exemplified by the strategic placement of quotes, emails, times, etc. as well as blatant prevarications. "Upon realizing that [redacted] had not yet set up an important system we could use to get her more opportunities, we contacted her in an effort to walk her through the set-up process." I was never contacted in any way by the company regarding these matters. I was completely disregarded and upon wanting to break ties with said company called delusional, explicit in emails I do not feel the need to attach. "We believed so much in [redacted], we actually took on the cost of her portfolio, meaning we paid ourselves for her to be marketed to our clients." I find it suspicious that this point was never addressed to me personally but ever so conveniently in response to my complaint. It is also incredibly unlikely considering I was nickel and dimed for every service offered to no avail. Finally, [redacted] makes the point of ineligibility of refund or retribution based on the fact I did not personally pay for the shoot (although the comp cards are under my name and card). This claim is completely inane. Improper and inferior service is grounds for a settlement, regardless of who appropriated the funds. I am requesting a settlement in the form of $2,400 for the improper and inferior services rendered.Sincerely,[redacted]

In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.

Business

Response:

Message: The complaint states that [redacted] was "presented with a specific photographer, [redacted] and manipulated into using her service". As previously discussed we offer suggestions of photographers we trust and talent are welcome to work with those photographers or find their own photographers. As long as they provide us with marketable photos we are able to use those photos regardless of where they were obtained. Upon coming in with no professional photos, [redacted] had planned to use a photographer she found on her own - which was approved by her [redacted] - but upon that shoot falling through contacted [redacted] and asked her to work with [redacted]. (Since [redacted]s english isn't perfect [redacted] set up the shoot for [redacted], explaining exactly what type of shots we needed in order to market [redacted] properly and ensuring that the outcome of the shoot was up to the standards necessary for her to book work. You can reread [redacted]'s notes on this as well as portions of [redacted]'s emails below: This individual had opted on her own to use a suggested photographer. She was not forced or manipulated into purchasing a photoshoot, stylist or composite card. [redacted] had attending an open call which anyone is welcome to attend at our company. She asked what she needed to get started in modeling. I explained that since she had absolutely no experience or marketing materials that the first step would be to acquire professional photos as no modeling agency can submit a model without photos. I recommended my favorite photographer to which she replied that she already had a photographer in mind. I stated that this was fine and to send me the photos when they were ready. She was by no means required to shoot with the suggested photographer or any other photographer for that matter. A few days later she contacted me to inform me that things had fallen through with the photographer she had in mind as asked if I could give her more information on my suggested photographer. I then received the following email: [redacted] I again did not protest this. I did not even answer this email as I was out of town. I then received an email 2 weeks later stating the following: "[redacted] Since she contacted me for the photoshoot, it is clear that she was in no way manipulated or forced. I can provide copies of these emails as well, which will denote the date and time of correspondence. Next she states that at her open call she was told "what I would need to purchase in order to be offered a contract". This is a completely false allegation. There are NO fees whatsoever to be represented by our agency. The only thing we require is that the talent have suitable photos for us to submit them with - otherwise we can't submit them to clients and taking them on would be unfair to them as they would not be able to get any work with no photos. [redacted] was told that she would need to obtain photos and we would suggest photographers if need be. Again, she opted to use her own photographer and we said that would be fine and to send us the photos when they were ready. Our contracts are standard non-exclusive freelance agreements. While there would be no need to discuss specifics of this freelance agreement until she had suitable photos she was more then welcome to request a copy or ask any specific questions she may have had prior to having suitable photos ready. She goes on to explain that the photos were "fair or satisfactory" but she was unimpressed. In her initial complaint [redacted] stated that she was very happy with the outcome of the shoot so this new complaint is a contradiction to what she had previously told both our staff and the Revdex.com in the first place. Please see the excerpt from [redacted]'s initial response" Please note, as stated in [redacted]'s claim that she was VERY happy with the outcome of the photos. Someone paying for a service (photoshoot and stylist) which was administered to her satisfaction does not qualify for a refund of said services. [redacted] was not only satisfied by the experience of the shoot itself but was very pleased with the outcome of this service (the final images) which were strong enough to get her requested on a direct booking for a Television Segment (Inside Edition) seeking models to pose in Bridal Dresses. This is considered a big win in our industry. She goes on to complain about the makeup and hair (which wasn't an issue that was ever expressed to us OR in her initial complaint). She states there was no hair stylist on set. This is correct - [redacted], the photographer, also styles the models hair between looks. This is explained to the talent when the shoot is booked. The package [redacted] purchased covers Hair and Makeup Styling however no where is it implied