logo
Inside The AI-Powered Modeling Agency Boom — And What Comes Next

Inside The AI-Powered Modeling Agency Boom — And What Comes Next

Forbes2 days ago

The AI boom has been defined by unprecedented innovation across nearly every sector. From improving flight punctuality through AI-powered scheduling to detecting early markers of Alzheimer's disease, AI is modifying how we live and work. And the advertising world isn't left out.
In March of this year, OpenAI's GPT-4o sent the internet into a frenzy with its ability to generate Studio Ghibli-style images. The model produces realistic, emotionally nuanced visuals from a series of prompts — a feat that has led some to predict the demise of visual arts as we know them. While such conclusions may be premature, there's growing belief among industry players that AI could transform how digital model agencies operate.
That belief isn't limited to one startup. A new class of AI-powered agencies — including FanPro, Lalaland.ai, Deep Agency and The Diigitals — is testing whether modeling can be automated without losing its creative edge. Some use AI to generate lifelike avatars. Others offer virtual photo studios, CRM — customer relationship management — integrations, or creator monetization tools. Together, they reflect a big shift in how digital modeling agencies think about labor, revenue and scale.
FanPro — founded by Tyron Humphris in 2023 to help digital model agencies scale efficiently — offers a striking case study. Fully self-funded, Humphris said in an interview that the company reached $1 million in revenue within its first 90 days and crossed eight figures by 2024, all while maintaining a lean team by automating nearly every process.
As Humphris noted, 'the companies that will lead this next decade won't just be the ones with the best marketing or biggest budgets. They'll be the ones who use AI, automation and systems thinking to scale with precision, all while staying lean and agile.'
That explains the big bet that startups like FanPro are making — but how far can it really go? And why should digital model agencies care in the first place?
To understand how automation works in the digital modeling industry — a fast-rising corner of the creator economy — it helps to understand what it's replacing. A typical digital model agency juggles five or more monetization platforms per creator — from OnlyFans and Fansly to TikTok and Instagram. But behind every viral post is a grind of scheduling, analytics, upselling, customer support and retention. The average agency may need 10 to 15 contractors to manage a roster of just a few high-performing creators.
These agencies oversee a complex cycle: content creation, onboarding, audience engagement and sales funnel optimization, usually across several monetization platforms. According to Humphris, there's often a misconception that running a digital model agency is just about posting pretty pictures. But in reality, he noted, it's more. 'It's CRM, data science and psychology all wrapped in one. If AI can streamline even half of that, it's a game-changer.'
That claim reflects a growing pain point in the creator economy, where agencies swim in an ocean of tools in an attempt to monetize attention for creators while simultaneously managing marketing, sales and customer support. For context, a 2024 Clevertouch Consulting study revealed that 54% of marketers use more than 50 tools to manage operations — many stitched together with Zapier or manual workarounds.
Tyron Humphris, founder of FanPro
FanPro
But, according to Humphris, 'no matter how strong your offer is, if you don't have systems, processes and accountability built into the business, it's going to collapse under pressure.'
And that's where AI steps in. Beyond handling routine tasks, large language models and automation stacks now allow agencies to scale operations while staying lean. With minimal human input, agencies can schedule posts, auto-respond to DMs, upsell subscriptions, track social analytics and manage retention flows. What once required a full team of marketers, virtual assistants and sales reps can now be executed by a few well-trained AI agents.
FanPro claims that over 90% of its operations — from dynamic pricing to fan interactions — are now handled by automation. Likewise, Deep Agency allows creators to generate professional-grade photo shoots without booking a studio or hiring staff and Lalaland.ai helps fashion brands generate AI avatars to reduce production costs and increase diversity in representation.
Still, not everyone is convinced that AI can capture the nuance of digital intimacy. Some experts have raised concerns that hyper automation in creator-driven industries could flatten human expression into predictable engagement patterns, risking long-term user loyalty.
A 2024 ContentGrip study of 1,000 consumers found 80% of respondents would likely switch brands that rely heavily on AI-generated emails, citing a loss of authenticity. Nearly half said such messages made them feel 'less connected' to the brand.
Humphris doesn't disagree.
'AI can do a lot, but it needs to be paired with someone who understands psychology,' he said. 'We didn't scale because we had the best tech. We scaled because we understood human behavior and built systems that respected it.'
Humphris' sentiment isn't a mere anecdote but one rooted in research. For example, a recent study by Northeastern University showed that AI influencers often reduce brand trust — especially when users aren't aware the content is AI-generated. The implication is clear: over-automating the wrong parts of human interaction can backfire.
Automation doesn't — and shouldn't — mean that human input becomes obsolete. Rather, as many industry experts have noted, it will enhance efficiency but not replace empathy. While AI can process data at speed and generate alluring visuals, it cannot replicate human creativity or emotional intelligence. Neither does AI know the psychology of human behavior like humans do, a trait Humphris credits for their almost-instant success.
Lalaland.ai and The Diigitals have earned praise for enhancing inclusivity, enabling brands to feature underrepresented body types, skin tones and styles. Meanwhile, FanPro focuses on building AI 'growth engines' for agencies — full-stack systems that combine monetization tools, CRM and content flows.
But not all reactions have been positive.
In November 2024, fashion brand Mango faced backlash for its use of AI-generated models, which critics called 'false advertising' and 'a threat to real jobs.' The New York Post covered the fallout in detail, highlighting how ethical lines are still being drawn.
As brands look to balance cost savings with authenticity, some have begun labeling AI-generated content more clearly — or embedding human oversight into workflows, rather than removing it.
Despite offering an automation stack, FanPro itself wasn't an immediate adopter of automation in its processes. But, as Humphris noted, embracing AI made all the difference for the company. 'If we had adopted AI and automation earlier, we would've hit 8 figures much faster and with far less stress,' he noted.
FanPro is a great example of how AI integration, when done the right way, could be a profitable venture for digital model agencies.
Whether or not the company's model becomes the blueprint for AI-first digital agencies, it's clear that there's a big shift in the creator economy, where automation isn't only viewed as a time-saver, but also as a foundational pillar for businesses.
As digital model agencies lean further into an AI-centric future, the bigger task is remembering what not to automate — the spark of human connection that built the industry in the first place.
'In this new era of automation,' Humphris said, 'the smartest agencies won't just ask what AI can do. They'll ask what it shouldn't.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Stocks Hit Highest Since February on Jobs Surprise
Stocks Hit Highest Since February on Jobs Surprise

