nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Cheap wedding photography business, does a market exist?

bren2002

I deliberately posted in this forum to get a photographers opinion.

Supposing you could make the sums work on the business side, does a market exist for a cheap wedding photographer? Say €500 - €750 as a ballpark.

I'm interested to hear people's take on the market, not the business model.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Paulw

There are already many wedding "photographers" working in that price point. Quality varies greatly.

bren2002

Yes but do these people rely on the up sell after the fact? Extra prints, albums etc.

Paulw

They rely on their day jobs and see weddings as extra pocket money, usually.

bren2002

I'm curious if the Ryanair and technologhy models could be applied to the industry. I found few examples of people operating at the €500 level. I wonder could it be driven further down, possibly to €299.

Cianmcliam

bren2002 wrote: »

I'm curious if the Ryanair and technologhy models could be applied to the industry. I found few examples of people operating at the €500 level. I wonder could it be driven further down, possibly to €299.

You'd be working well below minimum wage at that point, unless you do 'shoot & burn' with no post-processing. Can't see that market taking off.

bren2002

Sure I can appriciate how working below min wage could happen, but as I say assume the business model can be solved using technology.

screamer

Its an over saturated market with a lot of under talented suppliers. Recent years have seen anyone with a fancy camera set up as a photographer. Course there is a market for cheap as there are cheapskate customers out there who will spend thousands on a dress and cut spending on everything else to bits. problem is same said cheapskate will expect a champagne service on a beer budget and will take to various internet for a to slate any supplier who gives them less than they expect regardless of your terms and conditions. My advise would be charge a better fee go for fewer bookings with clients thar have reasonable budgets and don't enter the budget basement sector.

Cianmcliam

bren2002 wrote: »

Sure I can appriciate how working below min wage could happen, but as I say assume the business model can be solved using technology.

I don't think there's much room for automation, people don't want to see a sizeable amount of unflattering pictures of themselves and their loved ones on their 'happiest day'. It would tarnish their memory of the event and they will blame the photographer for having poor skills. Since most customers value word of mouth above almost anything else, customers will dry up fast. A lot of weeding out and sensitive adjustment needs to be done by hand or not at all.

bren2002

Sure, good points re expectations and talent.
Talent is sort of the angle I'm coming from. Suppose you could remove the talent element and reduce it to a technical competence. A lot of photographers are trying to get award winning shots and spend a lot of time and effort on it. I wonder how much of this effort is appreciated by the punter.

Straight Edge Punk

The market certainly exists but if you pay peanuts.........

It's the one thing you will have to look back on in years to come to remind you of the day so why would you want to go down the cheap route?

bren2002

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

The market certainly exists but if you pay peanuts.........

It's the one thing you will have to look back on in years to come to remind you of the day so why would you want to go down the cheap route?

But as a corollary how many albums are put away and never looked from one end of the year to the other. That's a lot of wasted photographer effort that the punter is paying for.

IllBeGrand

One thing I learned lately being part of a wedding party is that a good photographer is an absolute pro. It goes beyond just taking photographs, they help you with the logistics, know exactly what needs to be done and when, have contingencies in their head if the weather is bad, keep the whole thing moving.

A good wedding photographer winds up doing way more than pointing and shooting!

bren2002

Are the current market suppliers in tune with the latest customer? The millennial who is used to an online experience, not paying for music or movies and only paying 99c for software. I think this group don't see these photos as the only record anymore. I think they'll absorb from multiple sources, Instagram, what's app groups, snapchat etc.

CelticRambler

bren2002 wrote: »

assume the business model can be solved using technology.

What technology?

At the very least, you're going to have to be physically present at the wedding site to take the pictures, which means (a) getting there [allow up to two hours] (b) taking the pictures, not forgetting to allow time for "crowd management" and "weather events" [allow what, 4 hours? for a one-site wedding] (c) getting home again [another 2 hours], and (d) at least a cursory review of the images.

