I'm new I know but I can't help but jump right in with some controversy.

I just read this response to an article in a recent event DV magazine and it kind of disturbs me that the already tainted image of wedding videographers is being worsened. Can't we do something to improve the image of a wedding videographer? We already have every "Uncle Bob" with a camcorder calling themselves professionals and charging brides for amateur work, now we have to deal with professionals ripping brides for every penny they can? Aarrgghh!

Original article is called "Sell it In Post" from the July issue of Event DV magazine.

http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=12876

ive written many and varied posts about the way videography is perceived...
the only way to change the way its viewed, is to change the way its professionally managed.
At the moment, negative precedents have been set to a point of making this industry difficult to sell to potential clients, and the way technology is constantly evollllllving forces us to not only compete with competitors, but to also comete with uncle bob

the only thing we have going for ourselves is our artwork

I'd say you've missed the point entirely...

1. you're there
2. you're shooting anyway
3. this isn't going to happen again
4. the bride probably stretched her budget so thin you could see through Abe's ear...
5. after the wedding she may have resources she didn't have BEFORE the wedding... gifts etc...
6. you can't show her your footage of her day until you've shot it, right? someone else's day just isn't the same.

So exactly how are you "gouging the bride"?? You spend a few extra bucks on extra tapes to make sure you could "overdeliver" anyhow (right?), so what if you can now deliver a better package than originally ordered if she wants it?!?! I'd think you'd be the second or third most liked guy in her life right about that time! (unlike "uncle Bobcam", who got lots of footage of cleavage, his shoes, and food... and missed every "money shot" in the ceremony)

In short, IF you're a professional, there's ABSOLUTELY no reason not to get ALL the good stuff "in the can", and sell it up later. If she doesn't want it, you don't have to mix it, if she does, you don't have to go back and reshoot <wink>...

Early on, I did a wedding where my wife got a literal last minute call to shoot the pix... I mentioned that for $50, I'd shoot the video since I'd be sitting home bored anyway, and that would cover the tapes at least (plus hey, I'd get some cake and punch <wink> and play with my toys), and they could come back later and get the full video - took nearly a year, but that was the husband's surprise anniversary gift! It was an easy shoot, easy edit, short ceremony and immediate reception... and a bit of extra $ in the budget!

I don't see it as gouging to make it possible for someone to have a "complete" wedding video even if they couldn't afford it when they booked you - you're doing a "favor" for the client (see above) as long as you're there, so if you can pick up the "back end" by showing all the great stuff you got and upselling... how does that give anyone a "bad name"??

If someone asks for a single cam ceremony shoot, am I going to leave the other cams at home, or make sure I've got all the angles covered? I'd rather let 'em roll... underpromise, overdeliver, and maybe make a bit on the upsell later.

It's business really, and GOOD business at that! How many times do you order the desert even when you just came for appetizers? Don't you ever go shopping for one thing, and end up with two or three "extras" you realized you needed/wanted once you were at the store?? Heck, I'll bet your camera has at least a few "accessories" floating around in the old camera bag... things you didn't buy at first, but later decided you wanted/needed...

If anyone here hasn't spent more money "upgrading" their kit that they ever expected, please step up and share your secrets NOWWWWWW! Do any of you feel gouged? C'mon, admit it, those "extras" are worth it, right <wink>?

Controversial, nope... not if you think about it in that way!! In fact it offers some pretty good advice if you approach it right!

Well hey, if that's all the author is talking about (underpromise, overdeliver) then that's just great. But when I read things like this comment (a direct quote from the article):

"I have been able to charge twice as much for exactly the same thing after the wedding as I would if contracted to produce it prior to the wedding day.."

This is really the part that I have a problem with. That doesn't sound to me like those "extras" are being offered as a second chance offering to me. I wonder if the author would want his clients to read his article.

If anyone here hasn't spent more money "upgrading" their kit that they ever expected, please step up and share your secrets NOWWWWWW! Do any of you feel gouged? C'mon, admit it, those "extras" are worth it, right <wink>?

It's not the offering of additional services afterward that I have a problem with. If I bought a camera, for instance, and then realized I needed another battery and the only place I could get that battery was at the place I bought the camera, and they decided to charge twice what the thing is worth, then yes! I would absolutely feel gouged!

I guess my position is that if you have the only water hole on an island all by itself in mid-ocean, you should refrain from setting your price too high, but not if there's free competition in whatever market you have. A free market keeps your price down for you--that's the rationale behind antitrust laws.

After the wedding is over, the market is definitely closed and this practice would be, in my opinion, price gouging.

The author may have had good intentions with his article but I, for one, will not use this type of "sales technique" in my business.

OK, I read that quote as "discounted" up front pricing - many videographers do that so as to get work/bookings.

If you've ever taken advantage of "introductory pricing" or a limited time sale, then you've been on the client side. You go back next week when the sale is over, and you don't get the same "deal".

I got my Vegas 7 upgrades when they first came out, and I think the price went up significantly once that deal was over... is it gouging to offer discounts up front to book sales but then not offer those same discounts later?

I think it's too easy to ignore the value of time and product here. Before the wedding time and budgets are often tight, and maybe the bride gets what she can afford, but really wants more - if you can deliver that at a later time and she's willing to pay the additional sans discount (nothing says you can't discount "after" too), I'm not seeing that as a problem...