Bloomberg

time33 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Stocks Hit Highest Since February on Jobs Surprise

Bloomberg Television brings you the latest news and analysis leading up to the final minutes and seconds before and after the closing bell on Wall Street. Today's guests are Bloomberg Television brings you the latest news and analysis leading up to the final minutes and seconds before and after the closing bell on Wall Street. Today's guests are Katie Nixon, Northern Trust, Betsey Stevenson, University of Michigan, Dan Dolev, Mizuho, Rashad Bilal & Troy Millings, Earn Your Leisure, Matthew Griffin, Bloomberg News, Barry Bannister, Stifel, Jess Menton, Bloomberg News, Ed Ludlow, Bloomberg News, Stacy Rasgon, Bernstein Research, Frances Katzen, Douglas Elliman, Brett Winton, Ark Invest, Tony Zaccario, Stretch Zone, Nicole Camarre, 43North. (Source: Bloomberg)

Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes
Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes

New York Times

time42 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes

By Ralph D. Russo, Stewart Mandel and Justin Williams A federal judge Friday granted final approval of the House v. NCAA settlement, a watershed agreement in college sports that permits schools to directly pay college athletes for the first time. The settlement, which resolves a trio of antitrust cases against the NCAA and its most powerful conferences, establishes a new 10-year revenue sharing model in college sports, with athletic departments able to distribute roughly $20.5 million in name, image and likeness (NIL) revenue to athletes over the 2025-26 season. Previously, athletes could earn NIL compensation only with outside parties, including school-affiliated donor collectives that have become instrumental in teams' recruiting. Advertisement The NCAA and the power conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC), as defendants in the settlement, also agree to pay nearly $2.8 billion in damages to Division I athletes who were not allowed to sign NIL deals, dating back to 2016. The damages will be paid out over 10 years, with most of the money expected to go to former power-conference football and men's basketball players. Universities can begin directly sharing revenue with college athletes starting July 1. Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California, who previously ruled against the NCAA in the O'Bannon and Alston cases, granted approval roughly a year after parties agreed to settlement terms and nearly two months after a final approval hearing on April 7, where Wilken heard testimony from more than a dozen objectors. Lawyers for both the plaintiffs and defendants noted that the number of objections and opt-outs in the settlement represent a tiny fraction of the nearly 400,000 athletes in the certified class. However, some of those objectors delayed approval, largely citing the settlement's new roster limits. These limits, which replace sport-by-sport scholarship limits, cap the maximum roster size per team while allowing for every roster spot to receive a scholarship. Schools can offer scholarship funds — partial or full — as they see fit, which creates more potential opportunities. But as schools preemptively prepared to comply with those new limits, they removed roster spots for thousands of walk-ons, particularly in football, and partial scholarship athletes in non-revenue sports. In late April, Wilken offered an ultimatum, instructing the settlement parties to revise the terms in a way that mitigated any lost roster spots as a result of schools preparing for the new roster limits, or she would deny the whole agreement. Settlement lawyers responded with an amendment that allows for voluntary 'grandfathering' of any athletes who lost roster spots as a result of the roster limits, a status that will follow those athletes through the remainder of their eligibility, whether they return to their original school or transfer elsewhere. Advertisement The initial House v. NCAA case — brought by plaintiffs Grant House, a former Arizona State swimmer, and Sedona Prince, then an Oregon women's basketball player — was filed in June 2020. It challenged NCAA policy at the time that prohibited athletes from being compensated for the commercial use of their NIL rights or from sharing in the revenue generated from NCAA and conference television contracts. The case was later consolidated with two similar