Bearing in mind that just about every customer will want you to be there late morning/early-mid afternoon, you're limited to one customer a day, so that's one whole working day that's got to be paid for (plus travelling and equipment expenses) before any technology can get to work, and you haven't actually provided the customer with any photos yet.

So how are you going to sell that 300€ fee to the customer?

Straight Edge Punk

You really don't seem to be listening to anybody going against your opinion.

I guarantee I could grab my camera and advertise €200 wedding packages and have a booking by the end of the week. My work however won't come close to the other lads out there offering their services for €1000+.

flyingsnail

Let’s just say you did start doing weddings either part time or full time at €300, how much of that do you actually get to take home.

€300
Less cost of delivery ( direct costs for that wedding eg CD or USB, travel or meal)
Less cost of business (general business costs eg: Insurance, camera, computer, website, advertising ect....)
Less Tax
= ???

There is also the “too cheap” factor. A lot of people would look at the price and assume you are cheap for a reason, and not usually a good reason.

bren2002

Sure, I don't think you could use drones!! But I think there are oppertunities to outsource post processing, deliver electronically, meet over Skype instead of face to face. Just some examples.

bren2002

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

You really don't seem to be listening to anybody going against your opinion.

I guarantee I could grab my camera and advertise €200 wedding packages and have a booking by the end of the week. My work however won't come close to the other lads out there offering their services for €1000+.

Sorry if I come across that way. I very much value all inputs, I'm just challenging thinking. Both myself and others. I fully expect that the quality wouldn't be the same. Just as the 5k guy is going to be different to the 1k guy.

Bacchus

I don't really understand the point of this thread. There's already a market for cheap wedding photographers, just as there's a market for high end wedding photography.

If the point is to find the bottom of the barrel (€299 you seem to suggest) then I really would question what type of quality you are getting for that money and is it worth it? As Screamer pointed out, many couples are happy to spend huge money on various aspects of their day that last literally just that day (dress, venue, drink, food, flowers, etc.) but photographs, the thing that last a lifetime is seen as something that should be done as cheaply as possible. That's all grand, to each their own but to expect quality to go hand in hand with cheap prices is a rarity.

You can apply the same logic to wedding dresses, venues and flowers. Is there a market for cheap versions of those? Yes, of course there does but don't expect anything other than a cheap product (granted there is a second hand market for some things, but that doesn't apply to photography).

I started out with wedding photography last year with 2 weddings (I have a full time job too btw). I was in the "cheap" range around €500. I've 4 weddings this year and I scaled up my pricing accordingly to the point where I'm a mid-priced (sub €1k) photographer. In my own biased opinion I could be charging considerably more but I'm in the position that I still need to build my portfolio (and the irritably difficult SEO rankings :P). I'm pretty much breaking even (at 4 weddings for the year) with equipment costs, insurance, hosting and travel (not to mention the time I put into it). Next year I plan on pricing more competitively again and see how I go. So in the context of your question, having exited my "cheap wedding photography" phase, yes there's a market for it but it's very very crowded.

As for the automated technology angle. The very best of luck to you figuring out how to successfully do that. When you do, you should patent it and make millions. The closest thing I can think of to that is the service where your guests install an app on their phone so that all the pictures they take on your wedding day go to a central server and BOOM, there's your wedding photos.

Synchronicity

CelticRambler wrote: »

What technology? At the very least, you're going to have to be physically present at the wedding site to take the pictures, which means (a) getting there [allow up to two hours] (b) taking the pictures, not forgetting to allow time for "crowd management" and "weather events" [allow what, 4 hours? for a one-site wedding] (c) getting home again [another 2 hours], and (d) at least a cursory review of the images.

Bearing in mind that just about every customer will want you to be there late morning/early-mid afternoon, you're limited to one customer a day, so that's one whole working day that's got to be paid for (plus travelling and equipment expenses) before any technology can get to work, and you haven't actually provided the customer with any photos yet.

So how are you going to sell that 300€ fee to the customer?

