Jon-Mark wrote:
You're no longer required to have a PayPal account, so within that I don't believe there are limits for what they put on their credit card outside of their own personal limits.
Yep, anyone can send money through them online with a CC. They've also come out with a card reader you plug into your smart phone (like square), as well as an Android and iPhone app if someone has the card with them and wants to pay that way.
Ian Ivey wrote:
This oversimplification is one of the top three reasons [wedding] photographers fail.
If potential clients tell you you're too expensive, then you might be too expensive for those clients. Your options include:
1) lowering your prices
2) finding ways to prove your value to those clients
3) targeting other clients.
In most instances, if clients tell you you're too expensive, I believe the problem isn't with your price, but with the prospective clients you're reaching (and failing to reach).
Raise your prices.
If you think about it we're both saying the same thing except I've phrased 2 & 3 "chasing rabbits".
Regardless of what a photographer decides to do about their pricing a good first step is to loose their inflated sense of entitlement to higher prices regardless of their product quality.
I realize I will find myself in the minority with my thoughts but alas... are you guys saying that is is not advisable to lower prices to meet customer demands? I feel and think the complete opposite.. If you guys are saying that you cant get by on a $3000 or less a wedding budget then I have to wonder what the real motivation is. We're talking a single day...10-12 hours ...thats $250-$300 an hr..granted there may be PP and such involved ...Do you really need to be that expensive? Im sorry...$4600 for photos is VERY expensive to me.
Why not do 2+ weddings a week @ $3000 vs 1 occasionally at $4600? I realize we as humans want something for nothing and a little after that but I think you can find common ground and meet folks where they are at. You mentioned word of mouth..why not have the reputation as someone who is solid and flexible and willing to bend to capture a couples most important day..
To me it sounds like hostage dialog sorry... I got something you want...take it or leave it...
This x 100 - Regardless of what a photographer decides to do about their pricing a good first step is to loose their inflated sense of entitlement to higher prices regardless of their product quality.
Michael Menzli wrote:
I realize I will find myself in the minority with my thoughts but alas... are you guys saying that is is not advisable to lower prices to meet customer demands? I feel and think the complete opposite.. If you guys are saying that you cant get by on a $3000 or less a wedding budget then I have to wonder what the real motivation is. We're talking a single day...10-12 hours ...thats $250-$300 an hr..granted there may be PP and such involved ...Do you really need to be that expensive? Im sorry...$4600 for photos is VERY expensive to me.
Why not do 2+ weddings a week @ $3000 vs 1 occasionally at $4600? I realize we as humans want something for nothing and a little after that but I think you can find common ground and meet folks where they are at. You mentioned word of mouth..why not have the reputation as someone who is solid and flexible and willing to bend to capture a couples most important day..
To me it sounds like hostage dialog sorry... I got something you want...take it or leave it...
This x 100 - Regardless of what a photographer decides to do about their pricing a good first step is to loose their inflated sense of entitlement to higher prices regardless of their product quality. ...Show more →
Hi Michael,
Good first post. While I can see your perspective, true costs of doing business coupled with our region makes it harder to book that many weddings in a year. John does not strike me as a shoot-and-burn type of guy. This means that each shoot has substantial amount of effort and hours put in. Rough estimates say that a full days wedding shoot (8 - 10 hours) is around 40 hours worth of work in most cases. Check this out for a better idea of basic operating costs: http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/cdb/calculator.cfm
Good first post. While I can see your perspective, true costs of doing business coupled with our region makes it harder to book that many weddings in a year. John does not strike me as a shoot-and-burn type of guy. This means that each shoot has substantial amount of effort and hours put in. Rough estimates say that a full days wedding shoot (8 - 10 hours) is around 40 hours worth of work in most cases. Check this out for a better idea of basic operating costs: http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/cdb/calculator.cfm
Michael Menzli wrote:
This x 100 - Regardless of what a photographer decides to do about their pricing a good first step is to loose their inflated sense of entitlement to higher prices regardless of their product quality.
Are we not entitled to an early retirement? Or nicer health benefits? Or better vacation benefits? What about a company car? Who is going to pay for my technology budget, and research and development?
No one is entitled to anything. But, I can decide what I want to make. If I want to earn $500k a year doing wedding photography, it's up to me to make it happen. If it is something I can control, then I'll do what it takes and make it happen.
I'm going to say the exact opposite of what you said: until a photographer starts to wake up and learn what they are worth and charge appropriately then they'll continually be stuck in a lower income bracket. Grow a pair and charge more!
Michael Menzli wrote:
I realize I will find myself in the minority with my thoughts but alas... are you guys saying that is is not advisable to lower prices to meet customer demands? I feel and think the complete opposite.. If you guys are saying that you cant get by on a $3000 or less a wedding budget then I have to wonder what the real motivation is. We're talking a single day...10-12 hours ...thats $250-$300 an hr..granted there may be PP and such involved ...Do you really need to be that expensive? Im sorry...$4600 for photos is VERY expensive to me.
