Couple wanting to pay balance after they see the pictures,help

[alan_rockwood]

<p>Typos. I hate them! Especially when it is I who make them. In a post above I should have said " "there is many a slip between the cup and the lip""</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Nothing to do with "entitlement", it has to do with people unilaterally changing the terms of the agreement. If you do this some customers will see it as a sign of weakness and walk all over you. It's just a starting point for further headaches IMO.</p>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>"... it has to do with people unilaterally changing the terms of the agreement. "</p>

<p>The word choice "unilaterally" is not descriptive of the actual situation presented by the original poster. What is happening here is a negotiation, i.e. proposals from one side or the other, together with responses, not unilateral changes in a contract.</p>

<p>As to what the original poster should do in this case, I dunno. It's kind of up to him/her. Lots of interesting approaches have been suggested in the thread. If he/she is uneasy with the customer's proposal then the best thing might be to just say "no" and move on, either shooting the wedding under the current agreement, or canceling the job by mutual agreement with the client.</p>

<p>On the other hand, it is not as if the original poster has long established policies for wedding photography, apparently having only booked two weddings to date, and presumably having shot none, so a change of policy would not likely be upsetting some kind of long-standing precedent.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>minilabs will not force you to pay for photos you don't like, regardless of who's fault it is, and don't most wedding photographers aspire to being on a higher plane of photographic excellence than a minilab?</em><br /><em></em><br />First we are offered a long treatise about how other types of businesses should not be compared to wedding photographers including ones that do not provide "big-ticket items, unlike wedding photography which may run thousands of dollars". Now wedding photographers (who forgo other business and invest significant time peforming a shoot and other work) are held up for some sort of comparitive shame to mini-lab stores because wedding photographers don't have policies allowing customers to not 'pay for photos they don't like'.</p>

<p><em>where did I question the professional ethics of anyone here?</em><br /><em></em><br />First some here are admonished for supposedly having a "sense of entitlement", now no one's professional ethecs or demeanor were ever called in to question.</p>

<p><em>where did I suggest that the photographer be paid after the fact?</em><br /><em></em><br />All within this entire running theme about how unfair the pratice of upfront payments is. It really doesn't matter. If you want to tell Lysue that she should or shouldn't require an up front payment, go ahead. We know that you wish "more power" to those who do but are against it in principle as shown by all the remaining commentary. Point made, whichever applies.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>"unilaterally" is not descriptive of the actual situation presented by the original poster. What is happening here is a negotiation, i.e. proposals </em><br /><em></em><br />If a client announces intentions not to abide by previous agreements its just negotiation and proposals? What's next, its unfair to have written agreements because it negates one side trying to change the terms of pre-existing agreements afterward with"negotiaion" and "proposals"? Its pointless to have an ongoing debate. I'll leave you with the thought that you would probably have a different viewpoint if you were subjected to the kind of things that wedding photographers and other business people who routinely require up front payments do. Its business survival. Some may allow some (usually a small) percentage to be paid after the fact. Most require at least most. They have to. Just like the oral surgeons and criminal defense lawyers I first mentioned. When they don't get paid up front, they don't get paid. Same here. It is what it is. Reality.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>I would tell them no. Especially when you have to pay up front for processing, albums, etc. Letting them pay after is essentially giving them interest-free financing for the time period while prints and album are ordered. Maybe businesses that do weddings on large scale can afford to do so, but most independent photographers probably can't. When clients have said they would take their business elsewhere, I usually give them the names of some other photographers, but invite them to contact me again if they change their minds.</p>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>John, you really should go back and read what the original poster actually said before you post incorrect information.</p>

<p>As described in the original post the client's position is not, as you characterized it, an announced intention "...not to abide by previous agreements," but rather a statement that they were "... not really comfortable with paying the balance until they got the final product/prints/album."</p>

<p>Furthermore, the client has already made partial payment, and contrary to your assertion, the original poster says that the client is proposing is to pay the balance the balance upon delivery, not that they are proposing to pay "after the fact."</p>

