Why Wedding Photo's Prices Are Wack?

<p><a href="http://blog.nikkimaydayphotography.com/2012/01/26/why-wedding-photographers-prices-are-wack-erie-pa-wedding-photographer-response/">http://blog.nikkimaydayphotography.com/2012/01/26/why-wedding-photographers-prices-are-wack-erie-pa-wedding-photographer-response/</a></p>

<p>An interesting read about wedding photo prices. I don't agree with the response that prices are based on costs. If that's the case, a $100 perfume should only sell for $5. In the artistic world, you charge what the market will bear for the product you provide. It could be $300, $3000 or $30000 per wedding. The costs you incur to provide the service is irrelevant to the consumers.</p>

<p><em>"I’m extremely insulted by your craigslist post... "</em></p>

<p>This part at the end should have been left out. Especially considering the announcement (made on a marketing website) that the purpose was to help educate people about a "common misconception". It was also too long and whiny. Persuasive arguments, of this nature, should be concise and appealing to the reader.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...you charge what the market will bear for the product you provide.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The thing I never understood about that statement is how does one go about finding that out with accurate results. I mean there's no auctioning for the lowest bidder for such a market just as it is for the real estate market which uses appraisers (who can be bought off).</p>

<p>The only way to determine a fair price is to compare apples to apples and call around for pricing of equivalent wedding photo packages from other competitors, but you really never find out their costs which could be through special deals or agreements with suppliers unknown.</p>

<p>Can you tell why I don't make money with my photographs?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"The thing I never understood about that statement is how does one go about finding that out with accurate results."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, the perception of value is altered once an intangible is infused into a product or service; this is when apples are no longer apples. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>and appealing to the reader.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Amidst all the I this and I that, there was scant mention of any value to the client. Merely that photos are longer lasting than other things. While people may identify with running a business and being able to earn an income, if it is the whole theme as seen here, the emotive response is often going to be that the photographer chose the wrong business to be in. Customers first instinct is about what value there is to them whether price, quality, experience or whatever. Win them over on that and then, the background stuff will be more appreciated.</p>

<p>This whole publically viewable letter runs a high risk of alienating prospective customers. Unhappy venting to the customer base is not a good thing.</p>

<p>The photographer's careful response is largely wasted, because clients/prospects do not care what the photographer needs to make to survive. They only care what it costs them to get what they want. I hope the photographer felt better after having vented, but as to actually educating the writer?--nope.</p>

<p>As for the writer, her comment about finding a "decently priced, <strong>exceptional, amazingly talented, fun photographer</strong>" tells me she is totally unrealistic to begin with. Anyone that thinks the cream of the crop in any profession will charge peanuts is dreaming.</p>

<p>I enjoyed reading the link. We live in a society where people know the price of everything but the value of nothing.</p>

Wow, truly tl;dr

<p>I agree with John, although the argument in general was valid, it seems like she took it too personally for some reason.</p>

<p>I thought Nikki, the photographer, should know of the discussion here so I contacted her with a welcome to join in if so desired. After all, photo.net is a great mutual resource for those who participate.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The photographer's careful response is largely wasted, because clients/prospects do not care what the photographer needs to make to survive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />Agreed, And they shouldn't really care either.</p>

<p>A dignified response is often no response, but in defence of the photographer, she probably took a stand to say what most photographers wish they could communicate to a prospective clients but choose not to. </p>

<p>I bet the <a href="http://seattle.craigslist.org/kit/evs/2804332414.html">original Cregslist post</a> is a widespread sentiment among brides which photographers ought to be sensitive to. They are, after all, your clients, and it's never a good thing when a significant number of prospects think your services are overpriced, even if they might be wrong in their assumption. </p>

<p>If you've ever paid $400/hr for a lawyer, $2,000 for a 2 hour structural inspection of your home by an architect, or even $500 for a plumber to unclog your sewer drain, you might feel the same as many of these brides especially when cost of services will strain modest budgets of many weddings. </p>

<p>Regardless of its reception by (mostly) photographers, I think the blog post will likely serve as rebuttal in the future to all brides' complaints about wedding photography prices to the benefit of all wedding photographers. </p>

 

<p>It would seem to me that one advantage of charging $3K to shoot an event is that you weed out potential customers who still use the word "wack," and do so in ALL CAPS. The photographer gets paid a living wage and doesn't have to work for annoying functional illiterates- that's a win-win.</p>