that there would be separate hair and makeup artists. Most photographers have the makeup artist also do the hair. [redacted] happens to be great at it herself and prefers her own styling rather then having the make-up artist do it. Again, this was never addressed in correspondence with our staff or the Revdex.com so it seems pretty clear that [redacted] is trying to throw in additional concerns that are coming across as irrelevant to help support her claims. She had chosen to have a wardrobe stylist present and had been photographed in the clothes the stylist brought. We instructed her that although the stylist would be present she should bring any footwear, undergarments and a pair of jeans that fit her well. She is now claiming that she HAD to bring her own wardrobe for the shoot which is incorrect and can be evidenced by the fact she is shot almost entirely in the stylist's wardrobe. As she states, she is not an editorial model so it is unclear why she expected a more editorial style. The photos on a photographers editorial website will always be slightly different then a shoot being focused toward the commercial and beauty markets. Her photos are beautiful and perfect for what we need them for which was evidenced by the fact she booked a job directly from her portfolio images. Once again, this is a rarity in the industry and would never have happened if she had sub par photos. We always quote that contact sheets (unretouched images) will be ready 3 - 6 weeks from the shoot date. This is perfectly in line with when her photos arrived. Once that happens we need to choose the correct images for marketing before the photographer can begin the retouching phase. As [redacted] stated in her message, "the process of selecting and retouching also took unreasonably long" since her and her [redacted] disagreed on which shots would be best and therefor went back and forth trying to decide on the final images. Many [redacted]s will NOT ask the talent's opinion and will simply choose the most marketable images - but we wanted to take [redacted]'s choices into consideration. If we were going to simply "override" her choices there would be no reason to approach her to help select in the first place. Once those are finally agreed upon the retouching phase begins. This can take a couple weeks as the photographer spends several hours on each photo. This is the amount of time that is always discussed. As far as us not mailing out her disk, she had specifically asked us not to ship it and that she would be picking it up from our office so that is what occured. As far as being forced to purchase comp cards, please see [redacted]'s response below: I did not push the talent to purchase comp cards, nor did I ever claim they would increase her marketability. I told her in an email on 7/15 "Comp cards are important are important to bring to castings. It's something for you to leave behind with your information on it, think if it like a business card". In a meeting she inquired about how to buy them and went as far as to choose the lay out her self contradicting the one I had chose. [redacted] is complaining about the fact that she had been signed for 5 month (it was actually 4 months) without having a single audition and had booked one job. Well, it is important to understand how we work. For modeling opportunities we use our portfolio system to send out packages of our talent which include all of their photos, measurements, tearsheets, video/audio content and resume which acts as the first "casting" so the models are only asked to audition in person IF the [redacted] selects them. While we were actively submitting [redacted] we have no control over which [redacted]s request to meet her in person. Booking a job in the first 5 months of a model's career (keep in mind she wasn't an established model, she was a BRAND NEW beginner model) is a HUGE success. The acting projects are done through two sites that come at no cost to the talent - the "free" acting sites Actors Access and Casting Networks - which [redacted] states she did NOT utilize (I will touch on that later). As [redacted] stated in regards to her concerns over bookings during the first several months: These four months happened to occur during the slowest time of the year for bookings (over the winter holidays). That is an extremely short amount of time to be signed with a model management company and any/all of our other models who have booked work in such a short time period have been thrilled. She goes on to explain that more jobs SHOULD have been available for her because her look is "universally appealing and praised by many industry insiders". [redacted] needs to understand that there are many pretty girls in the world and in this industry specifically. Just because someone has a good look does not automatically mean they will get tons of jobs right away. Most models and actors spend years training and working at their career before they start booking paid work. Dedication to ones career has a lot to do with it and it seems [redacted] has been more dedicated to lodging complaints against us then being proactive in her own career. She has done no training, no test shoots, failed to follow our instructions and failed to check in with us (which is something that we not only suggest verbally but is written into our Talent Manual that the talent must check in periodically). She references the "[redacted]" agency who (I have never heard of but) upon research seems to be ranked at 14,579 on IMDBpro - A site that ranks agencies with 1 being the best in the world. (We are currently ranked at 695 for comparison purposes). And states that he "likes her look". We wouldn't have signed her if we didn't think she was good so of course we think that others will feel the same. This point is completely null. Now she is saying that she is trying to work with other agencies (Like Bella, ranked 2,423 on IMDB Pro) who has told her she needs to shoot again. I would expect another complaint from her in several months on these "new agencies" since it seems like they are also trying to advise her of what materials they need for their purposes. This is a [redacted]'s job! To