<p>As to oral surgeons, my recollection is that when my wife was treated by one a few years ago he did not require prepayment for his service. However, maybe the oral surgeons you deal with use a different business model.</p>

[kim_johnson1]

<p>Frankly, from a consumer standpoint most service professions are paid AFTER the service has been provided. I don't think its a far out request. There are a lot of shady "professionals" out there. Its a good consumer practice.</p>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>John,</p>

<p>Nowhere do I claim that asking for payment in full before the service is provided is "unethical" or "unfair". However, I stand by my statement it places all the risk on the client. Futhermore, I stand by my assertion that placing all the risk on one side of a contract is an unusual business model.</p>

<p>Nowhere do I say that it is unethical to feel a sense of entitlement for full up-front payments, though I do stand by my statement that some here do feel a sense of entitlement to receive pre-payment in full.</p>

<p>Nowhere do I recommend that the original poster poster either accept or reject the clients desire to pay upon delivery, though given how the original poster feels about the situation he/she may be more comfortable if the deal aborted.</p>

<p>Nowhere do I say that I am against the principle of requiring payment in full prior to delivery of the product. I will say, however, that I am in favor of such an arrangement form the point of view of the vendor, but I am against such an arrangement from the point of view of a client. My personal position on this is completely neutral as I have never been a wedding photographer, nor have I paid for a wedding photographer. (I forgot who paid for the photos of my own wedding all those years ago.) I will also say that as a societal matter I believe that a balanced risk is, in general, a better thing, i.e. partial payment up front and partial payment upon delivery.</p>

<p>As to the discussion on comparing other businesses to photography, may I remind you that it was YOU provided those specific examples to try to draw a parallel between other businesses and photography? I simply provided commentary on the examples YOU provided.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>" ...you really should go back and read what the original poster actually said... ...the client's position is not, as you characterized it, an announced intention "...not to abide by previous <strong>agreements</strong></em>... "<br /><em></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>" ...they asked me if they could pay the remaining balance the day of the wedding. I <strong>agreed</strong> to $200 deposit which they paid, 75% of the balance 2 wks prior to the wedding, and the remaining balance the day of... "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's the actual quote. Someone tells you they have an agreement, describes it as one, tells you someone made a payment pursuant to the agreement. You expect us to believe that the client calling later with 'discomfort' and raising new and different terms is something other than an attempt to get out of the terms already "agreed" to? This is getting ridiculous and the rest of the commentary is just nonsense that isn't helping anyone. The horse couldn't be more dead.</p>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>John,</p>

<p>Continuing to beat the dead horse, a client saying they are uncomfortable with a payment arrangement does not constitute an announced intention to break an agreement. In and of itself it represents a request to renegotiate, not an announcement that the client intends not to abide by the agreement. Though it could eventually lead to the client announcing an intent not to abide by the agreement, it is too early to predict that outcome.</p>

<p>Fortunately, for the photographer, he/she already has at least $200 of the clients money to serve as a cushion if he/she want to keep it.</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>These scenarios are always interesting to me. After reading most of the responses and then the original question, I must ask if the clients were OK with paying the 75% and the $200 before the wedding. </p>

<p>Was it the remaining 25% they wanted to withhold until the photos were delivered? If so, I would show them samples photos, and albums of previous weddings shot to gain their trust. After the shoot of course show them the photos online or on your monitor before ordering anything which cannot be returned. They will already have a {very good} idea of what the finished would be like. <br>

As someone said earlier, the client cares about the finished product, however, you would have spent much time working on the wedding day and I think you should be compensated. <br>

Hopefully, they will be able to make an informed decision based on all the examples you have already shown them.</p>

<p>If I am wrong and they want to only give you $200, have you do the whole gig and present them with the finished product for their inspection before any payment is made: I would seriously have to question their motives. </p>

<p> </p>

[brucecahn]