And let's just say for the sake of argument the client was a bit of a "bridezilla" - she wants that extra footage, but has been a PITA along the way - do you really want to give her the discount???

Circumstances vary, and I've seen times in other businesses where it was simply necessary to raise rates for the hassle of dealing with a problem client - if they still will pay, then there's no longer anything to gripe about, you're being compensated for their idiosyncracies (which oddly enough probably often involve demanding discounts). Other guys you discount just because they are like family and their loyalty means a lot, and they don't quibble with what you charge, so give them the break.

I think you're being too harsh on the written article - words don't always convey everything about how someone does business, and if the guy is respected and sucessful, he's probably doing something right!

OK, I read that quote as "discounted" up front pricing - many videographers do that so as to get work/bookings.

I can see that but it seems to me there is alot more implication in the article than just that.

I've seen times in other businesses where it was simply necessary to raise rates for the hassle of dealing with a problem client

Although that may be common amongst videographers, it is completely unethical and I believe it may well be illegal.

Not trying to start any fights, I just see things going on here that seem very wrong to me and I'm sick of the bad image that wedding videographers have in general.

the real issue here is knowledge.. ie the clients knowledge and understanding of what the INITIAL package contents contain.
Take for example the sales pitch of "reception til end"
In all sense of the word, you are offering to remain at the reception until the end. The client would assume that everything that happens at said reception will be archived, in turn, be provided to them upon delivery of goods.
"Its called intent to sell demonstrated goods"
Whether its by assumption or not, the fact that the supplier has said they would be in attendance is the main element which

Now, if i was to write "Reception til end, speeches extra" do you think anyone would book me?

I recall once, i got sick of the longwinded speeches when i did 3 wedddings in a row where the speeches went for longer than 90minutes
I wrote in my packages that speeches over 20minutes would be edited
In that week from the usual 40 odd email queries i get, i got 3 and the packages people were chasing worn worth my time (hence whythey no longer exist)

It seems to me that this person is doign what photographers do, such as offer a basic shooting package then offering the edit style later.
Photographers have been doing this for decades with albums, an example being the inclusion of a basic 20 page spread, however the client has the ability to add pages at about 100bux a side.
The differnce however is the fact that photographic clients expect this, they do NOT expect it from video.

This would gouge the client if the producer DIDNT advise the client that speeches or what have you would be extra when it comes to editing.
If however teh client knows and understands what theyre getting into, then all teh power to them.
I on the other hand, like any work contract, prefer to know WHAT I AM getting into. in turn, i offer a base package cost upfront, and expect it to be paid upfront.
irrespective of how much $ the client may have before.
If they blow their budget, its not my problem
95% of the time however, they WILL have cash after the wedding through gifts or from their honeymoon budget. I used to get the final payment after the weddings, but i kid you not, ALL of teh clients who owed me money after the wedding blew their cash on their honeymoons, in turn it screwed up my schedule and my workload.

I think videographers have been too lenient simply to score the job, in turn, theyre undercutting themselves and have been for the last 5 years

Think of it this way - book an airplane flight or hotel in advance, and you get a discount while they are trying to sell their inventory - if you walk up to the counter at the last minute, you pay full price - where is that unethical? Call a plumber at 3AM with your basement flooding, you think you'll get the preferred rate?

If there's a written contract spelling out terms and you violate that, then you're in trouble - negotiating additional services on top of those originally contracted for is perfectly ethical and reasonable... you go buy a house with the "standard features" and when it's almost done you want them to upgrade everything - now they are probably out for the "standard stuff" already ordered and perhaps partially done... you think they will offer the same price??

Lets say for a minute that you've booked all your time, and now a client wants to increase your editing load by purchasing a much more complex package - you are already fully booked, so you have to go hire additional help at additional expense - are you giving that away?? I can EASILY see a busy heavily booked business having to charge EXTRA to accomodate unanticipated changes... rush fees, emergency rates, all pretty standard business practice...

I think you're trying to ascribe some evil "philosophy" to the methods of dealing with clients rather than just a practical expression of the realities of a "service" business - this isn't like putting stuff on a shelf and slapping a price tag up - that's where "bait and switch" is not legal or ethical.

I've noticed that many wedding vendors like to keep their prices as "hush hush" as possible (some out of arrogance, others maybe out of embarrasment). You're talking about a custom one of a kind product, and a WIDE range of potential quality depending on the person doing the service and the money paid.

Maybe the B&G liked the "pilot" so much they decided to bump to the full production - whats wrong with having the footage in the can and charging your regular rate, which I presume you discussed when you contracted, including any applicable discounts for early booking...

I think the one thing that MIGHT be a great idea is to include specifics right in the original contract as to additional work/product/production and how much it may cost - that way there's no "ethics" question when it comes up later, and you still have reasonable control over your time and pricing. THAT wuld be good business anyway, and you could use it to upsell at the original booking, or later as conditions warrant.

In short, there's nothing at all illegal or enethical with charging for your services - that's hopefully how you make your living. If you can improve your bottom line by upselling the client to a better package and more product once they see how great your work is <wink>, how is that different from the photographer??

If the contract includes a DVD with scenes A, B and C, and you include shots A, B and C, you've fulfilled your obligations and the client's expectations.