pretend that she can be submitted without adequate photos would be unfair and unjust. If we are a "scam", "crock", bureaucratic mill of an agency, as stated by [redacted] then it is surprising that we outrank rank the aforementioned "real agencies" by thousands. Any one doing a quick search on various Social Media Sites ([redacted]) or IMDB pro can see that we are not only "real" but have a proven track record of success. We do not require talent to submit themselves for jobs as [redacted] is stating. We have a full time booking staff whose job is to get our talent work (hence how she BOOKED the Inside Edition job). We also allow our talent to remain proactive by letting us know if there are jobs they hear about through other actor friends or see on the free "actors only" site they can access from home that they would like to be considered for. The more serious talent send things in anywhere from periodically to daily so their [redacted]s can double check with the booking staff and make sure that talent has been submitted. This is especially helpful for the lower paid jobs our booking agents do not have time to work on but could be more fitting for someone like [redacted] just trying to break into the industry and has a much higher chance of booking smaller jobs. The reason that [redacted] was seeing "little to no pay" jobs is because the system (Actors Access) which our talent can access from home is the sister site of Breakdown Express which is for agents and [redacted]s only. It lists every casting going on in the country and SOME of those are then posted on Actors Access ONLY if the [redacted] allows the breakdown to be seen by the "general freelance market" of actors available on Actors Access. This is ALWAYS explained to talent when showing them how we work and how we will market them as well as what is expected of them. She is saying that she never used this site, but used other sites (which she will not name) and garnered interested. Why would she not use the FREE site that we "required" her to set up which is the leading source of castings in America and Canada? She is only proving that she was not dedicated to her career or putting in the little bit of effort we expect from our talent in order for them to stay proactive. She also said that "[[redacted]] has no idea what I submit myself to or which castings I attend". Why is this? As her management team we are supposed to be informed of these things. It seems like she wrote us off from the very beginning and decided not to do anything we asked of her or keep in touch with us. Things that can be detrimental to our ability to submit her properly. Perhaps if she had been more proactive there could have been more opportunities - however I still maintain that booking a job in the first 4 months is highly impressive and feel that we did a great job for [redacted] - especially in light of how difficult she has made it for us by blatantly disregarding everything that was asked of her. [redacted]'s message stated: "Upon realizing that [redacted] had not yet set up an important system we could use to get her more opportunities, we contacted her in an effort to walk her through the set up process". [redacted] states that this never happened. She writes: "I was never contacted in any way by the company regarding these matters. I was completely disregarded.." The booker (Rachel) who reached out to [redacted] in this specific instance has forwarded me the correspondence which happened on 1/*/2015 which I will forward to you upon the completion of this message. This will prove that [redacted] was in no way "disregarded" and was actually one of the first people contacted upon the start of the 2015 year to make sure she got set up on another of the systems she admits to NOT using. The online portfolio system I explained previously is ran by a third party company who charges us monthly. We activated her system since there were projects we wanted to submit her on - like the one she BOOKED - although we needed to cover the cost of this system. We did this because we believed in her marketability and thought it was a good business move to get her activated and cover her monthly costs. Had she attended this booked job it would have made it worthwhile for us. Just as a frame of reference this one job would have paid enough to cover her web fees for over 42 months. This cost of this site had been discussed with her. Us taking on the expense of it ourselves had not been discussed with her for two reasons: (1) because we made this decision at the spur of the moment in order to submit her on said job; (2) because if she had attended the job she could have discussed this with other models whose web fees were not covered by us and we wanted to avoid this until we got a chance to sit down with [redacted] and explain in person - which clearly never happened due to her canceling her contract and the onset of this dispute. As [redacted] stated: In summation, [redacted] was never delivered any improper or inferior service. She was pleased with her services and happy with the resulting photos and composite cards. These materials proved to serve their purpose when she was directly booked (without even an audition - meaning she was booked solely off those photos and materials). Lastly, [redacted] herself requested a refund of services however [redacted] did not pay for any of her services. These services including the photoshoot, stylist and comp cards were paid for by her boyfriend so she is not personally entitled to any refund and/or retribution. In her last letter [redacted] states that "the claim [that she herself is ineligible for a refund because she did not pay for the services herself] is completely inane. In my experience, the cardholder is the person who would need to request a refund. However, services here were ALL rendered and products [comp cards] created and delivered. So once again we do not feel she is entitled to any sort of refund and definitely no sort of retribution. If anyone should be entitled to "retribution" it should be our company who PUT OUT the money for her web service; BOOKED her a job where we had to forfeit our commission because of [redacted]'s inability to show up for her first booked job; And took up our staff's time gathering evidence and responding to these ridiculous claims. The payments that she made went directly to the photographer and to the printing press that printed her comp cards. She has paid us NOTHING for representation. I will be following up now with the email from the booking department and have [redacted] respond with additional supporting documents. Please let me know if there is anything else you need. Thank you! [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