<p>Rob & LySue: I used to be in the catering business back in the sixties. At that time, the caterer did have to wait to get paid until after the party was over. Of course there was a deposit on booking, and a big deposit before we ordered the food and scheduled the help, but most of the bill was paid after the party. As far as photography goes, In my (now retired) portrait studio they had to pay the bill in full right after the shoot, before I did the film. No exceptions, but this was carefully explained to them when they booked. This worked most of the time but did occasionally lead to some comical scenes with people who objected.</p>

[William Michael]

<p >It is indeed simply a business reality. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Bad debts are more common in some types of businesses than others. It appears to me that some comments on this thread are little less than emotional barbs to solicit responses.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As I mentioned in my first: I had a 50/35/15 which worked really well and really never caused any major headaches with bad debts. This 50/35/15 payment model was after many different payment models we tried, including: Print Voucher; Print Credits; and many types of payments systems; including <strong ><em >deposit only; and full payment after the event.</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >I count over 1500 Wedding Coverages and only a few handfuls of Bad Debts and / or goods not collected. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Over 30 years or so, we have had two Clients make a compliant to Consumer Affairs (interestingly both were after we sent a Letter of Demand for monies we were owed). Both cases decided not to proceed when we chose to contest the issue - it would have cost the Client only $12 and about 30 minutes of their time in front of an Arbitrator. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I am not asking for any Absolution or agreement, but it is my opinion in both these cases the client was just trying it on. As one gets more experienced in any business, the tell-tale signs of a “Problem Client” usually become more apparent and at a very early stage in the selling process. But still the older and more experienced of us, are still stung, from time to time.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >BTW, just from my perspective I do more than just, “<em >A Casual Brush of Scouting the Location”</em> - I have never shot a Wedding without a prior reconnoitre of the locations (plural): and I always have at least one meeting with both the Bride and Groom prior - preferably a full Photo Session. So I cannot speak for others and nor do I assume that in any trade, profession or business that all Vendors are Archangels, (nor am I) - but those of us who are honest and have, year in - year out, maintained ethics and good business practice, I think are entitled to be affronted by some of the implications and hooks dangled in this thread; especially if such are from folk who might not have any experience on this side of the fence.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >[Two Hours drive on a Sunday Morning, to catch the Reception - Food Area in the “set” position after the previous Evening – and 45 minutes reconnoitre for a Saturday Reception - three weeks later: <a href="../photo/9205014">http://www.photo.net/photo/9205014</a> What do most “normal workers” do on a Sunday Morning ? ? ?] </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I return to the question: IMO a good payment scheme for consideration is 50/35/15, even today and even if the final product is only a disc. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >This system presents a reasonable balance and yes, for any reasonable quality work and effort the Photographer does hold the (fiscal) leverage in such a payment scheme - but the point is equally there is responsibility for the clients to do their homework selecting a Photographer of good reputation and standing: yes there are complaints and stories of Photographers not showing up and substandard work and etc. - and there is a vast range of "professional standards", within this "Profession"</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Over 35 years, or so, I have seen some Clients who have (legitimate) complaints about Photographers - some have come and asked if we could "Fix it" after the event - it is apparent to me that these Clients very often did not put in the leg work seeking out a reputable and well known business in the first inst and were very often guided by the (bargain) cost, only - this goes to another matter which is another topic entirely - the Wedding Photos are often not high on the list of essentials, and often when it comes to the budget are treated like the poor second cousin. </p>

<p >OK, before any barrage begins: Price is not the only indicator of quality or an assurance of Professionalism - but the reality is, very few Clients actually do really shop around for their Wedding Photography - meaning a face to face evaluation and interrogation of many (say 5 to 8) Photographers and a detailed investigation of their wears and follow-ups with some past clients – I believe I can derive that as a conclusion, at least peculiar to our customers, because it is a standard line of question we ask either at the sales interview or certainly in or feedback questionnaire. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The fact of the matter is there is a responsibility both ways: on the Photographer - but also on the Client to choose wisely and after due selection process – many do not want to take that responsibility or to do that work.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >And retuning again to the original question: Taking all into account all the facts as we have them presented to us, I would terminate and walk away, writing a letter similar to the above I already posted. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Such an action would not be showing any great sense of entitlement. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >It could well be that theses clients are doing the work and honestly believe that they should be protected and do have every intention to purchase, if the product is of a similar standard to the samples they have been shown . . .</p>

