Advice I give brides...

[*Mike*]

I started a similar thread over on Flickr... thought I'd see what kind of take I get on it over here.

Pretty regularly I'll get brides coming to me without the budget to book us. So, I'll refer them out as best I can, answer any questions that they have on finding/booking someone else, etc.

One of the things that I'll tell them is that 90% of the time it's not worth hiring someone if you're going to pay less than $1,000 for full wedding coverage. Odds are you're not getting someone fully capable and you may be better off relying on friends and family. Obviously there are exceptions - talented students, great retirees, rare "up and comers," etc. But, at that price mark the odds of getting someone good are pretty darn low. Basically, you're hoping for some luck in finding a diamond in the rough...

So, give me feedback. Do you think most brides could spend $500 and get a good photographer? Am I doing a disservice to brides? Am I helping them not make a silly mistake? Am I hurting the newbies that are trying to start out with low prices? Am I helping newbies by allowing them to charge more? Whatcha think?

My thing is, I hate to see a couple that's obviously on a tight budget think that they're going to get a good photographer for bottom dollar. Yeah, there are exceptions - just like there are expensive photogs that aren't any good... But, the shallow end of the pool is sooo full of clueless people that I'd worry about it.

Also, out of curiosity, would you want someone in your market telling brides that they probably aren't going to get a good photog for under $1000? Would you set the mark higher or lower?

(Just FYI, I swear I'm not trying to talk anyone up into booking us - these are couples that are in no way going to book with us.)

[SaundraU]

First off I'm glad your not in my market and second I think your wrong and that some of it depends on the market, location, whats included, etc.

While I agree that you do get what you pay for I truly think when it comes to photography you have to look at the product of the photog as well as what comes with the price.

Yes I think you can get a good and/or great photog for 500.00. Personally I think you should be directing them to look at the packages and product of other photogs in the brides price range, looking for something that speaks to them and that they like.

Yes you certainly could be doing other photogs a disservice and yes in some cases you could be saving a bride some heartache.

But then again how many times have you taken photos and the client chooses the ones that you don't think are the best of the bunch but they are truly thrilled with them. That is why the bride needs to look at the photos and products and then price within the range they can afford.

Personally I don't set my prices off of other photogs anymore.

[HeatherLou]

Mike, from what your describing, its sounds like an unintentional hard sell tactic. I think better advice, instead of telling Brides to stay away from photogs that are under 1000$ is to put a system in place that refers bride to other photogs in your area, that would be in there price range. Be it the talented student, hobbiest or up and comer, that way, your not doing a diservice to other photogs, and your helping the Bride that cant afford you.

[*Mike*]

Thanks for the conversation guys! I guess my observation is that at the inexpensive end of things there is a much higher percentage of under-equipped, under-qualified, shooters than at a more reasonable price point. Of course exceptions exist across the spectrum, it just seems that at the low end of things you're more likely to hire someone who is no more talented than your hobbyist uncle. If you're pinching pennies, that seems like a good size gamble to me.

I have a number of photogs that I'll refer that are in $1,000-$2,000 range. I've even referred people to former interns that I have confidence in. But below that...

My experience is that when someone (again, my experience and market) is undercharging they're either new and inexperienced, provide quick and dirty work, or just have low self-esteem. :o) I figure if you can find someone that falls into the third category you're golden! But, the first two? Eh. High risk for someone with little money... I really think that a lot of the time the family "photographer" is about equally qualified.

So, would it be fairer to say, " If you can spend a little more, I know of some great people I can recommend in the $1k - $2k range. Under that, you've got to be really careful. My experience has been that it's a roll of the dice at that point."

[*Mike*]

Afterthought. Maybe having a number involved is a sticking point since markets vary...

Is there any price point, say $xxx where you'd tell someone that they really need to be on their toes and it's probably not a good idea? For example, "I found an incredible dentist - he charges $15 a filling..." but it turns out he works out of a van.

[SaundraU]

Originally Posted by *Mike*

Thanks for the conversation guys! I guess my observation is that at the inexpensive end of things there is a much higher percentage of under-equipped, under-qualified, shooters than at a more reasonable price point. Of course exceptions exist across the spectrum, it just seems that at the low end of things you're more likely to hire someone who is no more talented than your hobbyist uncle. If you're pinching pennies, that seems like a good size gamble to me.

I have a number of photogs that I'll refer that are in $1,000-$2,000 range. I've even referred people to former interns that I have confidence in. But below that...

My experience is that when someone (again, my experience and market) is undercharging they're either new and inexperienced, provide quick and dirty work, or just have low self-esteem. :o) I figure if you can find someone that falls into the third category you're golden! But, the first two? Eh. High risk for someone with little money... I really think that a lot of the time the family "photographer" is about equally qualified.

So, would it be fairer to say, " If you can spend a little more, I know of some great people I can recommend in the $1k - $2k range. Under that, you've got to be really careful. My experience has been that it's a roll of the dice at that point."

I guess my problem with this is that it is YOUR experience, YOUR opinion, etc. Not saying that it is right or wrong but you aren't really giving the potential client time and/or opportunity to look and decide for themselves.

it would be a little fairer to say that but again I would advise the client on what type of things to look for when looking - both pitfalls and good things and then let them look and decide.