My complaint remains unresolved as MMG continuesto merely repeat and negate all points made. I will not address most statementsas they are aforementioned in previous responses but I will call for aninvestigation of said agency. I also suggest looking at consumer-generatedcontent in response to MMG as evidence of experiences similar to my own. MMG isnot an esteemed agency, as is being claimed. I was mismanaged and mislead thusappropriating the claim of improper and inferior service. Theagency representatives are vehemently protesting my complaint stating that I am"contradicting myself" or somehow providing irrelevant information toprove my claim. I never stated being ecstatic with the outcome of the photoshoot. I was never provided with hair styling as is claimed and contractuallyassigned. My hair upon arrival remained literally untouched. There was nostyling during the shoot, beyond the movement provided by an on set automaticfan. I also did not shoot "almost entirely in the stylist's wardrobe."I provided the majority of the items photographed. My photos did not arrive inthe time stated, as I have repeated inordinately. I insisted on retrieving thehard copy out of sheer frustration after over three months of waiting. I wouldnot have elected to had I been treated appropriately and professionally. Iwould also like to know what "training" is being referred to. I can'timagine what "training" a commercial model would need besidesexperience itself, which I was not allowed to obtain due to mismanagement. The "Talent Manual" and contract should be reviewed andassessed for legitimacy relative to industry standards. There is no reason whysigned talent should ever be obligated to submit themselves to castings. It isunheard of and baffling. I understand that images are needed in order to beproperly marketed. I have no objection to this. What I object to isspecifically pushing a photographer, the quality of the photographs, the priceof said photographs and other marketing materials, the time lapse betweenoperations, the way I was marketed and the manner in which I was handledoverall. Theconcept of "remaining proactive" by searching through free websites,filtering through lowbrow positions for oneself is ridiculous. It is anassertion of where MMG stands as an agency and negates the need for talent[redacted]s and booking offices. "This is especially helpful for the lowerpaid jobs our booking agents do not have time to work on but could be morefitting for someone like [redacted] just trying to break into the industry andhas a much higher chance of booking smaller jobs." Does this not indicatethat more experienced talent were given more time and effort in being marketed?After going through the process of signing with this agency, are they notobliged to market me accordingly? They blatantly admit to "not havingtime" to market me appropriately. This is my definition of disregard. As Ihave previously stated, none of this process was revealed to me prior to thephoto shoot. If it had been, I would never have proceeded with MMG. Itwas only after funds had been appropriated and photos rendered did I receivedetails of this operation. Inever used the free sites required because I did not deem the jobs listed thereof caliber. They were lowbrow positions mainly targeted towards acting, theaterand plays. They were not worth my time and the direction of my career thereforeI sought work independently. I do not believe that they are "the leadingsource of castings in America and Canada" but that is open to debate anddependent upon what type of work one is seeking. I was not "dedicated tomy career" in the way MMG requires of its' talent because it is aprimitive operation I do not wish to be a part of. This did not become clear tome until after everything had transpired, meaning the shoot, time lapse andassessment of contract. These are the reasons why I did not keep in contactwith them and ultimately terminated my contract. Thepoint most startling is that MMG claims to have paid for fees out of pocketbecause they "believed in my marketability." This was neverpersonally addressed and is surreptitious of them to never mention until now.It was never even mentioned in casual conversation. I could not attend thebooked job because it coincided with a flight I had planned months prior. Imight also note, I was asked to drop everything and attend this booking merehours before. That is not professional or feasible. The dispute and terminationof contract happened months after said booking. The booking was mid-October,the dispute and termination happened the following January. Was that notsufficient time to be personally addressed of the matter? "... Because ifshe had attended the job she could have discussed this with other models whoseweb fees were not covered by us and we wanted to avoid this until we got achance to sit down with [redacted] and explain in person- which clearly neverhappened due to her canceling her contract and the onset of this dispute."This evidence is non sequitur. Why would they hope I discuss something socentral to their system with other models? Why would they not immediatelyaddress the issue after being unable to attend said booking? They had months toschedule a meeting or inform me personally through any medium. It was nevermentioned until this point. This is another example of what I have referred tothroughout this testimony as disregard. Imaintain that I am seeking retribution in the amount of $2,400.00 total. Ifthey need the cardholder to personally request a refund, it will be done. Ifully maintain my claim of improper and inferior service rendered by the agencyMMG.