Combating the 400.00 weddings

[ejder]

<p>Moving past the 100% semantic comments about "APS-C does not give you a longer focal length" thing that so many people love to bring up - including myself when it has been said by others before....and, incidentally, the difference is the filling of the frame and the number of pixels involved with the subject, which are both absolutely relevant and undisputable...</p>

<p>I noticed a downturn in business in the second half of 2009, but I am 99% sure that was related to my own advertisements being less effective. Since I changed the wording and photos on my ads, business has returned - within a month I quadrupled the number of bookings I had for 2010, and they are all solid jobs, mostly full days.</p>

<p>Before I revised my advertisements, I was genuinely believing that the competition of budget photographers was infringing on my business. And, it's possible that it was...but that depended on presentation, and when my presentation improved business returned.</p>

<p>For the record, I am only a little more expensive than the $400 photographer. Are my photos nasty? Sure, compared to Ed Pingol, Tony Hoffer, Jerry Ghionis, Christian Oth, etc...but they're much more expensive than me, they use assistants, have better cameras, use more powerful lighting than I do (nice to have an assistant lug the lights around), and lots more experience, skill and knowledge. I don't feel like I'm competing with them, because they outclass me so much.</p>

<p>If your work and services provided are genuinely much better than the $400 photographer, you shouldn't have anything to worry about.</p>

<p>Budget work cycles in and out: people go back and forth between the inexpensive option. Each time someone has a bad experience with a cheap photographer, it generates a ripple effect and encourages others to spend more on photography. Then people forget, take the cheap route, and somebody gets burned again. Back and forth it goes...</p>

[john_bourne1]

<p>Welcome to the consequences of the digital revolution. Everything digital places low cost high technology in the hands of everyone to benefit from - not just the professional elite. It has changed the face of music, digital studios are in all budding musicians homes, the internet provides the exposure and the downloads, CD's are dead, film is dead etc etc. The internet and the overall consumer market is flooded with digital images that can be accessed easily, photography is now in the hands of anyone who can press a button and operate a computer mouse, so get over it and adapt or die. Anyone can now take digital images, download them, email them etc. All that remains for the professional is atitude, manners, relating, visual perception, composition - everything in fact film demanded. </p>

[rvalois]

<p>Hi Ilkka ...</p>

 

<p><em>The lens does bring you CLOSER to the subject because it's on a crop camera.</em><br>

<em>No. The closeness is determined by the distance between the photographer and the subject. The image from the small sensor camera is magnified more when the print is made (i.e. ratio of print dimension vs. sensor dimension is greater), so you can use a shorter lens for a given shot (which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on what you're trying to do and available lenses).</em></p>

 

 

<p>Of course you're correct. I meant to write the lens does <strong>NOT </strong> bring you <strong>CLOSER </strong> ... thanks for picking that up.<br>

Ray</p>

[talon99]

<p>The thread started as a discussion on the wedding market and became a battle over technology. Your battle with the $400.00 dollar wedding photographer is not unlike the recent surge of computer professionals. As an old system administrator I experienced the same situation. All of a sudden every fly by night collage and trade school made bored housewives and high school grads system administrators in 12 weeks by cram coursing them past the tests. It blasted our jobs for about 2 years until the industry realized they had no talent for the work.<br>

Welcome to your digital 12 week photographers. With time they will go away as I haven’t seen the camera yet that gives you a signal when the lighting, composition, and mood of the photo is correct. After they get sued a couple of times for botching the photos for a wedding there done. The prints are the performance and it dose not take too many bad notes to kill a bad band. You just need to live through it. Being a little cynical maybe you could go for repeat business as the couple is probably writing there pre-nup agreements while selecting you as the photographer. You could give them a 25% discount on their second marriages. Kind of get three shoots out of one (I know that’s bad on me). It will come back around. </p>

 

[susylia]

<p>There are a lot more people with $500 in the bank, and a limited few with $5000.<br>

Just sayin'.</p>

[tina___cliff_t]

<p>Maybe your in the wrong price bracket? It might sound silly but maybe try raising your prices so that you are no longer competing with the $500 photographer. </p>

<p>Even though the clients might be looking for the right budget, they will notice quality. So the question is, is your quality better than the $500 photographers that you feel are taking all the business. </p>

<p>Its just basic business, if someone is selling something better or equal, but cheaper...that is where the people will go. </p>

<p> </p>

[fotografz]

<p>(Not sure how the tangental tech discussion helps answer the OP's original question).</p>

<p>How does one combat the "lower priced spread" in a down economy? Not necessarily against a $400. photographer, but perhaps against a less established photographer charging less for a similar level of service (i.e., hours and deliverables).</p>

<p>Forgive the ramblings of a confirmed "Mad Man" with 30+ years of marketing experience for a lot of brands you probably use yourself (at one time or another : -)</p>

<p>In advertising and marketing this issue is a classic case of <strong>competitive positioning and tangible support.</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