Now during the event, you shoot scenes D, E and F (not specified in the contract) in case the client wants to pay for additional post work to include the extra scenes. You show the client shots D, E and F - if they like them but don't want to pay for the extra editing, resulting in the final product only containing A, B and C - you haven't violated your contract or done anything unethical. If they decide to purchase the extra shots D, E and F, there's still no slight of hand. Extra work outside of the contract = additional fees. At least if that is what I'm understanding this issue is about.

The problem with the battery analogy is that the extra battery would be, as stated, a 'need', not just an extra 'perk'. The extra footage is not an 'essential' like a camera battery - it's a non-neccessary value-added service that is extra. Even without the extra footage, the DVD is still 'complete' in that it fulfills the original contract.

I could write a list of hundreds of examples where this occurs every day (upselling). You go to buy a product or service, and the business tries to upsell to you before you leave. The extras are not neccessities, but they are often attractive - but if you don't pay extra, you don't get the extras. Consider these:

1.) At the grocery store, you're hit with those product racks at the checkout. You don't need them, they're not what you came to get, but they're nice, tasty little extras pitched to you before you leave. But if you don't pay extra for them, you don't get them.

2.) Whitewater rafting companies and amusement park rides offer the photo/video pack after you're done with the ride/trip. It's not part of the original package, in most cases you don't know it's available until they try to sell it to you at the end. Again, you'll get no extras without additional fees.

3.) You buy a Dell computer online, and before you check out they try to sell you a nice big monitor. You still get your computer in the end, but if you don't pay for this add-on, you don't get it.

4.) Burger King tries to sell you the super-sized meal when you only came for the regular size. The extra would be nice, but if you don't pay extra, you don't get it.

Maybe I'm missing something but I see nothing wrong with trying to upsell value-added features after a shoot is over. You're doing extra work outside of the contract - which should require additional fees for your efforts.

My opinion on this is that it's not unethical as long as the contract is crystal clear and you are crystal clear and up front with the client on what is and isn't covered/provided.

HOWEVER .... I do think it's a low standard to operate your business by if you're purposely preparing your contract so that the couple will think they are getting a certain level of coverage and finding out later that they didn't get that. I know everyone is responsible for the contract they sign, but I also believe business owners have a responsibility to be clear and up-front about the details within the contract so that the client doesn't have to have a lawyer read it, ya know?

EDIT: Also, I would like to point out that I operate a service-oriented business. I'm in business to make money, but my goal is to gain client satisfaction. By keeping things easy to understand and being very clear and up-front with my clients, I think they appreciate the job I do that much more. Every couple gives me a rave review after the wedding and again after they watch their wedding video. I don't think I would get that response if I used the "Sell It In Post" tactics. And I'd much rather have REALLY happy clients giving REALLY good referrals to everyone they know.

Dave and Dan, I see your points but the article seems to go way beyond upselling. I'm all for upselling. I see nothing wrong with it. It just seems to me that the author of the article has intentionally set his clients up to need more services to get what they initially wanted. That's what I have a problem with.

I completely agree with Travis. It is way more valuable to have a client that feels she got a great deal on a superb video than to give that up for a few extra dollars (even alot of extra dollars).

By all means, upsell. If the bride can afford more later or if she needs something she initially didn't want, that's great. But do it in an ethical way. Don't create a contract that forces the client to guess at exactly what she needs (how many toasts, speeches, songs etc.) with the intent on getting more money if that number changes. That's just not right and it's a disservice to your clients.

Maybe I'm missing something but I see nothing wrong with trying to upsell value-added features after a shoot is over. You're doing extra work outside of the contract - which should require additional fees for your efforts.

I agree but the author is advising that you intentionally set up the contract so the bride will need to add features to get the same thing she wanted initially. Here is a direct quote from the article. It is obvious that he plans it this way:

I have been able to charge twice as much for exactly the same thing after the wedding as I would if contracted to produce it prior to the wedding day.

The point seems to be, sell them a package for a cheap price initally, then require them to buy extras to get what they wanted in the first place.

In a prequel to this article in the previous month, he says to specify in the contract things like:

..the number of toasts, speeches and live performances, and how long each will be.

Not into shooting weddings... and only read a bit of the story...

Its funny why I even read this thread....

But if you come to me and say hey I'll shoot your wedding from beginning to end... then you'll shoot my wedding from beginning to end...

If you come to me afterwards and say well now this dance scene is going to cost you more... sorry its not going to cost me more...

That would be like me shooting a music video and saying well guess what I brought and extra camera. Now if you want that footage included into your video you'll have to pay me...

But don't worry the odds of me getting married are pretty high... :)

I think "package" pricing is pretty standard - and not every couple can jump on the "platinum champagne" package - some are going to naturally choose the "aluminum beer budget special" because they've got a zillion other things to pay for. SO, you can be dumb, book the low end package (which should specify what it will cover), go shoot that and only that, and get paid for that...

OR, you could book the low end package, (since you're there anyway and have all your gear) shoot it just as if it were a higher end package (not saying go shoot the reception if they only booked the ceremony, just saying if you're there ANYWAY...). Then you can let them know if they want to upgrade to a higher package, the footage is in the can, and maybe toss them a teaser disc or something.

You're not FORCING them to go from beer to champaign, but you're giving them an option they wouldn't otherwise have, and who knows, maybe for some of the gigs you just throw some of that in 'cause you know it will pay off in the end with happy customers.

It's not like you're selling them undercoating and Scotch-gard unless you're being a jerk about it... always present even your BASIC package as a high quality product, and allow them to choose the upgrade both before and after the event! If they take it, great, if not, that should be fine too!

