The business of Wedding Photography... Help and Advice Needed.

[craigh_bennett]

<p>Yea i felt it was alot but i wanted to make sure that before i started charging people that I was happy myself with my photography. I started off using on camera flash using one of them Gary Thong ;) light modifier things... but was not satisfied with how it looked... my last few weddings I did completely with natural light and am confident to start charging.<br>

There is just one more thing that I would like to get advice on... and that is about vendors and venues etc....<br />How am I going to be able to contact them and ask them if they would refer me to potential clients without being well established?<br>

How would I approach this?<br>

And by the way Simon thanks so much for that advice... and to everyone who has contributed to this post. Its good to get others perspective on things rather than just feeling I am the only one who is going through this! :)</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Its not rocket science. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not, but that doesn't make your analysis right in any way.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>The question of whether the business comes first or the photography comes first is overly simplistic and sophomoric. They are both important and the analysis requires more than a simple sum of hours spent.</p>

<p>How do you get experienced vendors to stake their professional reputations on referring you business? Good question, why would they? The key lies in developing personal relationships with the vendors rather than simply making contacts. In fact, simply making contacts could easily do more harm than good. In the meantime, concentrate on developing a serious, professional image which leads me back to your self portrait on your website.....and reading the marketing archives here at P-net.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>i think the real way to get started is to just get out there speaking to vendors etc as William said... I think the thing that has held me back from doing that is i've called a few and I just get told they already deal with a photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn’t mention vendors: but the conversation has developed around them, and it seems that getting out there and marketing to vendors is your focus.<br />What I did mention was - getting out there and marketing and selling.</p>

<p>In regards to being told “no” (by vendors) – that’s life and their loss.</p>

<p>In regard to Vendors generally: I agree with what DS wrote and that the relationships are important.<br />EG my comments here: <a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00XjWf">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00XjWf</a> (Nov 23, 2010; 11:59 p.m.)</p>

<p>In regards to getting out there and selling and marketing: you mentioned you have done ten Weddings for free.<br />Let’s assume each Bride had two Bridesmaids and one Sister, Female Cousin or Female Best Friend outside the Wedding Party.<br />That’s a base of Thirty B’Maids + Ten Brides + Ten Mothers’ of the Grooms.<br />That’s Fifty Females each who move within a Circle of at least 50 other Females.<br />That’s 2500 once removed Contacts and Fifty at your fingertips, whose names you know.<br />How many have you marketed to?<br />Do you have a marketing strategy, if and when you contact them, or if they contact you?<br />You have already given away Ten Wedding Coverages, so you are generous – that’s good.<br />Whether it’s too many or too few, I don’t care - it's done.<br />What I do care about (and what you should acre about more) is <strong><em>what you harvested from those Ten Weddings</em></strong> . . . and it should have been a lot more than Portfolio Prints.</p>

<p>Do you have a Business Card?<br />What is on the back of it?<br />How many do you have on your person, as you read this?</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>(Aside): This is a very interesting thread, with lots of very interesting viewpoints and even better and more interesting one-liners and quips: not the least of which was the retort to: <em>it’s not rocket science</em>.<br>

And the "<em>value and return on time</em>" comment is a lot deeper and has a more wide ranging meaning than the simple example of (not) chasing invoices - one has to <strong><em>be </em></strong>a Photographer 24/7, even when one is writing the invoice . . .</p>

 

[don_harper_the_edge]

<p>Before answering your very pertienent questions I would like to take a step back and ask you.<br>

Why do you want to be a wedding photographer? I'm not being flip, it's something I think is important to success. I believe a person's motiviation is critical to being a long term success in wedding photography.</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p>There are many formulae for working out what to charge based upon how much one needs to live and etc.<br>

I find them useful for cross checking as I go and also as a template for planning, before I build. – Bank Mangers love them also.<br>

In <strong><em>really simple terms </em></strong>- and IMO it does not need to be complicated - it is important when using a template, for projection, analysis or planning to include the following elements:</p>

<p>A. Total Sales (TURNOVER)<br>

B. Total Cost of Sales (What you need to buy to sell the stuff)<br>

C. Overheads (Regular Running Costs, Taxation, Superannuation etc)<br>

D. Wages (i.e. YOUR INCOME)</p>

<p>The flaw with the analysis above is <strong><em>Total Sales</em></strong> has been equated to <strong><em>Wages</em></strong>. (Income)<br>