<p > </p>

<p >BUT . . . if that is indeed the case (i.e. that they are “reasonable people”) then they will understand that saying “no thank you” – <strong ><em >is simply a refusal to allow any client to dictate how one chooses to run one’s own business </em></strong>– that point should not be forgotten, either. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

[jim mucklin]

<p>Lysue, I read your post and every response, you mention a contract, why didn't you have it with you when you met them? Did you sign it and return it to them before they signed it and returned it to you? Otherwise they have a signed contract and you have nothing Where are you located?<br>

The reason I ask, while I am told that I'm a photographer, my accountant and wife tell me that I suck at business. Only after loosing my ass at events did I buckle down and stick to my contract. Everytime I don't, it's the book of excuses, so rather than debate the legality, perhaps I can share my experiences.<br>

I have found that when I am paid in full, there is no "I forgot my checkbooks" <br />Since I rewrote my contract, everything is discussed beforehand.<br />If they are in doubt about my services or photos, we shouldn't be talking, if they want horror storied I can give them ones about the"wedding planer who was so nice and drove a nice car,that kept forgetting to get the contract back to me, and "would pay me the balance after she saw the photos.<br>

If displaying my work to them is not enough and they are worried about the final product, we shouldn't be talking. My sales skills also suck, but I not trying to close them on a house or a car, I'm trying to provide them with a service to which I trully hope they will be happy. I fortunately have never had an unhappy client, if I did I would have to give them there all their money back. Yes there are shady photograhers, but I have never met one and have met far to many clients. I wonder how their friends "no show" worked out in the legal system.<br>

How you or anyone runs their business is your business, I spoke with and read Al Jacobs wedding contract and it's a good start before you contact legal advice, if your going to change the rules, then why have a contract? For me it meant 50% down non refundable deposit, I don't want to loose income for the day, because of a bride who read the contract, signed it and now want to change her mind. the other 50% due 30 days before the wedding, if the check bounces, I want to know about it before the wedding.<br>

In my area the florist, dj's and caters are all payed up front, they have their own horror stories as to why. It seems photographers are the last to get choosen and paid.<br>

Change Steve's suggestion from walk to run. Contact them return any monies.</p>

 

[mart_e]

<p>I do find this discussion interesting - particularly as it relates to other professions. I think my comparison to Architects holds very true for the reasons I've already mentioned (subjective nature of design etc.). I don't begrudge photogrpahers getting paid fully in advance, as I have said - I don't earn anything from photography.</p>

<p>I do however find the payment practice of 100% fee in advance of the service very unusual. In the UK private healthcare would be paid for after the event (in my experience - you get a printout of the invoice on leaving), professional services (legal, web-design etc.) would all be the same, most standard Building Contracts are paid at stages to cover work completed to date etc. etc. . It seems to be a circular argument though - you will find examples one way or the other depending on your viewpoint.</p>

<p>Having had relatives who recently married - there is a huge financial burden on newly-weds, and I would have thought that the photographer who finds a successful business model for allowing payments to be broken down (including after the event) would gain themselves a strong selling point.</p>

<p>As for being different from other professional services - well, we all get stiffed on fees, and despite protestations here, I don't see that wedding photographers are uniquely at risk in comparison to others. I don't begrudge it, fair play, but someof the arguments do grate slightly - just accept it for what it is, a business arrangement that places the risk on the client to the benefit of the photographer.</p>

[leigh_youdale]

<p>Something learned from an entirely different business but some of it's applicable.<br>

