Team Pricing

[catherine_murphy1]

Hi all,

 

I've been out on my own for a couple of years now in the Boston area (a very

competitive market) and have found that most brides I meet with now want a

second photographer included in the package. (but don't want to pay for a prof

photog). So I've decided to team up with a partner and market us a team. I'm

wondering if people have any thoughts on team pricing. My concern, of course, is

pricing us out of the market, and actually making a profit for photography and

an album.

 

Any thoughts are appreciated!

 

thank you

[wedding-photography-denver]

What about hiring an assistant?

[annealmasy]

Just a quick thought:

 

you say that your clients want a second photographer but don't want to pay for a

professional. However, if you are to successfully create a business model based around a

solid two-photographer team, you are going to need to charge for *two professionals*. If

you pay yourself and the other shooter a sub-standard salary just to bring in clients, you will

hurt yourself in the long run.

[jt_barnhart]

In the San Francisco Bay Area it is common for leads to hire a "second shooter" this is usually a seasoned assistant that is good with the camera. Average rates paid to second shooters in this area is $200-$300(there is some latitude in both drections). These "second shooters" do both assistant and photographer duties covering candids, detail shots and making sure critical moments aren't missed.

 

Many second shooters are students who are building books or are not quite ready to take on a wedding alone. It is customary to submit the photos under the lead photogs name while allowing the second to use their own images for their portfolio.

 

The term "second shooter" usually satisfies the client and honestly gives the needed coverage as well as two eyes on the equipment. Seconds work for lower rates because they need experience and images as well as the fact that it takes far less legwork to score assisting gigs than weddings.

 

Ask to see a portfolio and chat a bit to see how you like them before you book. Plan on replacing second shooters often as they are usually on the verge of jumping into the business by the time they can handle second shooter gigs.

[annealmasy]

I have a slightly different take on the "second shooter" discussion.

 

If you plan to SELL a two-photographer package to your clients, you need to plan on hiring

a photographer who can hold his or her own. You should be able to share that

photographer's portfolio with prospective clients. You might also want that photographer

to be available to meet with clients before their wedding day, so they can develop a

rapport. (My husband and I both meet with all prospective clients. They have connect

with us *as a team* before they ever book us.)

 

Our clients have cited the following as reasons for wanting two photographers at their

wedding: 1.) we can capture two different angles of the same event (e.g., during the

ceremony); 2.) we can shoot in separate locations at the same time (e.g., when the groom

is getting ready at one hotel and the bride at another); 3.) if one of us misses something,

the other one will get it (e.g., while I'm shooting a portrait my husband catches the MOB

and FOB dancing).

 

In each of these scenarios, BOTH photographers need to be 100% capable of getting the

shot, and getting it RIGHT. I would not EVER entrust a student (or a newbie wanting to

learn) with the task of professionally capturing my client's memories.

 

I feel very strongly that a $200 "second shooter" who is there to learn and build their

portfolio should only come as a backup for you, and should not be part of any coverage

sold and billed to the client.

 

I feel equally strongly that a second shooter who is professional enough to truly tackle the

job should be paid at LEAST a $500 day rate with no editing. We pay an additional shooter

(in our case, a third shooter) $1000 and handle the editing ourselves.

 

True second shooting, IMO, is NOT on-the-job training. It is a JOB. Period. And the

primary focus of that job should be to provide amazing photographs to the client, not to

watch my gear.

 

There is nothing wrong with JT's concept of second shooting, but his version is very

different from what should be happening if you choose to pursue a team-based level of

coverage, in which both parties play an equal role and earn equal profits.

[William Michael]

>>> and have found that most brides I meet with now want a second photographer included in the package. <<<

 

My point of view:

 

1. re read everything that AA wrote.

 

2. No use setting your business model on any where near what the Bride WANTS, forget that concept or we shall see you on the bankrupt list: you can only model the business on what the Bride WILL BUY.

 

3. re 2 above: you must know exactly what business you are in and tailor the model to suit that type of business, not to the whim and fancy of the Bride who essentially will be severally misinformed, to some degree, about what she `wants` from all the misinformation sources out there in `preparing for a Wedding Land`.