No there isn't - for me I look at the work and this is across the board for all types of photography. I just had some portraits done for my website and business needs, I looked at the work of the photogs I was interested in, looked for what I wanted in the photo, etc then and only then did I look at price. BTW the one I chose was the cheaper of the two. Both photogs are well respected in my area, do excellent work, but one spoke to me more on a personal level for what I needed and wanted.

[lscottpht]

You'd be surprised who is out there that will work for $1000 or less. I know a couple of guys just starting out that will do it for that. One of them is a staff photog for a major newspaper here. They will go out of their way, including photobooths and slideshows at the wedding. Their images rock! I, also, will get someone that would really love to hire me, but just can't afford my prices. Every now and then, I will help someone out that I feel is deserving and that I just want to get her some great images, even though she can't afford me. I just did that for someone today...really sweet college student who looked beautiful, and I felt honored helping her out. It's kinda like the lawyer doing pro bono work every now and then. I try to give back where I can. Now, I don't do it very often, but every once in awhile, someone comes along that I really want to help. So, granted this is only two examples, but I'm sure there are a number of great photogs just getting started in their own biz that will do an awesome job. I have a list of people like that, since I usually refer the $1000 and under price range out.

[brad]

Originally Posted by *Mike*

Of course exceptions exist across the spectrum, it just seems that at the low end of things you're more likely to hire someone who is no more talented than your hobbyist uncle.

This is the part that is REALLY insulting... to say that at $1000 or less, you might as well go with free.... as if the odds of getting Uncle Free to do good work is better than getting good work out of someone that may be just starting out.

I think you would do them a BETTER service by telling them how to identify one of those talented sub-grand photographers (including Uncle Free).. how to look at the photos they do have (and how they should have SOMETHING to show, even if its not a wedding) and increase their chances of succeeding.

As Heather says, it sounds like an unintentional hard sell to me. And hard sell turns my stomach.

[robert guillemette]

I try to help those that can not in honest truth afford alot. I get a lot of personal satisfaction offering my service knowing the B&G will have photographs of their day and I could help. My lowest price is $500 but in no way do I short them. I may be looked down upon by others for the way I work and so be it but I know the B&G have something they may never have had.

[Bella]

Mike, I think part of it depends too on what you're getting for that $500. Just the photogs time, and a memory card at the end of the day? Then it's possible you'd get some good photos off the memory card. $500 for a full package like your studio offers? Then no, I don't think a bride is very likely to get quality. . . I suppose I'm thinking for this discussion to work, you need to compare apples and apples, not apples to oranges.

-Cindy

[*Mike*]

Huh. I'm kinda surprised... I was cross posting this on different forums to see how different crowds would respond. The threads that were heavier on newbies came down much more on the side that, "yeah, I guess that typically you get what you pay for." And this group of more professional photogs came down on the side that price is irrelevant - hire anyone if they can show some nice stuff.

As for the "hard sell" - these would be brides that are too far out of our bracket for it to work. Not at all relevant to sales. In fact, I do refer quite a few to lower cost photogs. There are a number of photogs that I'll refer that are in $1,000-$2,000 range. I've even referred people to former interns that I have confidence in. But below that...

It is much more a case of watching out for uneducated consumers... I would think it's good faith education - for the bride, and in their best interest, as well as building good will.

I would think of it the same way I just told someone that Best Price Camera's $490 Canon 40d is probably to good to be true. Now, if they really want one, then there are places to get a good deal that may stretch them a little. So, now they can make an educated decision - risk someone a little sketchy, redistribute their budget a bit, or go for something more within their means. I'm not trying to artificially create expectations for a bride just to inflate the market... I would be worried about them throwing away money on the $450 wedding coverage from craigslist. (Can you say Polaroid?) :o)

[bondarnes]

I actually have two wedding coverages that are under $1000.00. They get me for only one or two hours and there is not much print credits in those, but my income per hour is higher on those than on a six hour package. In one or two hours I can get all the money shots and be home burning DVDs and sipping a Merlot while you are setting up to do the reception. But then I may be just another Newbie.

[*Mike*]

I guess I should clarify that I'm talking about those that expect full coverage, often with hi-res files... So, more along the lines that Cindy was trying to help clarify. :o)

Surely you guys have people with these, ummm, unrealistic expectations calling occasionally.

Although, Don's idea does have me thinking maybe I should be packing my weekends a little tighter. :o)

[*Mike*]

Okay, in case anyone is curious, here's the Flickr thread I started: Flickr

Unfortunately you may need to be a member to view the thread... Just thought it was kinda funny. A lot of the people that responded over there are the ones charging <$1,000 and they agreed that it's a rarity to find someone good at that price point. Here's what one of them said: "you don't want to seem like a pompous ass and have astronomical pricing that suggest you can deliver consistant end results that will justify those prices...." I took that to mean she was admitting that she couldn't guarantee results so she wouldn't charge as much. Seems to be the common sentiment among those charging low rates for high coverage, among those that I've been talking to...

[HotHolly]

Hmmm...Anyone feeling a little bipolar tonight? What's up with that?

When someone comes onto here looking for inexpensive wedding coverage, they get flamed.

When someone says they'd consider taking less (or no money) for experience shooting a wedding, they get flamed.

And here's the other side of that coin - and flame-o to that idea too. You can't have your pie and eat it too!

So, to clear things up, no one thinks there is a benchmark that generally (yes - generally, not exclusively) that might tip a hand as to whether or not someone is a novice or a seasoned pro? Did we abandon the, 'ya get what you pay for' mentality? Or do we just toasty in here tonight? I'm thinking its toasty...