Cheap wedding photographers??

[thebeginning]

Is it just me, or does it seem that there are a huge amount of cheap wedding photographers these days?

I'm not talking about weekend warriors and amateurs, I'm talking about people that are very talented that have shot a good number of weddings.

It seems like now that photographers are including high-res DVD's in their packages, they're giving them away for free instead of bumping up package prices to include that product. Does everyone realize how much revenue they're giving up?


I recently saw a full package - 8 hours of photography, wedding album, engagement session, bridal session, and high-res DVD's for $2000 - from a pretty darn good photographer.

I literally don't see how that is commercially feasible, unless that studio shoots 200 weddings a year with two people, or it's 'just for fun'.

It has widely been told and accepted that wedding photography should allot for 10% to even 25% of overall budget for a wedding. Given the market average of 20,000 per wedding in Texas, that means that an average wedding photographer should charge somewhere around $3,200 for an average package.

Seriously, people. Double your prices. Go to a motivational workshop for wedding photogs if you have to, but this will keep getting worse if we don't do something about it.

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by thebeginning

Is it just me, or does it seem that there are a huge amount of cheap wedding photographers these days?

I'm not talking about weekend warriors and amateurs, I'm talking about people that are very talented that have shot a good number of weddings.

It seems like now that photographers are including high-res DVD's in their packages, they're giving them away for free instead of bumping up package prices to include that product. Does everyone realize how much revenue they're giving up?


I recently saw a full package - 8 hours of photography, wedding album, engagement session, bridal session, and high-res DVD's for $2000 - from a pretty darn good photographer.

I literally don't see how that is commercially feasible, unless that studio shoots 200 weddings a year with two people, or it's 'just for fun'.

It has widely been told and accepted that wedding photography should allot for 10% to even 25% of overall budget for a wedding. Given the market average of 20,000 per wedding in Texas, that means that an average wedding photographer should charge somewhere around $3,200 for an average package.

Seriously, people. Double your prices. Go to a motivational workshop for wedding photogs if you have to, but this will keep getting worse if we don't do something about it.

Fine in concept.
But
Times they are a changing.
People are very aware of each dollar they spend for their wedding. Very few unlimited budgets any more. Those are a no brainer. Pay big bucks and you get a great photographer and all the bells and whistles.
Not as many of these kinds of weddings as there were in the Enron days.
Brides want the great photographer but don't want all the bells and whistles.
Brides want their images on digital media. Many brides don't want a picture album. They want it on their 72inch High Def. TV. We shoot in digital so how hard could it be? That's the concept I've heard. And, they are right. Why pay us a good markup for something they don't want?
For $2500 I can shoot a bridal, a four hour wedding, part of a reception, produce the images, cut them to a DVD (basic) and make a hell of a lot more profit than sitting home waiting for the phone to ring with that big buck wedding job.

[thebeginning]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

Fine in concept.
But
Times they are a changing.
People are very aware of each dollar they spend for their wedding. Very few unlimited budgets any more. Those are a no brainer. Pay big bucks and you get a great photographer and all the bells and whistles.
Not as many of these kinds of weddings as there were in the Enron days.
Brides want the great photographer but don't want all the bells and whistles.
Brides want their images on digital media. Many brides don't want a picture album. They want it on their 72inch High Def. TV. We shoot in digital so how hard could it be? That's the concept I've heard. And, they are right. Why pay us a good markup for something they don't want?
For $2500 I can shoot a bridal, a four hour wedding, part of a reception, produce the images, cut them to a DVD (basic) and make a hell of a lot more profit than sitting home waiting for the phone to ring with that big buck wedding job.

Oh I don't disagree with that. My problem is more with photographers selling all-inclusive packages for an entry-level price. The brides I have dealt with in the past few years are a little more conservative with their spending, but they also find photography to be one of the (if not THE) most important aspects of their wedding, and they're willing to pay.

From studying the market and from my personal experience with brides, I have discovered that the average bride is actually willing to spend around $3200 for an average package. They often acknowledge that they have a strict budget when asking for packages under $2500, but are still mentioning budgets as high as $5,000. For instance - when I've had brides admit that they had a small budget or really limited funds for photography, more often than not their budget was ~2,000. That's the average window - not $1200 to $2000, but $2000 (budget) to $4000 (when price is still a factor). I think alot of photographers are losing faith in their work and their ability to sell a high quality product.