Why not do 2+ weddings a week @ $3000 vs 1 occasionally at $4600? I realize we as humans want something for nothing and a little after that but I think you can find common ground and meet folks where they are at. You mentioned word of mouth..why not have the reputation as someone who is solid and flexible and willing to bend to capture a couples most important day..
To me it sounds like hostage dialog sorry... I got something you want...take it or leave it...
This x 100 - Regardless of what a photographer decides to do about their pricing a good first step is to loose their inflated sense of entitlement to higher prices regardless of their product quality. ...Show more →
You don't seem to know what it takes to be in the business. Overheads,insurance,benefits,savings,gear and POST PROCESSING TIMES+album design and so forth. While a number of photographers outsource some of it to others, not all do so and at the end that $250-300 an hour is more like $20.
Though you are correct on the fact that if you can't get any weddings at $3000, there's no reason to bring your price to $5000. Though, if you are targeting the right crowed.you should be able to get that $5000.
The issue with many photographers is that when they up their prices, they keep advertising on say craigslist and then wonder why nobody books them. They need to learn to target the right market.
sboerup wrote:
Are we not entitled to an early retirement? Or nicer health benefits? Or better vacation benefits? What about a company car? Who is going to pay for my technology budget, and research and development?
No one is entitled to anything. But, I can decide what I want to make. If I want to earn $500k a year doing wedding photography, it's up to me to make it happen. If it is something I can control, then I'll do what it takes and make it happen.
I'm going to say the exact opposite of what you said: until a photographer starts to wake up and learn what they are worth and charge appropriately then they'll continually be stuck in a lower income bracket. Grow a pair and charge more! ...Show more →
Exactly.
This is the reason I gave up teaching to pursue photography full time. We are lucky enough to have a capitalist market. As business owners the only ones holding us back is ourselves. There is no limit on what we can make or achieve we just have to work for it.
Teaching was basically a socialist setup. Taxes got thrown into a big pot and pay was split up relatively evenly with all employees. No matter how good I was, how hard I worked, or how long I was going to be making pretty much the same amount of money. Their was 0 movement up.
If you are a photographer you can go up, up, and then up more. No one is going to tell you to stop except yourself.
I wrote:
If potential clients tell you you're too expensive, then you might be too expensive for those clients. Your options include:
1) lowering your prices
2) finding ways to prove your value to those clients
3) targeting other clients.
Mike Mahoney wrote:
If you think about it we're both saying the same thing except I've phrased 2 & 3 "chasing rabbits". Regardless of what a photographer decides to do about their pricing a good first step is to loose their inflated sense of entitlement to higher prices regardless of their product quality.
You're saying the opposite of what I'm saying, because I'm saying they're not rabbits, they're actual clients you haven't yet sorted out how to reach. By calling them "rabbits," you're implying they either don't exist or they're not reachable. That's precisely the error I'm saying many stuck-at-the-low-end photographers make.
I don't know how you got "inflated sense of entitlement to higher prices" from this thread. I don't get that from the OP (quite the opposite), and I certainly don't have an entitlement mentality. I have an entrepreneurial mentality: one by which I seek the clients for whom I create and can capture the most value. I target clients who value certain characteristics that I emphasize in order to set myself apart.
In other words, I work hard to ensure that I do not deliver commodity work.
Your "chasing rabbits" comment is a self-deflating commodity-work mentality. The chief problem with this outlook is that it fails even to perceive -- much less to pursue -- ways of identifying factors that allow specific clients (hopefully up-market ones relative to current positioning) to distinguish you from the commodity crowd.
I am NOT saying markets are the same everywhere, and that you can earn $6,000 just as easily in Wichita, Kansas, as you can in Washington, DC.
But the time to lower prices is only AFTER you have actually articulated your distinguishing value proposition and still had no success in your market, NOT merely after a few disposable comments from commodity-oriented clients that you're too expensive.
Spencer wrote: until a photographer starts to wake up and learn what they are worth and charge appropriately then they'll continually be stuck in a lower income bracket. Grow a pair and charge more!
Ian Ivey wrote:
I'm saying they're not rabbits, they're actual clients you haven't yet sorted out how to reach. By calling them "rabbits," you're implying they either don't exist or they're not reachable. That's precisely the error I'm saying many stuck-at-the-low-end photographers make.
Again the sense of entitlement .. saying that you haven't yet sorted out how to reach these clients implies that everything else in your business is all set except the branding & marketing part, which in the vast majority of cases is simply not true.
$5-10,000+ weddings certainly exist, but not for everyone .. a strong product and personality is needed to support higher prices and most wedding photographers simply don't have either.
Nobody is "stuck-at-the-low-end" as you say .. the market has determined what they are worth. And another wake-up call to the sense of entitlement to higher prices should be knowing the average spend is just over $2,000 .. why some shooters think they are worth more is not clear to me. But they do make easy targets for the branding workshop dream merchants.
And as someone said earlier in this thread .. grow a set and charge what you think you're worth. Value your time and price accordingly .. and be prepared to accept the markets verdict.