Maybe they got a gift from uncle Bob after he looked at his footage, and they can now afford the "upgrade" at full price (you can decide whether to offer the same discount as you did on upfront booking, but does that degrade your "discount"??). I could see where if your discount structure was early in your booking cycle that the additional could add quite a lot to the overall price, perhaps "twice as much"...

I know I've more than once taken advantage of a "deal" only to see the same thing for double what I paid, so I don't see this as "gouging" or offensive.

Smart shoppers with "cash" or equivalent up front typically get a better deal - that's life and commerce. At least instead of "you snooze you lose (forever)" you're giving the client the opportunity to at get the top of the line, even if the price is no longer discounted...

I'm failing to see what the problem is with that - makes rather good sense to me, and if a professional in a magazine read by professionals is a bit rough in his presentation of the concept, that doesn't mean the idea isn't a good one (thanks for bringing it to our attention!), or that he doesn't do it far more smoothly in a client presentation...

Hey, maybe the article is far more offensive, but you're quoting ONE line like it's some form of extortion... it's simple economics, and I don't see how it makes videographers look bad to run a business on basic economic principles... maybe if more did, we'd all look better!

Your point is a good one Gary - but typically I see packages being differentiated by # of cameras, type of editing, features/menus/etc.

You shoot a music video, you know exactly how long it is (song length, right?). Now lets say they want 3 slightly different mixes/remixes after you do the first - that's not "free", right?

Weddings can vary widely... from a 15 minute "ceremony" to a multi day affair (never done one, thank goodness, but read about it here!).

I'm not sure I've seen a situation where there's a whole lot of extra "stuff" you'd be charging for (or even be able to), BUT I can see where someone says "I've got a 1 cam budget", I take the gig (bird in hand), and shoot three/four cams (maybe bird in bush TOO) - I can deliver the "1 cam" video pretty much straight to DVD, maybe even as I head out the door at the end of the ceremony... but I could also give them the full production... and charge accordingly. Good for them, good for me if they decide they want more later!

Dave, you mentioned you're failing to see what the problem is . . and I agree . . you're missing it. The author doesn't seem to be encouraging shooting extra and then offering it to the client later, which would be fine. Instead, he is saying to tell the couple that you're covering the wedding, and then have little catches in your contract that specify the maximum number of toasts, dances, etc. and the maximum lengths for each of those.

Like I said earlier, this isn't a problem if you're going over these contract details with your couple. But if you're putting it in there and keeping it hidden within pages and pages of other legalese so you can pull it out later and "force" the couple into buying footage that they thought they were already getting . . that is bad business practice and won't get you good referrals down the road. And let's face it, anyone who has been in this business knows how important good referrals are.

I read the original article by Mike Nelson carefully and came away with a more favorable impression. Part of what Mike appears to be doing is distinguishing between what he charges for basic documentary editing versus more creative efforts, and giving clients a choice whether to pay for the more creative work. If that's a correct interpretation then it's arguably a reasonable thing to do, but not the way most of us are used to doing business.

I'd also note that the fellow who wrote the response article which got us all talking is trying to build up his "Wedding Video Done Right" web site and potentially benefits from this controversy. Maybe Mike needs to explain himself better regarding what he does, but that could have been clarified directly before writing an article blasting him in public.

I agree but the author is advising that you intentionally set up the contract so the bride will need to add features to get the same thing she wanted initially. Here is a direct quote from the article. It is obvious that he plans it this way:

"I have been able to charge twice as much for exactly the same thing after the wedding as I would if contracted to produce it prior to the wedding day."

The point seems to be, sell them a package for a cheap price initally, then require them to buy extras to get what they wanted in the first place.


My 2 cents is that Adam is misreading the intent behind the quote from the article.

I think what the guy is saying is that, before the wedding, you tell the bride "I can give you a super duper nice edit of you dancing with your father on your wedding day" and the bride is so busy with everything else that she doesn't think that would be worth much (and thus wouldn't pay much for it).

Then, after the wedding, you show her the footage and what it would look like and emotionally she feels the impact of the footage and realizes its importance, that she then fully appreciates its full value and is willing to pay more for it.

Thus, you can charge more for it when you have the ability to show the footage of the final product. This just means that it is worth more to the bride later when she can see it.

Just my 2 cents,
Bill

Kevin -

I think you nailed it... guy tooting own horn to get attention/web traffic and bring WEVA to their knees... sigh... Thought his backhanded "complement" to open his attack was a particularly "nice" touch. Guess if your forums have fewer postings than many of the individual "pros" here at DVi <<edit - or even a piker like me, apparently!>> you got to do something to get attention. "Reading between the lines", opining, and generally speculating so as to create a "controversy" is one way. Personally, I won't be asking (begging the way the site looks) to join his organization or get his blessing so I'm a "good videographer", does that make me a "bad videographer"?? I think I'm OK with that <wink>!

Travis - I think we're all a bit smarter than to write contracts to take advantage of a client, but hopefully we're smart enough not to write contracts that end up with the client taking advantage of US! Good to know that sometimes toasts can go on for hours, etc... and maybe add a clause so you're not on the hook for the 3 disk extended version of the "end to end wedding"....

'nuf said.