 

4. Nearly always, the sale is made at the Primary Business Meeting: perhaps take a long look at how you handle that.

 

>>> So I've decided to team up with a partner and market us a team. I'm wondering if people have any thoughts on team pricing. <<<

 

Hmm, (in the kindest way possible), so the HUGE descison of a Partenship in Business has been MADE, and now one is looking to do the planning for the Partnership Business Model?

 

Now that last sentence could just be the wrong use of a word (i.e. `decided`): but if it is literally correct, I think you need to rethink the base methodology of your business decision making, it appears to be of the reactionary, (must put out the bushfires!); undisciplined (does not follow planning protocol); and unstructured (not, in the macro view from the base up).

 

For more thoughts see this recent thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MFhh

 

ww

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

If you think that you are currently doing an adequate job covering a wedding by yourself, then adding in a second photographer to meet client expectations is really a marketing decision. By teaming up with another photographer you need a major bump in your pricing so you can both make money. By default you will be going after clients who are willing to pay for two shooters.

 

If you want to stay close to the price range you are in now, then you can hire a "camera with legs". For a couple of hundred dollars you'll be able to book jobs that you now lose. Remember, clients are looking at work that you've shot by yourself. If they like what they see, they will still get that even if your "second photographer" doesn't take a single useable picture. The client isn't going to know who shot what. If it turns out that you find someone who can actually shoot, then you can figure out ways to effectively use them.

 

I would also take high pay for second shooter statements with a very big grain of salt.

[kiva]

Second photographer can be offered as an al-a-carte item also.

[William Michael]

>>> I would also take high pay for second shooter statements with a very big grain of salt. <<< (BR)

 

This statement could be in regard to the thread I linked.

 

Do not misunderstand my point of view: in the thread attached I defined what a `second shooter` is (to me) and what outcomes were expected (by me).

 

Without such definitions, we run the risk of (potentially) fuelling a debate which may not exist.

 

Even here, I note, that the original question revolves around a `business partnership`: not the employ of or subcontracting to a `second shooter`. (I am not complaining, just noting how topics sway, which is important, later to a point later in this comment).

 

Employing a second photographer to shoot for two or three hours at the busy time, or send them to the Groom`s preparation for an hour and both meet up at the ceremony to get back and front shots is fine by me, if it works for the business.

 

Pay them $300 for 3 hours work; get a few images not otherwise available for sale, bump the package by $600, no problem.

 

That will work for many business models, and it could be the answer to the question posed here: it will placate the market place; have more potential images for sale and increase the bottom line; and be of little fuss and require a small adjustment.

 

The point I come back to, is to: define the business first:

 

`Adding a second photographer`, (BR), could indeed be a strategic marketing decision in many businesses.

 

But: `decided to team up with a partner and market us a team`, (CM) is a restructure of the business at grass roots level.

 

There is a big difference between the two: hence the `topic swaying` (op cit) has the potential to fuel a debate which does not exist.

 

Just for clarification.

 

Cheers,

 

WW

[surfidaho]

I agree with both Double A and Double W:

 

I agree with Double A that a good second shooter must be an accomplished photographer that can get great shots, preferably with a style that complements your own. Also, a good second shooter requires little to no management, they just do the job you want them to.

 

I also agree with Double W that good second shooters serve a valuable role, but don't need to be full partners, and the rates described above are typical.

 

The best second shooters I have worked with are quiet, and let me handle all customer interactions. They are also strictly prohibited from handing out their own business cards at my weddings, but may use their own images for their portfolio.

 

So why would anybody second shoot for much less money if they could be top dog?

 

First and foremost, second shooting is FUN! I second shot for my regular second shooter yesterday, and it was a HOOT! No stress, no anxiety, just pure photography joy. It is so nice not to be in charge.

 

Second, a good second shooter does not have to be a good business person. Many people like making extra money on weekends, but do not want the risk of striking out on their own, or are not yet ready to.

 

Third, it's a great way to build a portfolio.

 

Tuppence,

 

Paulsky

[William Michael]

`Tuppence`

 

:)