jprezant wrote:
oh yea, I had chatted about doing that with another local photographer. Ultimately, it was more lucrative for us to
both work for ourselves.
no.. once again. it's making different decisions at the beginning of cycles than you do towards the end of cycles. if photographers claim that they turn away business because of booked dates and not everyone books every available weekend then i think there is a (temporal)indexicality to the value of a second tog. just food for thought.
TTLKurtis wrote:
I only use seconds who can produce work that will not be clearly distinguishable from my own in any negative way. I make it clear to clients that this is very different than most 'second shooters.'
well if you are admitting that you get the higher end of the spectrum for 2nd photographers then why aren't you seizing the knowledge that some 2nds are better than others and subsequently charge more for the level of excellence you bring to the client in regards to the quality of your 2nd's?
DingAnSich wrote:
well if you are admitting that you get the higher end of the spectrum for 2nd photographers then why aren't you seizing the knowledge that some 2nds are better than others and subsequently charge more for the level of excellence you bring to the client in regards to the quality of your 2nd's?
let me get this straight. are you talking about informing the client that different 2nds cost
different amounts of money?
jprezant wrote:
furthermore in answer to your questions, I only use a handful of other photographers as seconds. To name a few,
scott v and miguel s. I'm totally confident that If I fell down a hole somewhere day of, they would do a kick ass
job for me. Of course, then I'd kick myself because I'd have to buy them at least 8 happy meals to compensate them.
At least 8 indeed (and WE get to keep the toys too!)
I explain to my clients when I talk about second shooters that I personally only use very skilled photographers as my seconds. Their work will not be clearly distinguishable from my own in terms of quality.
I don't offer multiple tiers of seconds. You either get an awesome second or you just get me, period.
My point was that I make it very clear to the client that *I* work with high-level second shooters, whereas the majority of people selling a 'second shooter' are really just hiring whoever they can get whether it's an assistant with a camera or a wife who doesn't really know how to use the camera and may get lucky on a few shots, etc... If someone hires a second photographer with me, they know they are getting more excellent photos, not just a bunch of extra crap. (and subsequently, I have been known to have fellow FM'ers fly in when nobody I trust is available locally)
I actually think it would be a cool idea to have two 'tiers' of shooters and to offer the client an upgrade option to basically have two primary photogs. That part sounds cool and it would probably work...
except...
That when you're hiring shooters that are on a much higher level than your normal 2nds, your clients will probably want to know who exactly they're paying for. And if that's the case, then you have to have these people secured from the get go, which would be tough to do with really good people.
Tony Hoffer wrote:
I actually think it would be a cool idea to have two 'tiers' of shooters and to offer the client an upgrade option to basically have two primary photogs. That part sounds cool and it would probably work...
except...
That when you're hiring shooters that are on a much higher level than your normal 2nds, your clients will probably want to know who exactly they're paying for. And if that's the case, then you have to have these people secured from the get go, which would be tough to do with really good people.
tiering.. no doubt.. i figure that the upgrade in 2nd would need a significant increase in wages paid to 2nd and this would offset the oppurtunity cost of losing a wedding on that date(long-term). lotta things to work out but i think it's doable and it would give all wp's a new way to market one of their services.
my only apprehension with tiering after thinking that is i think a new general strategy would have to be taken.. red pill or blue pill kinda thing. you either market 2nd's or dual 1sts but not both.. like i said just a thought.
TTLKurtis wrote:
Why would you want a less than excellent second shooter? What's the point...?
DingAnSich wrote:
my only apprehension with tiering after thinking that is i think a new general strategy would have to be taken.. red pill or blue pill kinda thing. you either market 2nd's or dual 1sts but not both.. like i said just a thought.
One of the lamest sells is the term combined experience. So when a studio with five photographers boast of having 80 years combined experience people hear b.s because it's stupid.
They do not for some reason extend the same logic in reverse. So to the average client when a studio offers two photographers it seems like a great deal.
But it is a very easy sell to get them around to thinking logically again for those of us who do not use seconds. If a client suggest another studio will give two photographers for the same money one only need to ask for their $5000 do they want a $2500 shooter or a $5000 shooter.
The reply is always going to be the same, they want the best for the money. So then point out that two $2500 shooters still will not produce the work of the $5000 shooter (yes there are exceptions but the clients sees the point).
For that reason i think offering second shooters is value adding if you are going for budget clients but lowballing for higher end brides.
From that perspective i would suggest never offering it. Have it as a blind cost and let them know closer to the wedding if you must that one of your rock star buddies is free and will be with you on the day.
A high level second could do a shoot to burn for $2500 so really, are you going to get such a shooter for a few hundred extra? On occasion for sure, regularly no.
As a customer, I don't care what you call the other shooters. Besides, regardless of the idea that I'm buying the photographer (style, experience, whatever), I'm buying the work product. Does my price go down 20% for Tier 2 shooters? (Are you going to adjust pricing depending on who you find available or I'm I paying for the level of wonderfulness you advertised/presented and getting stiffed? Or maybe some star is available and all I need to get that wonderfullness is pay 2x the previously determined rate?)
Is the product 20% crappier? Will I find a couple of pages in the album that don't "fit" because the second shot them and you couldn't find anyone at your level available that day?
I'm actually thinking of just whoring myself out as a pro second shooter.... I'm working a real job again and I must super suck at biz because 4 emails in 14 months is depressing. So I have done a few helping another awesome photog get her wedding feet going and really enjoy just shooting and not worrying about the biz side. Love shooting wedding but loathe the biz of it now.
deepbluejh wrote:
The issue I find that is that good pro wedding photographers don't want to shoot 2nd. I know I don't. And what's left over is a mixed bag.
I actually love second shooting now and again. It gives me a different point of view and a lot less stress... it can be more 'fun' than being the primary shooter.
Just to set the 'cat amongst the pigeons', we actually market the reverse...yes that one photographer at your wedding fit's our approach to documenting a wedding much better.
We've had couples openly state that this is one of the reasons they were initially attracted to what we offer. As most of our closest competitiors in this part of the UK offer two shooters as standard, we have purposely gone out of our way to offer something different, and it's working for us.
I include an assistant/second shooter in all of my packages EXCEPT my lowest package which is just me on a shoot&burn. Based on the client, I will hire to fit. Sometimes it will just be an assistant that shoots a little, sometimes a seasoned pro. It really depends on so many things.
I also love to second shoot and network, I think what Jamie is saying is probably more from a business aspect, it doesn't really make sense for someone who books great on their own. I think over time, I will want to second shoot less. Cool thread..