But subsequently “Business Expenses” were noted - and then deducted: and result then termed “Profit.”<br>

I am not engaging a terminology war – but suffice to say that Profit (Net Profit) is what is remains after the Wages, are also paid.<br>

This might be seem academic, if the structure is a simple one person business: but it is relevant in the sense that it focuses one on what wages actually are. (Or what one is being renumerated for TIME)</p>

<p>For example, taking the figures above, in POUNDS and applying an Hypothetical Scenario.<br>

40 Weddings per year, paid £1000 each.<br>

Turnover = £40,000<br>

Total Cost Of Sales = £2,000 (not much because we are selling skill, No Albums, No Prints, just Hi Res Images . . . if selling Goods . . . then add it up)<br>

Total Overheads = £10,000 (that’s not much because we are doing it on the smell of an oil rag and only can spend about 200 quid per week, for cost of renewing gear, ads, petrol, telephone, ball point pens, repairs, a new hard drive, a few boxes of DVDs, and a grease and oil change for the car – and subs to the Professional Association . . . etc) <br>

So what we have remaining is £28,000.<br>

Let’s say we take all of that as Wages.<br>

And I don’t know, nor am I commenting on the UK Tax Laws – but that brings the business to Zero Net Profit and our <strong><em>Income</em></strong> as £28,000. So that’s what we live on.</p>

<p>And that’s what we use to reverse calculate what we are being PAID for our time and skill.<br>

i.e. Each wedding we shoot is 10 hours time. Editing is 20 hours each Wedding. Back room work is 5 hours p/w. Meeting Prospects and marketing is 5 hours p/w and we only work 40 weeks per year.</p>

<p>So . . . 40 hours per week X 40 weeks = 1600hrs.<br>

Wages = £28,000<br>

Our Wages are £17.5 per hour.</p>

<p>Now I know that we can play numbers and manipulate to make an outcome, but in the interest of sensible conversation I believe I have UNDERestimated the costs of running a business and UNDERestimated the amount of WORK (Time) per week, OVERestimated the number of Weddings booked and also given us 12 weeks holiday per year . . . with a view to produce a “reasonable” Wage. (I guess the median male wage is around £13 per hour?).</p>

<p>What this exercise usually always shows to me is –IF this exercise is to be used THEN the reality of what to charge is often underestimated and also that appropriate (but simple) modelling, is not really understood either.<br>

Nor is it understood that when starting a business, if it is to be a full time single line of income business, then one has to account for Wages – and Wages are a Cost to the Business, and business costs, can only be PAID with Money.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[steven_praibin]

<p>I think Shadforth is close. If you started factoring depreciation and other expenses you would never get going. I think he was only ballparking. And yes, there are all sorts of business expenses, but most are also a tax deduction, so that brings them down by 50%<br>

The costs with digital are easy to determine. By far the biggest is the initial capital outlay. But I know a very good wedding photographer who charges $2000 and he uses a D300 and a 17-55 f2.8 zoom. Thats it. $2300.<br>

One can lose sight of whats important. Having $20k worth of gear and a CPA to run your books does not make a good wedding photographer. Only the images do. and a good photographer can take good shots regardness of the platform and how expensive it is.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>. . . on the side discussion:<br>

Yes business expenses would be usually entered as a tax deduction.<br />BUT the <strong><em>expenses</em></strong> still have to be <em><strong>paid for</strong></em> with money, before they are tax deductable: that's the point, so it doesn't bring the the COST of them down by anything - the weekly outgoings COST what they COST. <br>

<br />In the simplistic expansion of the sample originally given - neither was mentioned <strong>cost of capital items</strong> nor the <strong>depreciation</strong> of them. . . which is another lot of COSTS, which also has to be paid for, with money.<br>

WW</p>

[markonestudios]

Successful photographers spend their time making work, showing it to the people they want to hire them, and concentrating on strategic activities that enhance their positioning and exposure. They don't spend their time chasing low value work, or waste energy on basic administration, or dilute their personal focus by taking on incoherent assignments. - Neil

<p>Well put :)

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>And definitley don't give the customer ALL your images. 50 is plenty, including 5 fine art quality prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At last, some common sense in terms of number of images. Makes a refreshing change from the hundreds or thousands often mentioned.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>They don't spend their time chasing low value work, or waste energy on basic administration, or dilute their personal focus by taking on incoherent assignments</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you will find that away from the elite top end, most general wedding photographers do exactly that to make a living.</p>