Discerning brides WILL pay what they think their photography is worth. For a budget bride, she'll try to get as good of a photographer as she can possibly get (often by sacrificing hours or fancy products). For a mid-range bride ($2000-4000), she'll try to get a package that fits her and her budget with a great photographer. For a high-end bride ($4000-7000), she will try to get the most modern products and top quality work. For the top-tier bride (who pay upwards of $30,000 for wedding photography), they want unique style, a designer product line, and to feel like they are dealing with a world-class artist.


I guess my problem is that I'm driving for just that^ - discerning brides. More and more photographers are marketing on price alone, ruining the middle of the market.

[Anthony Martinez]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

Fine in concept.
But
Times they are a changing.
People are very aware of each dollar they spend for their wedding. Very few unlimited budgets any more. Those are a no brainer. Pay big bucks and you get a great photographer and all the bells and whistles.
Not as many of these kinds of weddings as there were in the Enron days.
Brides want the great photographer but don't want all the bells and whistles.
Brides want their images on digital media. Many brides don't want a picture album. They want it on their 72inch High Def. TV. We shoot in digital so how hard could it be? That's the concept I've heard. And, they are right. Why pay us a good markup for something they don't want?
For $2500 I can shoot a bridal, a four hour wedding, part of a reception, produce the images, cut them to a DVD (basic) and make a hell of a lot more profit than sitting home waiting for the phone to ring with that big buck wedding job.

Quoted For Truth.

[Anthony Martinez]

Originally Posted by thebeginning

Oh I don't disagree with that. My problem is more with photographers selling all-inclusive packages for an entry-level price. The brides I have dealt with in the past few years are a little more conservative with their spending, but they also find photography to be one of the (if not THE) most important aspects of their wedding, and they're willing to pay.

From studying the market and from my personal experience with brides, I have discovered that the average bride is actually willing to spend around $3200 for an average package. They often acknowledge that they have a strict budget when asking for packages under $2500, but are still mentioning budgets as high as $5,000. For instance - when I've had brides admit that they had a small budget or really limited funds for photography, more often than not their budget was ~2,000. That's the average window - not $1200 to $2000, but $2000 (budget) to $4000 (when price is still a factor). I think alot of photographers are losing faith in their work and their ability to sell a high quality product.

Discerning brides WILL pay what they think their photography is worth. For a budget bride, she'll try to get as good of a photographer as she can possibly get (often by sacrificing hours or fancy products). For a mid-range bride ($2000-4000), she'll try to get a package that fits her and her budget with a great photographer. For a high-end bride ($4000-7000), she will try to get the most modern products and top quality work. For the top-tier bride (who pay upwards of $30,000 for wedding photography), they want unique style, a designer product line, and to feel like they are dealing with a world-class artist.


I guess my problem is that I'm driving for just that^ - discerning brides. More and more photographers are marketing on price alone, ruining the middle of the market.

First, I don't want to come off as some hyper experienced wedding photographer. My experience, and that of other friends who have done this far longer than I've even cared about photography, has shown that the average couples aren't able to spend more than $2500 on a package no matter what is included. If your client base is highly affluent the sky is the limit, but the majority seem not to be willing (or able) to pay that much.

Part of this, I think, goes back to the sheer number of photographers running around with quality equipment just for fun. I am talking about the people shooting simply because they can, and doing quite well in the process. The people who really could not care at all about the business side of photography. Chances are, this day in age, every single bride on Earth knows at least three such people. I've even heard recently-married friends mention such individuals as a safety net in case they just can't find a photographer to hire, or the one they do hire fails to deliver. "At least <insert friend who takes good photos here> will be there, I'm sure <he|she> will at least get some good shots."

Knowing, with some reasonable level of certainty, that it's nearly inconceivable your wedding pass without someone capturing moments you care to remember with good resolution and clarity probably does more to choke earning potential than photographers offering low-cost services. All of that said, I'm only an expert in one kind of shooting and I left that profession a few years ago. Apply grains of salt as needed!

[HotHolly]

Originally Posted by thebeginning

Seriously, people. Double your prices. Go to a motivational workshop for wedding photogs if you have to, but this will keep getting worse if we don't do something about it.

you go boy! totally agree!!!

[thebeginning]

Originally Posted by Anthony Martinez

First, I don't want to come off as some hyper experienced wedding photographer. My experience, and that of other friends who have done this far longer than I've even cared about photography, has shown that the average couples aren't able to spend more than $2500 on a package no matter what is included. If your client base is highly affluent the sky is the limit, but the majority seem not to be willing (or able) to pay that much.

