Why Wedding Photographers’ Prices are “Wack”?

[JohnDizzo15]

While I would never subject myself to a fate of wedding photography, I do recognize the value in a good wedding photographer. I have several friends that do it as their primary source of income and I know that it is no easy task. It is quite involved and painful to say the least.

However, while many wedding photographers that charge in the 3k and up range do great work, there are just as many (if not more) that do not. I suppose my point is that on the other end of it, merely paying that much doesn't always get you what that amount of money rates either.

The two most experienced wedding photogs I know make roughly 4-6k/wedding here in California and they seldom have issues with people being unwilling to cough that up. The reason for that? The work that they do is consistently great and they produce many images that don't look like ones you see all the time. So IMO, if you truly have a portfolio that is amazing, you will be separated from the ocean of mediocre-average photogs and easily earn your stated price. And if you are not able to separate yourself in that way, then I don't know what to tell you. But crying about how $500 wedding photographers are making things hard for you is not going to fix your problems.

As a sidenote, Lightroom and other similar software has certainly made post production much more streamlined. Generally speaking, my buddies are going through a couple thousand images per wedding and finishing up with no more than 8-12 hours processing time thanks to LR and things like VSCO. Not that I do weddings, but recent events I've done have yielded anywhere between 150-300 keepers each. PP on those jobs were around 3-4 hours max per. So IMO, as far as the post processing portion of post production goes, it doesn't have to be as time consuming or laborious as some make it out to be.

 

[WPJ]

While the reply letter is probably personally satisfying, it is irrelevant. She is trying to equate cost with price. While they are related, they are not the same thing. Cost is the amount of money and and time it takes a vendor to create and deliver a product or service. Price is the amount of money a customer must spend to acquire that product or service. The only required relationship between those two is that over the long term course of business, prices must exceed cost if you want to stay in business.

But once that requirement is met, there is absolutely no obligation for price to be related to cost - i.e. just because it costs me $1.00 to build a widget, there is no obligation on my part to sell it for $1.10. If my widget is something that revolutionizes the planet and the lives of the people on it, and everyone on planet Earth wants one, I'd be insane not to sell it for $100 if that's what people are willing to pay.

Because at the point of sale, the only real attribute that matters is the perceived value the customer places in your product or service. When someone complains, "Why should I pay X when it only costs Y to build?", what they are really saying is, "I don't think that thing is worth X."

What the complaining bride is really saying is she just doesn't think wedding photography is worth $3,000. In the same way, if you went to a car dealership and complained about the price of the model you wanted to buy, you wouldn't get a lecture from the salesman about how much it cost to build the car, ship the car, insure the car while it's on the lot, cover his commission, etc. He's try to sell you on the "value" of the car - the smoothness and quietness of the ride, the collision safety, the reliability, maybe even the status associated with the driving that model.

At which point, one of two things will happen. If he sells you on those values and you have the money, you'll buy the car. But if he doesn't sell you on those values, you won't buy it, even if you have the money. Because you don't think those values are worth the price. At which point he'll steer you over the corner of the lot with the clown cars on it.

If a prospective customer balks or complains about your prices, you have one of three choices:
1) Successfully sell them on the value of your product
2) Lower your price to match their value expectations
3) Redirect them somewhere else where they can buy at a price that matches their value expectations

Having said all that, I have a sneaking suspicion that the bride wasn't really complaining about supposedly overpriced $3,000 wedding photographers. She claims she can find someone who will do the job for $400. Fine. Why then isn't she just shutting her trap and hiring the $400 photographer. The answer seems obvious. She's looked a the work of the $400 and $3000 photographers, respectively. She realizes by any measure of evaluation that the $3000 photographer is infinitely better and will deliver a vastly superior product. She WANTS the photos created by the $3000 photographer. The $400 photographer? Not so much. So what she's really pissed about is the fact that the guy whose work is clearly superior but costs a lot more won't lower his prices to meet those of the guy she knows whose photos are going to suck but is charging what she is willing to pay.