<p>Eric, I think the poster used "WACK" in the context of Internet parlance to mean "lame" or "low quality". </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I bet the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://seattle.craigslist.org/kit/evs/2804332414.html" target="_blank">original Cregslist post</a> is a widespread sentiment among brides which photographers ought to be sensitive to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. If you were not a photog and when you first hear that wedding photos costs like $3000, your response will probably be the same. The better response is probably no response because wedding photos are not necessities and more like a lust item. Apple positions their products as lust items too. They never justify why an Ipad that costs $200 to make in China should sell for $600.</p>

<p>Michael, I understand the slang term, "whack." If this were 2008, and the bride in question were a black rapper, "whack" would arguably be acceptable "parlance." </p>

<blockquote>

<p>the bride in question were a black rapper</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why does the rapper have to be black? I never saw any difference in usage by race. What is this, 1960?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If this were 2008, and the bride in question were a black rapper, "whack" would arguably be acceptable "parlance."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The real issue here is that almost nobody who wasn't trying to be retro or silly was saying "whack/wack" in 2008. Try dropping it back a decade or two.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you've ever paid $400/hr for a lawyer, $2,000 for a 2 hour structural inspection of your home by an architect, or even $500 for a plumber to unclog your sewer drain</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't pay that much for any of those.</p>

<p>I am not in the photography business but I am in business. The cost of doing business has gone up each year. In addition to office overhead fuel and insurance there are other factors that a person who is not in business does not realize. In my area price is the driving force right now. If they get the cheapest price and do not get the quality they expected then they are upset. Old saying, You get what you pay for and my favorite There is no free lunch. Customers need to wake up and smell the coffee.</p>

<p>I think this photographer was wasting her time responding to the post. That email response probably took near an hour for her to write. An hour in my business is crucial. Time is money. Serious clients aren't looking on Craigslist or bidding for a photographer through Ebay, and if $3,000 is too much for someone, there's always someone cheaper. A full time wedding photographer does take a few weeks to work on and edit photos and then produce an album. The bride's argument is weak. The old adage that, "you get what you pay for" is enough for an answer.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't pay that much for any of those.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>Good point. California Lawyers for the Arts gets me a much better deal on lawyers, and the plumber charged my $80 the last time he came over. He didn't tell me how much his power snake cost and I wouldn't pay more if he did. </p>

<p>If a photographer doesn't like the customer's cost targets, they should just move on instead of complaining.</p>

<p>Exact reason why I haven't worked full-time in photography since 1998. It's much better for me to do something else and make good money at it, and take whatever photography I want, or don't want on the side and charge a reasonable amount, and make a reasonable profit, in the end, making more than I made working full-time in many ways. There is something to be said for shooting the jobs you want, and leaving the rest for someone else.</p>

<p>People are never satisfied. The responding photographer seemed a bit out of lines, professionally, IMHO, but a bride's (or any client's) badmouthing on a mass social level can be damaging. Still, actions speak louder than ranting words from a dissatisfied blogger.</p>

<p>Here is an example of general "dissatisfaction". I offer free photography sessions locally for just about any occassion for my own experience and PR with clients. Three months ago, I was asked by a metal band to photograph a few shows. They liked my work with another groups' photos I had shot previously.</p>

<p>To say the least, the band leader was "insulted" because the "rage was not captured", as was posted on FB with several other unsavory things about my photos. Well, okay. Bygones.</p>

<p>Yesterday, I received an e-mail asking if I would still be interested in continuing the shoots. Attached to the e-mail were numerous photos done by two other paid photographers and a post script asking if I could "make these [photos] better". Of course, I declined.</p>

<p>That being said, I tend to feel that even if the bride in this situation had paid $1k, $2k or ANY amount above the cost of her cake, it is very likely that negative ranting about cost would have followed. Wack, but true.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you've ever paid $400/hr for a lawyer, $2,000 for a 2 hour structural inspection of your home by an architect, or even $500 for a plumber to unclog your sewer drain</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't pay that for those either unless there was a special skill I really needed them for which is not usually the case. In other words, unless it had value to me. Their overhead and life financial situation is incidental. Their skill over others would be important.</p>

<p>Its up to wedding and other photographers to demonstrate that they have something potential clients will value. Even if they don't know it yet. Overhead is a fairly low factor in that regard. An extra consideration, if at all, but not the main one.</p>