Maybe I was reading too much into it but, that article aside, here's my personal philosophy:

1. Provide packages that cover all the typical things that the client would want in her video.
(of course she wants the toasts and dances etc.)
2. Include all the pertinent footage in the product.
(If contracted for 8 hours, get all the pertinent and applicable footage you can in that 8 hours and include it in the product)
3. Deliver a product that far exceeds the clients expectations by including, if necessary, additional items not specifically outlined in the contract.
(I once got some great footage of the bridal party's limo ride from the ceremony to the reception as the limo drove next to us and included a short montage of the limo ride in the clients video)
4. Upsell - Offer additional items above and beyond the standard items at any time after the wedding.
(I offer a "motion pictures" montage of the honeymoon photos for instance, or why not do a "love story video afterwards with the bride and grooms take on the wedding day, or a commentary audio track?)
5. Leave the client feeling like they got an amazing service they are thrilled with, without being nickel-and-dimed so they not only feel confident in recommending you but will go out of their way to promote your business.

I don't see how you can have it both ways. If you feel the need to charge extra for everything you can possibly charge extra for and have so much business that you can't possibly take more referrals now or down the road, then by gosh, the "sell it in post" strategy sounds like the ticket. For me, I'll stick with giving my clients more than they bargained for. I think in the long run there's no better way to do business.

...giving my clients more than they bargained for. I think in the long run there's no better way to do business.

This ideal is good to shoot for, but there is a delicate balance. It's good to throw in a perk here and there, but most clients are very happy to get a quality product that is exactly what they paid for. Going too far over and above for everyone can lead to burnout and financial problems faster than you'd think. Particularly when you discover thet the extra work often has little or no effect on how many of your customers are satisfied or not. The unsatisfied ones will often still be that way even if you give them 200%. It unfortunately took me many years to learn this.

If you feel the need to charge extra for everything you can possibly charge extra for and have so much business that you can't possibly take more referrals now or down the road, then by gosh, the "sell it in post" strategy sounds like the ticket. For me, I'll stick with giving my clients more than they bargained for. I think in the long run there's no better way to do business.

I'm a big believer in trying to offer fair pricing and not giving clients any unfavorable impression, but I've also come to realize that wedding videographers are generally underpaid for the amount of work they do. If you read Mike Nelson's article carefully and give him the benefit of the doubt it looks like he's found a good way to upsell couples on video features they wouldn't have paid properly for before their wedding. Such an approach could be abused to take adanvtage of customers, but it could also be used in a reasonable way to sell them additional services they'll appreciate more after their wedding than before.

Without knowing any more about Mike I'm inclined to think he's just communicating poorly in his articles about what he's doing, leaving room for uncertainty about how he's treating his customers. Let's be clear among ourselves that what he's suggesting should definitely not be used in an abusive manner.

I agree that wedding videographers are underpaid in general. Im not so money hungry that I will sacrifice doing my best job just for a few extra bucks. When I talk about going above and beyond, I think its completely reasonable to put all you can into each project.

Did a wedding weekend before last where the groom sang a song to the bride. I had no idea before the day that this event would happen and it was the last event at the reception so it required me to stay a little longer to get the footage. I see 2 options at this point: 1. Let the client know that I got some great footage of the song and can include it in the video for an extra fee or 2. Add it anyway because not only am I contracted for 8 hours and it happened within that 8 hours but this is a pretty important memory of the wedding for the bride and groom and leaving it out would leave the video incomplete. I chose option 2 (and will every time) because even though I maybe could have gotten more money out of the client, I realize that the extra (lets be honest) 15 minutes it took me to put the song in the video (5 to shoot, 10 to edit, and it looks great) is well worth the positive effects I will reap including a reputation of providing a good deal and an exceptional video. This particular client (in this case, the MOB) was so thrilled with the video and my hard work that she offered (and Im not making this up) me more money (several hundred) than I contracted her for because she felt she was ripping me off. Of course I obliged. Now, I know this isnt normal and has never happened nor will probably ever happen again but my point is that when people get a better product than they bargained for, it will eventually pay off, if not right away. And even if it doesnt pay off financially at all, I will still go above and beyond every chance I get because its the right thing to do. Doing the right thing for the right reason doesnt make you burnt out.

There's certainly nothing wrong with giving clients a little more than than they bargained for, and it's also reasonable to try to find ways to get paid decently for the work we do. The important thing is not to do either of those to excess: don't give away your time and talent at prices which are unfair to you, and don't gouge clients or do anything to give the appearance of improper business practices. In the example under discussion, we can't conclude that the author of the original article is treating his clients unfairly based on the limited information provided, but we can see that he's trying to be a smart business person. If anyone's going to try to follow his suggestion for a post-wedding client meeting, just make sure you don't do so in a way which might be considered unfair.

If anyone's going to try to follow his suggestion for a post-wedding client meeting, just make sure you don't do so in a way which might be considered unfair.

Agreed :)

And I'm not saying everyone has to do things the same as I. I just would hate to see colleagues giving our profession a bad image. I can't say what the motives of the original articles author were and in defense of the response articles author, I think he did leave room to be wrong, even if he did assume alot. However, it is a bit fishy to me that this article from June http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=12671 seems to be a set up for this article from July http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=12876 .

I'm not judging him but some things he said just don't sit quite right with me.

I'm not judging him but some things he said just don't sit quite right with me.