I think you hit the head if the nail on that one

.hahaha

 

[9VIII]

Photography is a cottage industry, and a popular one at that (it wouldn't be one of my hobbies if it weren't). Anyone with enough spare money can pick it up and the best career a person can hope for is to become a small time celebrity. I think $3,000 is too much given how specialized the job actually is. If people are willing to pay the prices though, who am I to argue. Having someone you can be confident isn't going to seriously screw up the critical moments does sound like it would be worth extra, but after reading this thread it sounds like I would have to see how the guy works at every step to figure out if he actually walks the talk.
I have enough relatives with experience in this kind of thing that I will probably just put the money into a few nice lenses and hand the cameras over. Honestly at this point I'd rather edit the photos myself anyway.

 

[Don Haines]

Photography is a cottage industry, and a popular one at that (it wouldn't be one of my hobbies if it weren't). Anyone with enough spare money can pick it up and the best career a person can hope for is to become a small time celebrity. I think $3,000 is too much given how specialized the job actually is. If people are willing to pay the prices though, who am I to argue. Having someone you can be confident isn't going to seriously screw up the critical moments does sound like it would be worth extra, but after reading this thread it sounds like I would have to see how the guy works at every step to figure out if he actually walks the talk.
I have enough relatives with experience in this kind of thing that I will probably just put the money into a few nice lenses and hand the cameras over. Honestly at this point I'd rather edit the photos myself anyway.

It must also be said that we, the forum members, are not very representative of the general public. A glance at the image forums or at the technical forums will show a degree of skill and technical knowledge that is beyond the scope of the average consumer. Many of us have shot weddings and many more have the skill to do so, so for us, we might be better off doing it ourselves, but for the average Joe this path leads to disaster.

We know that you can spend more time processing a picture than taking it.... We know to watch out for what is in the background.... After a while it becomes automatic.... But the average Joe does not.... and if they don't know something exists how can you expect them to understand why they have to pay for it....

 

[Orangutan]

It must also be said that we, the forum members, are not very representative of the general public. A glance at the image forums or at the technical forums will show a degree of skill and technical knowledge that is beyond the scope of the average consumer.

I think this is a key point that's been overlooked: this forum is not representative of the clientele. Client expectations for photography are as varied as their food preferences: some just want meat and potatoes (large portions) and wash it down with PBR, while others prefer gourmet with a properly-paired wine. Some clients just want a record of the day, with image quality that's consistently better than smartphones, and do not want to burden their guests with the obligation to take the photos. Other clients want their photos to be worthy of Vogue.

And here's where money comes in: with modern photo gear, there are many people who can learn to do meat-and-potatoes wedding photography, and there's nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, if a bride has spent $20k+ on a dress, and $100k for the overall wedding (possibly more if it's a destination event), why would she not choose a photographer who will take Vogue-quality photos? A meat-and-potatoes photographer had better have a day job, because she/he is not going to make a living at $300-$500 per event. A high-end photographer, on the other hand, will have the best gear, hire competent assistants, and study the craft as a full-time occupation.

Talking about the cost of "a wedding photographer" is just as unhelpful as talking about the cost of "food" .... is it beluga caviar or a bag of beef jerky?

 

[alexanderferdinand]

@ orangutan: food is necessary, but not a wedding fotographer.
If some pay 3k or 11k (hello dear Mr. Suprapon!), so there will be some who take that.

If you not willing to pay so much, so what?

I never took more than €1000, but this was years ago.

Another observation: as strange it may sound: if you take less, youre work is less appriciated.

Merry X- mas from Austria!

 

[dgatwood]

Another observation: as strange it may sound: if you take less, youre work is less appriciated.

This. Psychologically speaking, there's a natural assumption that quality costs, and although some folks may appreciate finding the exception to that rule, most people will assume that the higher-priced shop will do the best work. Therefore, it probably makes sense to advertise at a slightly more expensive price than average for your area, but not so much more expensive that people don't bother to contact you. Then give a discount. That way, they go into it thinking not that they got an inexpensive photographer, but rather that they got a great deal on a great one.