Response to My 'Models.com's Top 50 List' Post
On Saturday I asked: How Accurate Is Models.com's Top 50 List?
I got a few responses (thank you), with this by Billy that sums it up well:
Models.com is not an objective source of information. Personal agendas are set by certain individuals and the website itself acts more like a soap box for these agendas then a news source. Add in the fact that agencies are charged a fee for their information to be posted on models.com and it becomes more obvious that the information given is nothing more than paid adverts and favours for "friends".
What other Top 50 list actually contains 71 models? The wild swings either up or down the list are absurd. A model can enter the list at number 20 and two months later completely disappear from the ranking. If they assigned an objective ranking system you would not see such extreme fluctuations.
I am waiting for an actual informative, strictly objective news source to take the lead in model and fashion websites and finally put models.com in it's proper forum; an opinionated column site with little actual relevant content.
I want to be clear that I have great respect for what models.com does. They work hard to bring forth quality content, new faces, interviews, and work with creatives on editorials and such. I appreciate them for that. And I think they're a solid source to have around. But I do also agree with Billy that they are not the strictly objective source in modeling. And that there is no such source at the moment. Maybe there is no need for one, even. Maybe it's impossible to put together. Maybe the mafia needs to get involved. I don't know.
The modeling world, from what i'm gathering, as an outsider, is wide and deep, with many opinions, egos, and special interests. So to have an Oscar/Grammy like award for it might be harder to implement than we think. Or not. At the moment there isn't one; and i'll be curious to hear your thought as to why.
As a side note, Models.com is a good example of the internet's affect on perception. What seems to work great for them is that 1) they have a great domain name; 2) They have the traffic; 3) they have a continuous stream of content flowing through; and 4) they have a group of employees who get along with the industry at large. But they do have bills to pay, so the idea of them taking such money is not a surprise to me at all.
Let's just not be silly to put so much weight in these top 10/50/100 lists. These lists are good at selling headlines, but that's all they are good at, the remainder of them is extremely subjective. The only time i'll buy into them is if it's in regards to money: such model makes this amount in a year. Even though that's a guess, it's at least an educated guess. Other than that, top 10 lists are plain old fluff wearing a Prada.