[craigh_bennett]

<p>Blimey, you lot are a feisty bunch when you get going! ;-) hehe<br>

What your all saying is really starting to sink in now and i'm starting to see things alot more clearly. It's not as simple as I first thought but the reason that I had so much confusion over the costing issue is that i'd never actually thought about it in the whole time of setting up my business and doing all those weddings for free.<br /><br />That leads me on to what someone else asked about why I want to be a wedding photographer. Well the simple reason is I love to please other people and go out of my way to do so. Even when just being asked to produce a dvd slideshow of a friends photographs for free for example. I would sit for hours trying to make it perfect even tho I wasn't being paid for it. I also have always loved photography and i've taken photos all of my life just for my own pleasure. So combining the two just makes so much sense to me. I get to do something I love and be paid for it.<br />Thats why I never thought about how much i'm going to charge. I just kept thinking too much about how much I want couples to enjoy their photos and i'd give them away for free if I could just to see their faces but i've learned business doesn't work like that!</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p><em>[successful photographers] don't spend their time chasing low value work, or waste energy on basic administration, or dilute their personal focus by taking on incoherent assignments</em></p>

<p>I think you will find that away from the elite top end, most general wedding photographers do exactly that to make a living.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you considered that might be what prevents them from being in the 'elite top end'?</p>

<p>The people doing well are those who have invested in developing a coherent vision, packaging and delivering it in highly refined and targeted channels, and developing a product or service concept that is different from everyone else's. The ones who are struggling are the me too photographers without a coherent style or market, who chase every dollar and shoot everything and anything, and spend more time with their paperwork than their camera.</p>

<p>The more I read this thread, and ones like it, the more I notice there's a wide interpretation of what is meant by business. In some cases it appears to be basic shopkeeping - how to sell items, book and deliver services, manage customers and maintain accounts. But that's not business in my book. It's only the starting point - the necessary foundation on which to build everything else.</p>

<p>Real business is about building brand value, occupying a defensible market and generating long term sustainable demand that leads to growth in turnover. I don't know of anyone who can achieve that unless they put the core values and assets of the business before the mechanics of delivering it.</p>

[markonestudios]

Craigh, the title of your post also happens to be very similar to the title of a very good book on <a href='http://www.amazon.com/Business-Studio-Photography-Start-Successful/dp/158115254X'>the business</a>...

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>The people doing well are those who have invested in developing a coherent vision, packaging and delivering it in highly refined and targeted channels</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well; if that's not the business aspect, then I suppose my definition of conducting business differs.<br>

In just the quote above, that occupies the lion's share of earning my living. (Marketing)</p>

<p>My definition of business: <strong>Anytime I am not producing imagery but doing something that generates profit.</strong></p>

<p>As I read all the responses, and I hope others will do the same; I see a common thread within the thread; that being business must be conducted to a far higher percentage than the actual taking of photographs.</p>

<p>Again, I am not referring to those who simply want to earn a little extra money; but rather those who do this as their only source of income.</p>

<p>My itinerary today:</p>

<p>Lunch with 2 publishers.<br>

Re-writing a magazine ad.<br>

Billing 4 clients<br>

Reminding 1 client they are over due.<br>

Tax preparations<br>

Call the accountant<br>

Backing up my last assignment shoot<br>

Analyzing my last 90 days of advertising...Cost Vs. Income generated</p>

<p>My camera will not see the light of day today.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Yes, it is not as simple as what you once thought and I would suggest that it's not simple enough to get your education through a series of a few paragraphs via an online forum. The best way to learn a business is from the inside which means working, assisting, interning, or apprenticing at a successful/established studio. Spend a week there, take it all in, take notes and you'll have a notebook of information and an actual "feel" of what it's like. Turn that into a wedding season and you'll have several notebooks of information, some real experience, real relationships with professionals in your area, and you should have a pretty good plan which includes your short and long term goals. You'll also have an informed answer to about 90% of the threads here on the forum..... After you've got the experience, then you might want to help pass some of it on to some young kids entering the field, occasionally they might appreciate it.</p>