When Helmut Newton decided to sell $10,000+ photo books do you think he asked an internet forum's advice on it first?
Michael Menzli wrote:
I realize I will find myself in the minority with my thoughts but alas... are you guys saying that is is not advisable to lower prices to meet customer demands? I feel and think the complete opposite.. If you guys are saying that you cant get by on a $3000 or less a wedding budget then I have to wonder what the real motivation is. We're talking a single day...10-12 hours ...thats $250-$300 an hr..granted there may be PP and such involved ...Do you really need to be that expensive? Im sorry...$4600 for photos is VERY expensive to me.
Why not do 2+ weddings a week @ $3000 vs 1 occasionally at $4600? I realize we as humans want something for nothing and a little after that but I think you can find common ground and meet folks where they are at. You mentioned word of mouth..why not have the reputation as someone who is solid and flexible and willing to bend to capture a couples most important day..
To me it sounds like hostage dialog sorry... I got something you want...take it or leave it...
This x 100 - Regardless of what a photographer decides to do about their pricing a good first step is to loose their inflated sense of entitlement to higher prices regardless of their product quality. ...Show more →
It's painfully obvious to me that you aren't a wedding photographer, or perhaps you have shot one wedding for a friend. Why are you in this forum? I'm not going to go through all the details of the actual time that goes into each and every wedding, but I can assure you that you estimates are so far off it's not even funny.
One of the points you are missing is that in the market I live in, wedding season is relatively short ( 5 months or less ) and very few people do not get married on Saturday, leaving a very finite amount of time and number of Saturdays to make your living. It's not simply a matter of doing 2 or 3 per week at a lower rate. I already work 50 hours a week for most of the year and I typically do 1 per week, occasionally 2 if a Friday or Sunday inquiry comes in.
@Mike Mahoney I used to think like you when I started, so did most people I know. Then eventually you realize that it's not unfair you to expect to take home more than $30K per year after covering all of your business costs, medical, retirement, taxes etc... To own a home where I live you need to be taking home at least $80-$100K per year. TAKING HOME. That means grossing more like $140K+. Try doing that with your way of thinking with a limited wedding season.
Mike Mahoney wrote:
And another wake-up call to the sense of entitlement to higher prices should be knowing the average spend is just over $2,000 .. why some shooters think they are worth more is not clear to me.
$2000 is rarely profitable/sustainable over the long term, so many people aim for a higher amount which is profitable/sustainable. Just because a ton of people work for an unsustainable amount doesn't mean that everyone else has to. Some people decide to make themselves worth more.
Jon-Mark wrote:
It's painfully obvious to me that you aren't a wedding photographer, or perhaps you have shot one wedding for a friend. Why are you in this forum? I'm not going to go through all the details of the actual time that goes into each and every wedding, but I can assure you that you estimates are so far off it's not even funny.
One of the points you are missing is that in the market I live in, wedding season is relatively short ( 5 months or less ) and very few people do not get married on Saturday, leaving a very finite amount of time and number of Saturdays to make your living. It's not simply a matter of doing 2 or 3 per week at a lower rate. I already work 50 hours a week for most of the year and I typically do 1 per week, occasionally 2 if a Friday or Sunday inquiry comes in.
@Mike Mahoney I used to think like you when I started, so did most people I know. Then eventually you realize that it's not unfair you to expect to take home more than $30K per year after covering all of your business costs, medical, retirement, taxes etc... To own a home where I live you need to be taking home at least $80-$100K per year. TAKING HOME. That means grossing more like $140K+. Try doing that with your way of thinking with a limited wedding season....Show more →
Maybe find another profession that is year round ? Sounds like charging more simply because you only have a certain amount of time to earn that defines how your business model. But hey, if you can get what you want in that short time, kudos to you !
hardlyboring wrote:
Exactly.
This is the reason I gave up teaching to pursue photography full time. We are lucky enough to have a capitalist market. As business owners the only ones holding us back is ourselves. There is no limit on what we can make or achieve we just have to work for it.
Teaching was basically a socialist setup. Taxes got thrown into a big pot and pay was split up relatively evenly with all employees. No matter how good I was, how hard I worked, or how long I was going to be making pretty much the same amount of money. Their was 0 movement up.
If you are a photographer you can go up, up, and then up more. No one is going to tell you to stop except yourself. ...Show more →
I know many teachers who achieved higher education and went on to become asst. VP's, VP's and other management positions within school district. Why couldn't you do that ? I totally disagree that there was zero movement up.
TRReichman wrote:
$2000 is rarely profitable/sustainable over the long term, so many people aim for a higher amount which is profitable/sustainable. Just because a ton of people work for an unsustainable amount doesn't mean that everyone else has to. Some people decide to make themselves worth more.
swoop wrote:
And with Square, there's no monthly fee at all. It's super easy to take cards and the fee is no different than paypal. I also thought passing on the fee was against the ToS but gas stations appear to be doing it so I guess not.
since using square, we have up'd our sales by 35%. People are inclined to spend more when they can make a purchase on the spot.
I'll let square take a small % for me making about 35% more each year.
