Save the Date Video - comments welcome!

[Travis Cossel]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

One possible idea for you Travis, since your better half is getting the prime bookings <wink>.

Since the couple is there already, but may be "blowing" the last of their budget on getting a top notch photog, you might want to consider offering the video with a "delayed gratification" option - point out the statistics that most brides later regret not getting video, but you understand the budget thing.

Then, presuming you would otherwise have the day "off" anyway (unless you shoot second photog, or are the world's best assistant, or book separately)... Offer a "shoot only" fee - enough to cover tape/supplies, and minimal time. This can be a relatively smaller portion of your "typical" fee, as it's really "found money" on top of a better photog booking. Discount as needed to make it affordable...

The rest of the offer is that they have a year to pay a agreed to amount to have the rest of the video edited and produced (or however long you want to allow them, to allow you some time control - you're not going to want to go down in the archive cellar for the 25 year anniversary edition... or maybe you would... I did a "1st anniversary" edit) . This should probably bring the price to the equivalent package you'd other wise have "sold", maybe even a bit of a premium, as you're taking some risk that you might later get an overload of requests. You could even just write it as "current rates" and leave the time open ended...


The idea is to get the footage in the can as it were, as there's ONLY one chance to get it. Later, when they've added up all the wedding gifts and maybe have settled down a bit, maybe there's a realization that they really WANTED that video, and now there's a bit of money to go ahead with it! Of course you can "sell" them on the idea along the way too, but worst case you got to "practice" your shooting techniques and made SOMETHING for it, best case, you get some "delayed gratification" <wink>.

This is a "sneaky" way to get yourself the bookings while not cutting into your photography side of the biz and risking offending your photographer!

I just PM'd you. Thanks.

[Mike Williams]

Coming from a photo background there is no doubt that shooting motin is WAY more challenging than stills. It all comes down to client perception.

With photo shop man boobs can be blended in and it's for those reasons that some peple don't like video. If you aren't comfortable with your looks and how you sound then when you see your sef on the screen as you are it could be uncomfortable.

I think we are in the upswing for our craft. A favorite line I created AFAIK and use is "You don't go to the movies to view a slideshow." There are two ways to capture an event that won't be reproduced in a lifetime, one is in still pictures and the other in motion and sound.

What would you pay to see your grandparents get married? How they looked, dressed and sounded as they vowed to live together for ever?

ETC ETC. It is a pitch but it is true. Glossy mags sell them on super expensive cakes and dresses they will use and eat ONCE. How the heck can they expect to pay 1% of what the dress cost on the video.

Can we agree to get a better name then wedding video? how about a new thread to get ideas for recreating the phrase wedding video?

I use wedding film occasionally but shoot on sxs cards so that really won't apply anymore :)

Mike

[Travis Cossel]

I think I'm going with wedding film even though I don't shoot on film. The reason being is that people just have a pre-determined idea of what a wedding "video" is, and that's not what I do.

I'm also switching my terminology to cinematographer versus videographer. First, it's just easier to say, and second, it fits better with what I do.

[Travis Cossel]

Originally Posted by Mike Williams

Coming from a photo background there is no doubt that shooting motin is WAY more challenging than stills.

I've tried to convince my wife of this for a long time. I think deep down inside she knows I'm right, but won't admit it outright, lol. I've always liked this example. You shoot the best man's 5-minute toast and only need to get 3 or 4 good stills. I shoot the best man's 5-minute toast and need to get 9,000 consecutive good stills ... AND good audio. No comparison.

Not that her job isn't difficult, but there's just no comparison between the two.

[Jason Robinson]

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

I've tried to convince my wife of this for a long time. I think deep down inside she knows I'm right, but won't admit it outright, lol. I've always liked this example. You should the best man's 5-minute toast and only need to get 3 or 4 good stills. I shoot the best man's 5-minute toast and need to get 9,000 consecutive good stills ... AND good audio. No comparison. Not that her job isn't difficult, but there's just no comparison between the two.

I have switched to "Cinematic Wedding Movie" but the problem is people search for Wedding Video. If you want high organic search engine placement you need to use the terms they are searching for.

I like your idea about a new thread so I'll start that.

[Travis Cossel]

Originally Posted by Jason Robinson

I have switched to "Cinematic Wedding Movie" ...

Your signature says "cinematic wedding films". Sorry, just had to point that out! d;-)

[Jason Robinson]

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

Your signature says "cinematic wedding films". Sorry, just had to point that out! d;-)

hehehe blast.... looks like I missed a reference there. :-)

[Travis Cossel]

Originally Posted by Jason Robinson

hehehe blast.... looks like I missed a reference there. :-)

Just having fun while my editing today is making me crazy!

[Jason Robinson]

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

Just having fun while my editing today is making me crazy!

And I've been fighting with render aspect ratios, fly formating, etc. Riva just is full of win32 errors when I try to use their demo so I need to find some other way to get my WMVs into flvs and then packaged in a SWF so I can put it up on my site. Annoying.