As I said before, I think he said some things poorly which have a valid point behind them. If you read both articles carefully and give the author some credit for the difficulty of communicating in writing, what he's saying is don't give your work away. His most controversial comment may be his observation that he can charge more for some services after a wedding (when the couple realizes they want them) than he typically could beforehand (when couples are watching their wedding budget). There's nothing wrong with that provided he's treating each of his customers fairly, and that's something we can't determine just from reading the articles.

Looks to me like the guy who wrote the original articles is a smart business person who's using good marketing to earn more money, and the person who criticized his article is over-reacting in a way which isn't helping anyone. By all means treat your customers as you would want to be treated, but don't overlook legitimate ways to improve your bottom line...

By all means treat your customers as you would want to be treated, but don't overlook legitimate ways to improve your bottom line...

I don't see deliberately setting up your contract in a way that allows you to add additional services later at a higher price legitimate. I can't see how what the author wrote is NOT suggesting to do that. If you disagree then fine but I refuse to do business that way. It kind of shocks me that several people here don't see anything wrong with it. In my opinion, you have to be all about money in order to have that viewpoint. I, for one, am in this business because it's what I love to do and I would hope that's why most wedding videographers do it. If you want to justify his comments as a fair and ethical way to do business then well, good luck with that but I disagree and I'll leave it at that.

I would strongly suggest before you keep beating on the author, you actually contact him first! I've sat in his seminars and I have spoken to him personally, what he is talking about is fair, legitimate and good marketing practices. His clients are not "blindsided" with anything and his contracts are not "rigged". Every client is presented with what is possible and can hire those services at the outset in a packaged form. Being that it is prepackaged it is discounted vs the prices of say an ala'cart. After booking and post wedding his additional marketing kicks in and the client is presented with another sales pitch for the things they did not book up front. They at that point can say no and continue on with what they contracted and will receive an excellent product for their money. However if they decide to go for something in post that they didn't book up front, the feature is now charged at an ala'cart rate that is by nature higher than it would have been if booked before with the package.

These are accepted and standard business practices in most industries. If I build a house and then decide after it is completed or half done that I want another door added, that door is going to cost 2x what it would have cost in the planning sessions. More power to Mike.

I don't see deliberately setting up your contract in a way that allows you to add additional services later at a higher price legitimate. I can't see how what the author wrote is NOT suggesting to do that.

I'd call that a misinterpretation of what he's saying, which is that his clients are more willing to spend their money for upgrades after the wedding than before. If he takes advantage of that fact by pitching upgrades in a post-wedding meeting and setting prices to levels he can collect at that time, that's smart business. It makes me a little uneasy too, but so long as he's not boxing his clients into a corner then there's no harm done.

Let's say you determine that a fair price for feature X is $500, but before their wedding few couples would be willing to buy it at that price. If you sell it to them for less than that you're not being fair to yourself, but if you wait until after the wedding and they pay it then you're not being unfair to anyone. The question is whether the author is using that approach or doing something more sinister, and I wouldn't be too quick to judge him about that.

Here are some of the many quotes in his article that I had a problem with (I had to cut out a ton so as to stay within fair use):

Extra videography can also mean extra opportunities to profit from what we can create in post (more on this in my next column).

The first article sets the premise for the second. His advice is to charge not for amount of coverage but for each separate item and how well he edits them. He is "creating" the opportunity to make more money later. This was my first clue that something was wrong.

I conduct a meeting with the bride about two weeks after the wedding for three main reasons...Third is to help a bride deal with her increased value of video after the wedding.

The problem here is that once the wedding is over and the videographer is already hired, OF COURSE THE VALUE GOES UP! He is now the only person on earth that can give her any video of her wedding!!! He holds a monopoly on the footage!

After reviewing the footage I compare what there actually is with what the bride bought in her package. For each section, I look for the following for each section: videography time; work-tape minutes; and number and length of toasts, speeches, presentations, and musical numbers. Then I assign a percentage to the amount of usable footage. There are many factors which can affect how good the footage is, most of which are out of our control. These include weather; lighting; decorations; the beauty of the facility (or lack thereof); if the bride has provided enough time for videography at each event; how good the other vendors are at their job and whether or not they respect videography; how easy the customers are to work with, and even how attractive they are. All of these things and more affect the quality and quantity of the footage you get. If something is out of sync with what the bride planned for and purchased, you have a responsibility to let the bride know, and to make a recommendation to help resolve the disparity.

So apparently, the bride has contracted him for a price that is to vary based on how pretty she is and how emotional the wedding was????!!!

Some people call this an upsell, but they’re wrong—an upsell is getting the client to buy something they do not need but you have convinced them that they want, such as adding 4-wheel drive to a car for a person who will never drive in snow or leave the asphalt. By contrast, selling more features into a bride’s wedding package after the fact is an easy soft sell because you are simply sharing with her what actually took place. She was there, she knows what you are sharing makes sense.
Brides also buy with emotion, and seeing wedding footage for the first time (and remembering them as they actually happened) stirs those emotions.

Several people have argued that Mike was just using an upselling tecnique but he openly admits that it is not.

I have been able to charge twice as much for exactly the same thing after the wedding as I would if contracted to produce it prior to the wedding day, and still sell most brides on this product.

Because now, he and he alone has the footage and if they want to ever see it again, it's going to cost them.

For a dance of the bride and her brother who is acting proxy for a deceased father, mix in photos or video of the deceased father.