Part of this, I think, goes back to the sheer number of photographers running around with quality equipment just for fun. I am talking about the people shooting simply because they can, and doing quite well in the process. The people who really could not care at all about the business side of photography. Chances are, this day in age, every single bride on Earth knows at least three such people. I've even heard recently-married friends mention such individuals as a safety net in case they just can't find a photographer to hire, or the one they do hire fails to deliver. "At least <insert friend who takes good photos here> will be there, I'm sure <he|she> will at least get some good shots."

Knowing, with some reasonable level of certainty, that it's nearly inconceivable your wedding pass without someone capturing moments you care to remember with good resolution and clarity probably does more to choke earning potential than photographers offering low-cost services. All of that said, I'm only an expert in one kind of shooting and I left that profession a few years ago. Apply grains of salt as needed!

Quite well put. But again, I think many of us are operating more from a 'woe is me, I guess I'll have to charge less' mentality rather than a 'my product is superior, and my art is worth $3000+...let me show you' philosophy. Unfortunately I think alot of good photographers are poor salespeople. If we can't create and show that our product is worth X, then we certainly can't begin to succesfully charge at that point.

The wedding and portrait photography industries are not exceptions to economics and marketing. There are loads of what I consider to be mid-high and high end portrait studios (selling 8x10's for $150, typical packages for $1500+), but a shrinking number of wedding photographers that can pull that off. That's partially due to the barriers of entry in a portrait studio business, but also due to the fact that wedding photographers just feel they can't do it. You have to realize that the 'uncle freds' and talented amateurs are only threats on the low end. Once you market for quality and a boutique experience, that competition is largely obliterated.

[HotHolly]

Originally Posted by thebeginning

You have to realize that the 'uncle freds' and talented amateurs are only threats on the low end. Once you market for quality and a boutique experience, that competition is largely obliterated.

I agree with you that most people undervalue their work. 100%.

I dont agree that the General Public can tell a difference b/t a high end photog and an uncle fred (gwc). I also own a bridal shop and hear brides telling me they are looking at XYZ photography or their roommate. What? Seriously? I tell them XYZ is friggin awesome with a great rep, and are good people that have shot 100s of weddings. Then I ask how many wedding their friend has shot - NONE, BUT SHE TAKES GOOD PICTURES. And this is normal.

Our wedding photography starts at $6K, so you are preaching to the choir on the price note, but as for people knowing/ seeing the difference - most cant see unless they have a side by side comparison, and then it still takes some hand holding.

The PPA is launching an ad campaign trying to address this issue. Im hoping they do an awesome job. That is exactly what they are trying to do - unseat the uncle bobs and weekend warriors and literally SHOW what a real photog can do.

[thebeginning]

Originally Posted by HotHolly

I agree with you that most people undervalue their work. 100%.

I dont agree that the General Public can tell a difference b/t a high end photog and an uncle fred (gwc). I also own a bridal shop and hear brides telling me they are looking at XYZ photography or their roommate. What? Seriously? I tell them XYZ is friggin awesome with a great rep, and are good people that have shot 100s of weddings. Then I ask how many wedding their friend has shot - NONE, BUT SHE TAKES GOOD PICTURES. And this is normal.

Our wedding photography starts at $6K, so you are preaching to the choir on the price note, but as for people knowing/ seeing the difference - most cant see unless they have a side by side comparison, and then it still takes some hand holding.

The PPA is launching an ad campaign trying to address this issue. Im hoping they do an awesome job. That is exactly what they are trying to do - unseat the uncle bobs and weekend warriors and literally SHOW what a real photog can do.

That's great to hear, I had no idea PPA was doing that (got a linky?).

I've also found that the general public can have a difficult time depicting quality, particularly between good wedding photogs and friends that 'take good photos' (ergo take great wedding photos, apparently). It'd be fun to take crappy wedding photos and have them to show as comparison :)

[kayumangi]

Ouch, so you guys hate people like me =(

Well I'm no full time tog but I charge what I would normally earn hourly from my IT work and that's $65 per hour. And what I came up is in the range of $700-$2600;

Prints and albums are separate though, but if need be I can outsource those to Manila for half the price of Millers, but of course I don't do that because it takes forever to bring stuff over here.