<strong>The first indicator of your positioning in the market place is pricing/value.</strong> For most clients, you are what your pricing says you are. The question is, how do you establish a sense of value at your price position? One common practice in advertising is to perform as good or better than the more expensive product and prove it ... not to directly compete with the more expensive product, but instead to take the perceptual lead in your own price category. For example, Olay markets some of their skin care products as out-performing the most exotic and expensive ones in the world costing up to 20X as much ... with support coming from 3rd party credible comparisons. The target is NOT users of the exotic products, <em>it is users of Olay's direct price competitors. </em><em> </em></p>

<p><strong>Obviously talent enters into the equation</strong> ... however, clients often place a pretty wide swath of talent levels into their shopping cart. While talent is part of your positioning and can be a strong differentiator, the differences may be more apparent to you than your target audience. This can be mitigated by <strong>presentation and accolades.</strong> To use an extreme example, being selected as one of the top 10 wedding photographers obviously has an impact on client perceptions of your talent verses a competitor ... even if the actual difference is not obvious to you.</p>

<p>I would say that for the established mid-priced wedding photographer, one way to combat less established shooters nipping at your heels would be to evoke consistency. In advertising this is a technique of creating <strong>competitive doubt. </strong>Most clients shop more than one photographer before making up their mind. They are not experts at buying wedding photography and you have an opportunity to set the criteria for choice. Part of your "value perception" can be performance at a consistently reliable level of talent, confidence, and trustworthiness. While most anyone that gets into this business gets lucky from time-to-time and produces a killer shot ... it is no guarantee that any given client will get shots like that for themselves. If you present a wide selection of weddings which feature one great shot after another, for a wide variety of clients, and diplomatically make a point of that attribute ... you start setting one of the criteria for the client's decision making process. Less established photographers, or those starting out, have a more difficult time presenting that attribute.</p>

<p><strong>Go with your strengths and exploit your competitor's weaknesses.</strong> Think about the experience you do have that a less experienced shooter would be hard pressed to present ... and leverage it. </p>

<p>There is more, but that's enough for now. <br>

<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p><strong> </strong></p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Having a lower priced competitor goes back many many decades. One had the same gripe except the number was lower; ie 250 bucks; 150 bucks, 100 bucks; 75 bucks; 50 bucks.<br>

The Uncle Bob factor is old too.<br>

<br />The competitor may also be just not so rigid; maybe the B&G want a video; a CD, images for their website; facebook. You might be clinging to the past and dream thatr you hold an iron clad control over the images.<br>

<br />A casual competitor has less overhead; they often do not understand why one really needs backup cameras and strobes. The 400 gig look like pure profit to them.<br>

<br />One has a down economy; folks are looking for ways to save money.<br>

<br />*****You need to sell why your services are better.<br>

<br />There were 40 and 50 buck wedding shooters when I shoot for a wedding chap in Indiana. We used MF for candids and 4x5 for formals. Our prices were higher. The newer technology then was 35mm; goobers on the low end used 35mm and then delivered a lower quality image.<br>

<br />One can takes this thread and just divide by prices by 2, 3, 5, 10 etc and get the same whine as in the past.<br>

Rangefinder magazine back in the 1973/1974 down turn had an article about low end wedding shooters.</p>

<p>My pro neighbor in Detroit was bitching about this back in the 1958 downturn too.</p>

[ejder]

<p>The part Marc says about consistency - that's absolutely my own issue as well. In my opinion, I can put out a consistently acceptable product right now (nothing is really bad), but it is not consistently spectacular or excellent. I have gotten a few of those really great shots, but they have been accidents and I can't duplicate the experience. I know it comes down to knowledge and skill, and I'm not there yet - that's why I don't charge the big bucks. If I could get those killer shots every time, I would move myself up into another price bracket.<br /><br />I'm currently only one step above the $400 bracket, and will stay there until I get good enough to deserve otherwise.</p>

[exposed1]

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I have been a wedding photographer for 30 years and for the last 25 have been a full time photographer. I guess you can call me one of the $600-$900 wedding photographers. But I am only at the wedding for 3 hours, give 4x6 proofs, a few 8x10s and a DVD, either low or high res. I only do color correction on the DVD and that is it. I am not busy but work the weddings I want, normaly 10-15 a year. I think you must price yourself on what your market demands. If you are new and charge $500 for a wedding and are making money then you are getting more photos so show clients and your name is getting around. Charge $1500 and you may do less weddings, less photos to show and your name gets around less. Charge what will get you the work to make ends meet and get over the thought of "I am worth that". You may be worth nothing if you go down the tubes. The market will come around then charge what the market will allow.<br>

I have to agree with Bill Clark, classic will always live longer than trendy.<br>

Randy </p>

[michaelchadwickphotography]

<p>Simple - take the groom aside and ask this simple question: Would you rather have a $5 hooker or a $500 hooker? It's the same service, but a MUCH different skill set and experience level.</p>

<p>I know that's crass, but it's very blunt and will get the point across.</p>

<p>I'm kidding - DON'T say that. But, find a better metaphor and give them an idea of why your service is worth the extra.</p>

