"How to Gouge the Bride"? What are we doing to our image?

Kevin Shaw · July 25th, 2007, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Hoggatt

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.

Adam Hoggatt · July 25th, 2007, 10:37 AM

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.

Dave Blackhurst · July 25th, 2007, 01:30 PM

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...

Peter Jefferson · July 25th, 2007, 08:16 PM

"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

Dave Blackhurst · July 26th, 2007, 11:50 AM

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>!

Brian Peterson · August 4th, 2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson

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

July 25th, 2007, 10:37 AM	#32
Adam Hoggatt Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 126	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.

July 25th, 2007, 01:30 PM	#33
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	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...

July 25th, 2007, 08:16 PM	#34
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	"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

July 26th, 2007, 11:50 AM	#35
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	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>!