Honestly, the market is huge, despite the gloom and doom there will always be a client for us and our price range. If price is the only thing that separates us from the rest then we must be lacking in something more.

[Anthony Martinez]

Originally Posted by thebeginning

Quite well put. But again, I think many of us are operating more from a 'woe is me, I guess I'll have to charge less' mentality rather than a 'my product is superior, and my art is worth $3000+...let me show you' philosophy. Unfortunately I think alot of good photographers are poor salespeople. If we can't create and show that our product is worth X, then we certainly can't begin to succesfully charge at that point.

The wedding and portrait photography industries are not exceptions to economics and marketing. There are loads of what I consider to be mid-high and high end portrait studios (selling 8x10's for $150, typical packages for $1500+), but a shrinking number of wedding photographers that can pull that off. That's partially due to the barriers of entry in a portrait studio business, but also due to the fact that wedding photographers just feel they can't do it. You have to realize that the 'uncle freds' and talented amateurs are only threats on the low end. Once you market for quality and a boutique experience, that competition is largely obliterated.

I can't argue with most of that. IMO, my wedding work is my weakest area. I've not been met with complaints, and have managed referrals from my past clients - but I still feel like it needs a good deal of work. It has occurred to me, many times, that I may well be the worst salesman on the planet. I'm even worse at marketing than I am at physics (engineering major, exam last night murdered my brain in a big way). My package includes a ton of work, and I've been able to demonstrate that to the interested. Even after that most everyone says they just don't see the point in an album, they'd like a Bridal session but "really just one pretty picture in my dress", and their cousin already took their engagement photos "they were so cute!"

I appear to have started rambling, which is probably the fault of this Calculus 2 exam review I'm doing right now, so I'll have a warm mug of STFU and go about my business. I'll keep following the thread, as the discourse is interesting.

[thebeginning]

Originally Posted by Anthony Martinez

I can't argue with most of that. IMO, my wedding work is my weakest area. I've not been met with complaints, and have managed referrals from my past clients - but I still feel like it needs a good deal of work. It has occurred to me, many times, that I may well be the worst salesman on the planet. I'm even worse at marketing than I am at physics (engineering major, exam last night murdered my brain in a big way). My package includes a ton of work, and I've been able to demonstrate that to the interested. Even after that most everyone says they just don't see the point in an album, they'd like a Bridal session but "really just one pretty picture in my dress", and their cousin already took their engagement photos "they were so cute!"

I appear to have started rambling, which is probably the fault of this Calculus 2 exam review I'm doing right now, so I'll have a warm mug of STFU and go about my business. I'll keep following the thread, as the discourse is interesting.

haha no problem, man. I've run into some of the same problems a few times, you're not alone there. I just started working on salesmanship and have realized a ton of pitfalls I had in the past - we can all improve.

Where do you go to school, btw?

[Anthony Martinez]

Originally Posted by thebeginning

haha no problem, man. I've run into some of the same problems a few times, you're not alone there. I just started working on salesmanship and have realized a ton of pitfalls I had in the past - we can all improve.

Where do you go to school, btw?

University of Houston

[thebeginning]

Originally Posted by Anthony Martinez

University of Houston

Go coogs, my man!! I'm a senior there, majoring in Entrepreneurship.

That's the coolest. Do you happen to know Joshua Bruce or Charles Dusek? Shot in the dark, probably...both are engineering majors. Anyway, don't want to hijack my own thread :)

[HotHolly]

Ouch, so you guys hate people like me =(

We dont hate you. Nothin but love, man!

Just something to think about. The PPA says that its costing you about $100 per hour to be in business shooting weddings. $65 per hour may work for one industry, but not the next. If you want the price breakdown, its on their site. I thought that was insanely high when I started and after shooing a few weddings, I saw it was true. Your profit is AFTER the $100 per hour. So update your rate to $165 per hour for the same pay (assuming IT is net and not gross).

As for saying folks like being the $X shooter - I think thats just silly talk. People think there is safety in being the cheap guy. For the liability involved in a wedding, I just cant see taking the risk for so little. You'll get sued either way. And people DO sue over weddings. There is safety in the portrait biz, not weddings.

And the PPA sent me an email asking for photos and describing their 1st phase of their campaign. Its targeting weddings directly. They later want to target child photography and other areas. I think its a good deal. We do exactly what they are talking about in our presentation. It works well. I hope they have enough folks involved to get it to what they need to be successful. I havent heard where they plan to launch these ads yet. Has anyone heard that?