...then see if she feels guilty not buying THAT footage!

In summary, what the bride pre-plans for her video and what actually happens rarely are the same thing.

This is exactly the reason videographers (other than Mike Nelson) charge based on the time spent in production (the "coverage time"). This fact is ONLY a problem when you set up a contract the way he has purposefully done to cause this problem, the solution of which is only for the bride to pay money she didn't think she would be paying (or want to pay) before hand.

Maybe we as videographers ARE underpaid. Maybe we DO deserve to get more for what we do. But in NO WAY does that justify us taking advantage of the emotions and unexpected quirks that happen at every wedding.

I have never meet anyone in this industry who is happy about their delivery time, and I’m no exception.

Hi Mike, Nice to meet you! My name is Adam and I generally deliver the final video within 1 week. The longest I have taken was 2 but that was a while back. I'm quite proud of my delivery time.



The entire problem and I think what Hank's point is, is that Mike is intentionally setting up his contract so that only very specific events (and the quality of those events) that occur during the wedding are to be included in the video. how many locations, videographers, hours of coverage, and hours of editing are covered; the length of edit; plus the number of toasts, speeches, and live performances, and how long each will be. (Who's gonna know how long the toasts are going to be?) Then, once he has all the additional footage of the things that were not spelled out, he can now sell it for a premium. What he is doing is setting the contract up to fail. Profitability begins with the wedding day, and how you define the limitations of your basic services and then make provisions for expanding them.He is allowing the bride to think she has all she needs when he knows full well that there will be more to the video than she bargained for. When he sets up a contract, Mike knows full well it will not cover everything the bride wants. HE SET IT UP THAT WAY!

Again, there is a reason we set up contracts the way we do. To allow for the wedding to happen the way it happens and allow the client to see it all on video. What Mike is doing here is ONE OF THE REASONS WE ARE UNDERPAID. Because brides feel that what they get is not worth their money! The videographers that are fair are not professional or talented and the ones who are good (I admit, Mike is an amazing videographer), gouge the bride for whatever they can. This is why Hank wrote his response and why I am in complete agreement with him. Let's change the bad image that we have by standing up for the brides!

If the bride signing Mikes contract in the first place was your sister, would you advise her to sign it? I certainly would not!

Kevin, I hope you can now see the problem with this article and I sure hope you don't have plans to follow his advice. Not only is it wrong but I could see potential legal problems arising from this practice.

I think the point of payment here is missing the point entirely.

Here in Aus, to put a client at a disadvantage in such a way would lead us to deregistration of our business license.
No ifs or butsssss, and definately no doubts about that.

Any aussies reading this need to carefully consider this line of thought in regard to editing and which "Scenes" are left in (at a price) vs which scenes are standard with the packag chosen.
Do not be alarmed if a client refuses to pay the additional fee for the Bro/Daddy dance becuase as far as teh cleint is concerned, the videographer was there to capture the day and edit the events in a way which represents the day itself.
By NOT providing the daddy daughter dance to the client, the videographer is risking a breach of his own agreement (for coverage and provision) of said material. Be it edited or not.

but going back to my point of "missing the poitn re cost"
The only reason our costs are low, is because
1) Our work is not considered an artform as photography is. Once we can market our work as an artistic piece on par with good to exquisite photography, only THEN can we charge what we want to charge, however this will never happen for most people because...
2) Videographers continue to undercut each other depsite teh difference in quality of work.
3) videographers continue to provide substandard edits to clients which bare no artistic, cinematographic or emotional value to everyone else who might just happen to be overlooking. For teh couple, it might be fine, for longterm sellability, it doesnt exist.. in most cases its rare...
In turn, the precendent of "what to expect" is set by the "bulk" number of jobs done by any given cookie cutter company.
Anyone can cut a wedding in one week, but i can guarantee you that anyone who says they can deliver long form feature length fully edited multicammed presentations in addition to 15minute highlgihts presentations, in addition to image cdroms of said footage in one week is full of it. Its a physical imposibility unless the company in question outsources its editing services
When doing 60 odd weddings a year at no less than $3k a pop, one has to be realsitic about delivery time.
4) Cost of equipment. If a client does not understand the investment WE make, then they wont trully understand teh INVESTMENT theyre abotu to make. in turn, Videographers rely on this lack of information to mislead potential clients which in turn...
5) causes problems for the industry itself as those uneducated clients are the first to complain

Show them the art behind of what we do, and we will make the money in which we are trully worth, its that simple.

Kevin, I hope you can now see the problem with this article and I sure hope you don't have plans to follow his advice. Not only is it wrong but I could see potential legal problems arising from this practice.

I can see a problem if someone's setting up their contracts to exclude things which any reasonable customer would expect to be included, but there may also be a valid point here in trying to offer services which customers don't appreciate until after their wedding. Perhaps Mike Nelson pushes things too far and I wouldn't try to emulate that example, but the basic idea of trying to sell more after the wedding is a fair one. Yes, that could be done in a predatory manner and I definitely wouldn't do that or advise anyone else to do so, but from what I've seen of Mike's articles so far I'm not convinced that's what he's saying.

I agree with many things he said as well. But the things he suggests like how good looking the bride and groom are and how emotional the dance was affecting the price is ridiculous and not excusable in my opinion. I always offer my clients additional services after the initial sale. I don't set the contract up to make it virtually impossible to not buy those extras. There's no denying that's what he is saying and it's just wrong.