You might decide to put your margin at risk, based on the client's acceptance of the results, but NEVER put your costs (including overheads) at risk. In other words, before you turn up you make sure you have received enough money to cover any materials, incidental costs AND your time, factored in at an hourly rate. What's left is your profit margin. Less post production and album costs, so make sure it's a healthy margin!<br>

If using digital (and what wedding photographer wouldn't) then you can personally meet or on-line show them a set of non-downloadable, watermarked low-res images. When they agree on what they want they pay you the balance owing at that point and you can then get into post production and album preparation - not before. So you don't spend edit time or order the album until that hurdle is crossed.<br>

If they don't like what you've done the worst case scenario is that they refuse to pay the balance and you don't provide any images. But you've covered your costs. End of story. There are other issues arising relating to your reputation etc but I guess if you're already in this business you're confident enough to put that on the line every job you take, so you aren't going to lose any sleep over how to deal with it unless and until it ever happens.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>I'm one of the photographers who require the entire balance paid up front.</p>

<p>Why? I've had more than one couple disappear off the face of the earth after the wedding. I've never heard from them again. Who knows what happened? (My guess is that the marriages did not last. But you never know.) These were couples that were fully paid. I imagine the number of nonresponsive couples would grow if I were chasing accounts receivables after the fact. :)</p>

<p>I'm not making furniture or cars or any product that can be sold to somebody else. I'm selling my time and expertise on the day of the wedding. I'm selling my availability. If a couple decides to cancel their wedding at the last minute or get divorced shortly after the ceremony, I cannot resell my time and services to somebody else.</p>

<p>Most businesses that don't require payment up front either can turn around and resell their product or have a low cost marginal cost. That's why you generally can't pay for the wedding cake after finding out how it tastes. That's why you can't pay for the reception hall after you return from the honeymoon.</p>

<p>What's great in most jurisdictions is that we're pretty free to set our business policies, and our customers are pretty free to pick and choose. If somebody doesn't want to pay for my services up front, he isn't forced to hire me. If I can't eek out a living with my policies, then I'm free to change them.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[timothy_gray]

<p>^--- Well said, Eric!</p>

[hansm]

<p>The way I work is that the couple pays the rest of the bill (25%) on delivery of the album.<br>

To me this sound fair because I also would not like to pay everything before I even had seen some results.<br>

This is the way it commonly works in the Netherlands.</p>

[cnp]

<p>Sorry I did not read all respones just wanted to place my own</p>

<p>Just say no way,I actually agreed to 1/2 before wedding and 1/2 after delivery of proofs and have never even heard back from the couple. I have really learned from my mistake. Just walk away now.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em> there is a huge financial burden on newly-weds</em><br>

<em></em><br>

This actually supports the practice of up front and mostly up front payments. It also shows why relying on after the fact payments (larger ones) is so perilous. As mentioned already, wedding vendors in general charge up front. Couples or their families are already incurring great costs. Photographers are often last in line to be hired. Clients coming to see a photographer typically already know where the wedding and reception are going to be. Expenditures have been made and more will be made. Even if the product portion of the contract is held up for a final payment, final payment may not come as Eric pointed out. Under Leigh's model, the photographer is left with mere 'coverage of costs' which defeats the purpose of being in business in the first place.</p>

<p>Wedding vendors ARE at unique risk. While builders and investors pay a lot of expenses beyond architects in their projects, they do so routinely ans as an investment expecting return. The wedding client does not fit that model. It is always private individuals not business investors. Its a huge financial burden for them, there will never be profit for them and the level of risk for the photographer losing fees is grave. As William tells us with the advantage of excperience, "ad debts are more common in some types of businesses than others." and arrived at a reasonable scheme as a result.</p>

<p>Here, the OP told us there was an agreement (unfortunately, not reduced to a written contract) and now the client is quibbling about the terms. Call it an attempt to "re-negotiate" if one wants but, even under that portrayal, it is a red flag that more quibbling is to come. Lysue has made a decision considering these factors as so many have under varying but similar scenerios. Decisions based on reality and based on past experience. In other words... Reality. </p>