[eco_foto]

<p>Price range does not or should not be an issue,it's the skills of the photographer that matter some very very talented people do not overprice their work, & thank God for these individuals,by the way there are still people out there with big bucks to spend please don't fret so much about the photog whose trying to make a living doing 500$ weddings!!</p>

[ronald_smith6]

<p>Interesting thread, the $400 wedding doesn't exist in my area - more like the $200 wedding, that's why I have given up trying to compete with the gee-whiz crowd with their new DSLR's who are overnight pros. Of course, there are usually a few I get nabbed to do every year for friends or those who flatter me to pieces, at least I get to pick and choose them.............</p>

[johan_knoetze]

<p>I am one of those photographers, busy for the past 2 years already, learning a lot as I go on about wedding photography, I feel that one should be carefull, we are attempting to capture their most important day, not wow everybody with our expensive equipment. Furthermore to justify higher rates because of more expensive equipment is, and a possible lack of natural talent, is grossly unfair. In all fairness, I would love to have the expensive equipment quoted, but we do get the job done with less expensive equipment and the most important, my client are happy and keeps on booking. </p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>Where I live there were some adds on Craigslist from photographers willing to do weddings for free. I was once asked to shoot small birthday in my area and the lady called back the next day after she got the quote saying that she found a guy that will do it for free. I wished her good luck and said that I hope she'll be happy with the product she will receive. I do not shoot weddings I shot two weddings in my life, but I do not believe I have enough experience to shoot more so I just try to stay at the level of small birthday parties or portraits.<br>

As how to deal with the $400 weddings, I dont think you can actually win the war against those who shoot low budget weddings this is just a different niche. I think it's like worse and better neighborhoods if people cannot afford to live let's say in Glenco, IL they look for a house in Des Plaines. Same here if you charge $2000 for a wedding you will not have clients willing to pay only $400 therefore there is a need for low budget shooters, and if the client can afford $2000 and is willing to pay that much because they think it will yield better service they will come to you instead of the $400 guy. Unless of course the $400 guy gives them better results and better service then there is something totally wrong with the $2000 guy.<br>

I do apologize if I repeated some of the responses but I didn't read the entire thread.</p>

[javi_gonzalez]

<p>I've invested thousands of dollars in equipment, but I'll be one to give credit where credit is due, I've seen some impressive work done with an entry level slr, but definetely the lesser few will achieve this, and usually winds up being those who turn pro in a matter of some time. If we lower our standards and prices, it will lead everyone to think our service is cheap and artless. I say take a stand and begin to educate about the extreme difference in Uncle Bob and the artist. Publicly.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>I have seen it coming this way --last year. The lower prices just means less work for us and less value to the B&G. In the $500 range I just hand them the card(s) from my camera > no post/no fuss . They receive all the RAW and L Jpegs ...& nearly 4 hours of coverage ~one location ( under 20 miles ). One camera/one lens. Small town ~small market. Think that is the price I started in the late 70's --has come full circle :-)</p>

[ibdnzgr]

<p>Is the question about "combating" the $400 weddings or the $400 wedding "photographers?" If you have the superior talent and offer a $400 wedding then you basically eliminate the wannabee photographer because they can't offer the level of product that you do. And let me tell you just because you charge $400 to show up and shoot the wedding, doesn't mean the customer should get "everything" for that.<br>

All that said, my full package runs in the neighborhood of $2,000 or so, here in Oklahoma. More with added options, less without. But basically the bride gets everything she could want with the higher level such as a print package, digital negatives, video montage, engagement session, etc. The lower level prices get the same "coverage" of the wedding... full day coverage, unlimited images, free online gallery, lifetime retouching. But they DON'T get a disk, don't get downloadable images and print prices are much higher. But they DO get the photos of the day, safe and secure in an online gallery that never expires. And I let brides upgrade their packages at anytime in the future as funds become available or through referrals. This means that two years from now, that $500 bride can pay to upgrade and lower her print prices or get a disk, etc. An extra $1,000 arriving in the mail "out of the blue" for a job that is already finished is really nice!<br>

Quality of the product remains high. Lower budget brides can get high(er) budget coverage of the wedding day. Brides with the money can get what they expect at the price they expect to pay. Everybody is happy.<br>

I never understood why so many photographers feel that lower prices should mean lower service... less time on the job, fewer images, etc. I have photographed so many events that have paid off year after year as people keep ordering from the galleries that never expires. (yay for my smugmug account!!!!).<br>

Anyway, anybody wanting to see what I have come up with for my business model is welcome to view the site and online galleries. Those galleries in their entirety serve as my portfolio.</p>

<p>Ian</p>

[steve_hovland]

<p>I think the main difference between the pro and Uncle Bob is that pros are paid to get the pictures every time and amateurs can take a "win some, lose some" attitude.<br>

For most photographers, the unsolved problem is how to find brides with money. The destruction of the middle class is very real, and if that is your market you are going down with them.</p>