Adam -

I think your statement "there's no denying what he's saying" is YOUR opinion... and others have the right to disagree, and DO.

One thing I can easily "read into" these quotes is that maybe if the video is crap (bad weather, damaged tapes, psycho photographer loses mind and disrupts event), you'd give them a discount... it could swing both ways here! But if you want to bag on videographers (or at least one specific one) to promote a club (if I'm wrong about that I'm sorry, but it sure LOOKS like that to me), go ahead...


Maybe the particular venue, weather, and everything else was perfect, and you shot way more great footage because of it - more than expected, more than contracted for, and would have to spend 2-3x more time in editing to deliver a video that is WAY MORE than the bride expected - are you working for free?

You were there, as contracted, shot everything contracted for, but as you shot, you saw things that were worth capturing - did you turn your camera off because you "weren't being paid for that", or being a professional artist, did you capture the moment??? Golly gosh, I HOPE you captured the extra stuff instead of being stingy... actually, I'm pretty SURE we all would!!!

Now the simple basic one camera shoot/20 minute short form contracted for can be edited into a far superior multicam/ 1hour + end product, but it will require substantial editing time on your end to deliver that product. Do you deliver the product contracted for (a nice Chevy), or do you show the bride that a BMW is available for a reasonable amount more?

She bought the Chevy sight unseen (unless you had a way to magically show footage yet unshot), but you can now SHOW her the Beemer... and she can say, "no the Chevy is all I realy want or need", and you deliver, or she has choices she wouldn't have had otherwise... SO she might say, "I got some unexpected gifts, and I can swing that upscale video now, where things were tight before the wedding", and "WOW, your footage is insanely great and worth every penny". Does it make the waiter a bad person to show you the dessert tray???

Even well laid business plans sometimes go over budget because plans change along the way - what exactly is so nefarious about protecting oneself against unrealistic expectations by contracting explicitly so there aren't any misunderstandings, and offering better options (and yes a bit more profit for yourself) to the client if and when they become available... You are delivering the original product, and you're not holding a gun to anyone's head to upgrade... simply offering options...


Throwing out inflammatory terms, innuendo, and interpretations (like the misleading title of this thread - AFAIK, no one here or being spoken of is, has, or was "gouging the bride") so as to promote controversy (which I suggest doesn't even exist) to promote an agenda (and yes I noticed some of your work featured your site - HMMM??) is unprofessional IMO.

Badmouthing another professional who is regarded highly is also unprofessional, especially since it's a stretch to do so. You don't have to "read between the lines" to see that.

I should hope the original author having his name being dragged about (who prior to this I knew nothing about) will be alerted to the situation and take appropriate action. I don't see any of the negative connotations being ascribed to the original author (despite the lengthy quotes), but I see a lot of speculation and opinion that isn't appropriate, just to flog a deceased equine...

EVERYONE agrees that it's not good business practice to screw the client over and we wouldn't do it, OK?? 'nuf said. Everyone agrees that throwing some extras in IS good business... everyone agrees we all should get paid way more for our services... but it's hard to sell something which doesn't yet exist, and it's WAY easier to sell something that DOES!!

You've made your "opinion" known, and we agree on the principle, but it's the general tone of the responses that the original author is being taken out of context and un-necessarily attacked. I don't think that is appropriate to these forums. Take it back to WVDR and keep it there, please. I'll happily exercise my right not to visit that site or join up...

"maybe if the video is bad (bad weather, damaged tapes, psycho photographer loses mind and disrupts event), you'd give them a discount... "

why woul dyou give someone sa discount when the conditions wwwin which you are working are affected by events beyond your control??
sorry but i disagree with this...

as for the article itself, people can harp on all they like, they cna use whichever business model they like... but it wont chnage teh fact that no matter what you do, videography will always one of those services which is "below' many others, in fact, 90% of the time, videography is one of the last things people think about

It's good for us to examine ourselves and business practices, I'd like to think that we are smart enough to be ethical. Won't be in business long if we're not....

Another analogy might help here - if an automotive mag says a car will do 185MPH, does it encourage "unethical behavior" by suggesting that we "could" exceed the speed limit? Maybe, if one is so inclined... One must always use one's common sense and discretion!

If a magazine suggests something that common sense says is not going to work out for ya, then it's up to the reader to "filter" - either the writings/quote are incorrect (that never happens in editing, right?), or perhaps the ideas are not applicable to all situations or the readers specific situation, or maybe they just aren't expressed very well!

The written word isn't always "clear", no matter how much we wish it was, and I think one needs to read/watch TV/surf the Net with a little bit of common sense and skepticism... it ain't all "true" and it ain't all "one size fits all", YMMV. If you throw a reporter/editor/journalist in there, you're lucky if you get anything close to accurate nowadays... (OK, maybe I'm overreacting now, but I've seen SOOOOO many just plain inaccurate "stories" on the TV, I've learned to accept "entertainment" for that and not much more!)

I prefer to keep on the positive side - better serves everyone <wink>!

but it wont chnage teh fact that no matter what you do, videography will always one of those services which is "below' many others, in fact, 90% of the time, videography is one of the last things people think about

While the market has a long way to go for improvements, we will only be last as long as we don't do anything about being last. I sent bookings to two photographers this week. I was the first service the bride called. Don't give up so easily we won't always be last.

Brian