<p> </p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>The costs with digital are easy to determine. By far the biggest is the initial capital outlay.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a common misconception but it's wrong. Buying the kit is cheap. The real cost to the business is the time spent using it, including post production. Every hour spent working, beyond taking pictures, is an overhead to the business unless you explicitly bill for it. Effective pricing is based on the real cost of delivering the service, not guesswork.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>The initial capital outlay is not cheap.....from the PC to the software to the flash cards to the camera bodies, peripherals, etc.... it is easily the biggest capital outlay with studio start-up. While time is money, many beginning shooters have much more time than money on their hands. However, many new shooters do fail to factor in time spent (post-processing, continuing education, marketing, networking, etc...) as part of their overhead.</p>

<p>Starting up a business without any practical experience (such as internship, assisting, etc..) is mostly guesswork via "trial & error" learning.</p>

[senor_crocodrillo]

<p>There are many ways to define success as a photographer and even more paths to reaching it. The key is to understand your motivations and strengths and play off them. Maybe you're a great photographer, or maybe you have a great rep, or maybe you're well connected to lots of wealthy people, or maybe women love you so much that they can't see getting married without you there. My point is, is that there is no simple formula. What pnet posters puzzled out for their own part in the profession probably won't promise you the success you seek. Only through careful and honest examination of your own values, motivations, and goals will you find what you're looking for.</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>The initial capital outlay is not cheap....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In relative terms most gear is very cheap compared to the real costs of a small business. But, either way, those type of purchases aren't the right place to begin when starting up. There are far better ways to invest seed money.</p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>Just to clear some things up: true, "business" is WAY more than the simple day-to-day running of a business. It has to do with with marketing, with promoting, with projections, estimations, and about a dozen or so other things most people usually forget or waylay and which eat away at your time on a daily basis.</p>

<p>Deciding how much to charge is MUCH more complicated than simply setting a target and then subtracting. Issues like financing have to be examined and evaluated, the cost of money carefully calculated (if you pay something with a credit card, even if it's invoiced to the company, it STILL carries with it a small premium which, when taken in the long run, is money too...), insurance (which nobody has mentioned), legal and accounting costs and so much more.</p>

<p>True, a photographer CAN decide to hire someone to do all that (as it has been suggested), but then that would mean salaries, employment costs, national insurance, health care and so on and so forth and THAT is certainly something nobody should take on lightly...!</p>

<p>When we're talking about profits, we're talking about business profits. These should always exclude the salary of the proprietor (and any other employees) AND, in that salary, items such as health insurance, pension contributions, etc should always be calculated. Therefore, coming up with a specific hourly figure is neither easy nor something that can be arrived through a forum discussion.</p>

<p>If you can manage to book 40 weddings a year (and that is a high number), at $1050 per wedding, assuming NO costs whatsoever of ANY kind, you'd be making an average salary of someone working as a second photographer in a medium-sized studio. Mind you, that figure is BEFORE taxes (which would result in a final figure of around $2500 per month). Can you live with that? Is that sufficient for you? Does that cover the need for equipment upkeep? For insurance? For all those other things which will crop up?</p>

<p>Chances are it doesn't, whcih means you'll have to seek additional sources of revenue, such as portraits, events coverage and so on, which means greater client variety, more sources of headaches, more administration and so on and so forth. THIS is why successful photographers end up spending more and more time on the "business" side of things, not because they think the "business" side is more important. But BECAUSE their business is their livelyhood and it needs to run properly and efficiently.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>$1050 per wedding</p>

<p>The OP is talking about pounds, not dollars.</p>

[rayyeager]

<p>Actually the saying is "Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome" ...</p>

[William Michael]

<p>The weakest or least developed element will be the limiting factor. We have discussed three main elements: Equipment; Artistry / Skill; Business.<br>

Give someone with a good eye, interpretive skill; photographic technical knowhow and a bit of experience; add some common sense and self confidence also add reasonable interpersonal skills and few solid connections and good marketing to a cashed up market: then a couple of EOS 550D’s a two reasonable Prosumer prime lenses will suffice . . .<br>

Give the greatest artist, but one with few people skills the best tools: but restrict them no marketing or sales outlet. . . and they will struggle to make money for food.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>Give the greatest artist, but one with few people skills...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That sounds like Picasso you're talking about. By all accounts more than a bit of a difficult b***ard.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>. . . and they will struggle to make money for food.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He somehow made a filthy amount of lucre.</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p>yeah . . . but him being a b***ard, was part of the draw, to his sales.</p>

<p>WW</p>