suits, Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA. The cases had not gone to trial. The NCAA and Power 5 conferences, fearful a verdict might result in much higher damages, agreed to a settlement in May 2024. Wilken granted preliminary approval in October 2024. The NCAA's traditional amateurism model, in which athletes could not receive any compensation beyond a scholarship, began to crumble in 2014 when Wilken ruled against the NCAA in a suit brought by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon, who objected to his image being used in an EA Sports video game without his permission. Wilken ruled for the plaintiffs, but after an appeals court struck part of her decision, the only tangible effect was that schools began offering cost-of-attendance stipends. The next major case, Alston v. NCAA, made it to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled 9-0 against the NCAA. Often mischaracterized as a case about NIL, Alston's main impact was that it allowed schools to provide athletes $5,980 a year in academic expenses. However, the lopsided decision left the NCAA vulnerable to additional legal challenges regarding rules that limited compensation, and it was delivered on June 21, 2021, nine days before numerous state laws allowing NIL payments were set to go into effect. The NCAA quickly scrapped most of its intended restrictions on NIL. In the years since, many athletes have entered into deals with local companies and struck lucrative endorsement deals with national brands like Gatorade and New Balance, as intended. But a far more common practice involves boosters using purported NIL deals to lure recruits or players from the transfer portal to their favorite school. The NCAA's enforcement division initially sought to punish schools that used NIL as a form of 'pay for play' or recruiting inducement, but when the University of Tennessee came under fire in early 2024, the state's attorney general sued, and a judge issued an injunction prohibiting the NCAA from enforcing those rules. Advertisement The amount of money being spent in the NIL arena has skyrocketed since 2021. Last year, Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork said the Buckeyes football team — which later won the national championship — was earning $20 million in NIL. CBS Sports recently reported that a number of men's basketball rosters have already topped $10 million for next season. To this point, collectives supporting specific schools have ruled the market, but administrators are hoping the House settlement will curtail that influence. In addition to schools being allowed to make NIL deals themselves, the new model also requires all outside NIL deals of more than $600 to go through a clearinghouse that will determine whether the payments are for a valid business purpose and reflect fair market value. Meanwhile, the settlement establishes an enforcement arm that will penalize schools that go over the $20.5 million cap. All of this will be overseen by the newly established regulatory body, called the College Sports Commission, which is in the process of shifting considerable oversight and control of college sports away from the NCAA and to the power conferences. The NCAA's Division I Board of Directors recently approved a series of proposals, pending settlement approval, that will strike 153 rules from the association's handbook and clear the way for the settlement terms to be implemented. The settlement represents a significant shift in college sports, but it will not mark the end of the NCAA's legal challenges. Among numerous ongoing cases, Johnson v. NCAA was filed in 2019 in Pennsylvania and seeks to have athletes classified as employees who are entitled to minimum wage compensation. The NCAA's efforts to dismiss the case have thus far been denied. Revenue sharing and third-party NIL constraints could also invite additional lawsuits on the basis of Title IX, antitrust violations and conflicts with state laws. NCAA and power conference stakeholders continue to pursue antitrust exemptions in the form of Congressional intervention, in hopes of codifying the settlement and its effectiveness moving forward. President Donald Trump has explored a new commission focused on the issues facing college sports, led by former Alabama head coach Nick Saban and billionaire Texas Tech board chair Cody Campbell, though it is paused as members of Congress pursue legislation.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store