[mart_e]

<p>John,<br>

I would agree with most of your points, and they are a very sensible argument for fees up front. I still have difficulty in accepting such commissions as being that much different from architectural, or other professional services - the bulk of architectural commissions are private individuals, ie house extensions, new build etc. exactly the same client type to be honest. Sure commercial / business commissions would be different (and perhaps better suited to payment 'after the fact' as has been put forward here) - but we may just have to agree to disagree.</p>

<p>Our bad debt ratio amongst these client types is actually pretty high too (normally in the form of payment of part of the fee with the comment, well we didn't 100% like the resultant design - you weren't listening to our brief etc. etc.). In these cases we rely on the Contract (we insist that this is signed prior to any work commencing) - and we have pursued debts, sometimes over a long period of time, relying on courts and occassionally selling the debts to recovery agencies.</p>

<p>I certainly don't dount the wise practice of payment up front - I'm merely making the point that it is an unusual practice amongst professional services appointments here in the UK (As opposed to product based).</p>

<p><em>Eric:</em><br>

<em>I'm not making furniture or cars or any product that can be sold to somebody else. I'm selling my time and expertise on the day of the wedding. I'm selling my availability. If a couple decides to cancel their wedding at the last minute or get divorced shortly after the ceremony, I cannot resell my time and services to somebody else.</em><br>

That's the same as any service based professional appointment that lacks a physical product - including healthcare, legal advice, architecture, web design etc. - particularly one based on appointments. Once carried out, there is no benefit that can be sold on to someone else.</p>

<p>As I said - we'll have to agree to disagree. Obviously where someone has been burned before, there will be a reluctance to move away from a full payment up front model - I just wish we had the opportunity to do likewise in our business model - and as I said, we would sink without trace.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>I am UK based and I cannot name one single professional wedding photographer who does not require full payment prior to the event, ditto other wedding vendors. Eric has summed this up very well, and the fact is that the matter of bad debt is much more of a problem in our industry than in the examples which have been aligned with it. Couples do part company, often very close to the wedding, plans change, they may move afar at short notice, or they may simply decide they want different things. It is a slightly precarious industry built upon highly charged relationships, and it would not be acceptable for me, or any other pro I know, or any other wedding supplier, to contractually commit to a considerable undertaking (the losses from which could likely not be redressed in the event of a wedding termination) without the client demonstrating their own committment to their own event. I could not, and would not, purchase albums costing many hundreds of pounds, and spend days developing images, and paying for them to be printed, then another day or two hand-mounting each one, for a Bride or Groom to decide they don't care for an album after all. What we, and other wedding vendors do, cannot realistically be compared to other endeavours, which is entirely why we must conduct our businesses in this way. Of the two shooters I have met who do things differently, neither are still operational.</p>

<p>I cannot imagine arguing over payments with any supplier who I commission to spend a period of time constructing a product or service which is tailor-made to my requirements. It's tantamount to saying 'I do like that hand-made cashmere mattress, make one for me this size, this deep, monogram it with my iniitals, but I'll only give you the money now for the raw materials, but hey you spend the next week working on it, and then I'll decide if I still want it. And if I don't you can find somebody of my size and weight called LD to sell it to.'</p>

<p> </p>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>Another way to think about the original poster's situation is that it may provide an opportunity for increased revenue.</p>

<p>Consider approaching the client with the following: "I can understand that you are uneasy about paying the full amount up front, so I can offer another option. Rather than paying the full amount prior to the event, I can offer a payment schedule of ... with a final payment of $XXX at delivery of the photos, making a total price of $YYY. This is a little more expensive than the original payment plan, but it does provide you the chance to inspect the photos prior to final payment. In any case, payments prior to the final payment are non-refundable. I will be happy with your choice of either of these options."</p>

<p>Of course, you could also walk away, or give in to the client's request, or work out an altogether different deal.</p>