The only way you could do it would be as an absolute base to start off with and as a way to build your portfolio. Ten €300 weddings, then up it to €500. Ten of them, up it to €750, etc. Daft to think it could be done indefinitely at €300.

Bacchus

bren2002 wrote: »

Sure, I don't think you could use drones!! But I think there are oppertunities to outsource post processing, deliver electronically, meet over Skype instead of face to face. Just some examples.

There are already services that do post processing for you. I've seen some photographers I follow mention it in the past. That service comes at a fee though which ultimately comes out of your pocket and therefore your clients.

Meeting over Skype is nothing new to the industry. Meeting in person is not mandatory and is usually on the photographers terms (home turf) anyway so the expense there for the photographer is minimal.

Similarly, delivering photos electronically is easily done and has been for years (that's how we received our photos when we got married 3 years ago... today incidentally

). Services like SmugMug make that very easy and cost effective.

bren2002

Synchronicity wrote: »

The only way you could do it would be as an absolute base to start off with and as a way to build your portfolio. Ten €300 weddings, then up it to €500. Ten of them, up it to €750, etc. Daft to think it could be done indefinitely at €300.

Why is it daft? Scale it.
That's where traditional photographers struggle, there's too much reliance on personality and reputation they can't easily scale.

screamer

Also OP brides want to be fussed over with the photographer there a la paparazzi to make them feel like a celebrity on their big day. It's all part of it you know and no way in hell id be subjecting myself to that level of tiring theatrics for a few hundred quid.
Your idea may seem great on paper but get out there and experience a few weddings and divas for yourself and you'll soon see why good photographers charge what they do.

Cianmcliam

bren2002 wrote: »

Why is it daft? Scale it.
That's where traditional photographers struggle, there's too much reliance on personality and reputation they can't easily scale.

That's because the photographer is going to be there looking over your shoulder and watching practically every moment of your day, interacting with your guests etc. I think most people want to know what this person will be like, how they got on with other couples, did their photos flatter the couple or are they just ordinary etc. etc.
You probably don't want some agency guy turning up on the most important day of your life, you are buying the personality and reputation of the photographer.

bren2002

Bacchus wrote: »

The closest thing I can think of to that is the service where your guests install an app on their phone so that all the pictures they take on your wedding day go to a central server and BOOM, there's your wedding photos.

Ive seen this done with the use of hashtags. I'm not even sure there was an official photographer at that one.

Paulw

bren2002 wrote: »

But I think there are oppertunities to outsource post processing, deliver electronically, meet over Skype instead of face to face. Just some examples.

Many of those are already used, even by those costing €3k+

Bacchus

bren2002 wrote: »

Are the current market suppliers in tune with the latest customer? The millennial who is used to an online experience, not paying for music or movies and only paying 99c for software. I think this group don't see these photos as the only record anymore. I think they'll absorb from multiple sources, Instagram, what's app groups, snapchat etc.

How people view media and the abundance of it will have an impact I'm sure... it is interesting what effect it will have over the next decade. However, I believe that when it comes to your wedding day, snapchat photos with the latest cool filter won't cut it and the level of quality provided by a pro will still be in demand. It's probably the day on which you are going to look the best you will ever look, surrounded by the people you love. My bet is that the demand for higher end photography will remain strong and probably grow.

bren2002

Cianmcliam wrote: »

That's because the photographer is going to be there looking over your shoulder and watching practically every moment of your day, interacting with your guests etc. I think most people want to know what this person will be like, how they got on with other couples, did their photos flatter the couple or are they just ordinary etc. etc.
You probably don't want some agency guy turning up on the most important day of your life, you are buying the personality and reputation of the photographer.

Is that the old market though? Is the market shifting?

Paulw

bren2002 wrote: »

Is that the old market though? Is the market shifting?

Is it? How? Where? To what?

Cianmcliam

bren2002 wrote: »

Is that the old market though? Is the market shifting?

I don't think so, I think it's split between the 'we have no real interest in professional photos' crowd who will do Instagram pics or disposable cameras, and the mainstream who want someone who will make them feel comfortable and looking their best.