WeddingBee.com article on Videographers: Your thoughts? at DVinfo.net

William Smyth · November 12th, 2008, 02:45 PM

From the weddingbee.com:

Wedding Videography Explained Weddingbee The Wedding Blog

I just read this today, and while I'm glad someone is advocating videography on Bridal websites, I'm bothered by sections of this.

For instance, I feel telling brides they can get some of the services above for free is hurting us all. - I don't think we should be gouging every penney from out clients and with some of the stuff he mentions, I may in fact, give the service away for no charge. But I resent the implication that these things should be freebies. Maybe, it's easy, but our time is worth money too. And whether or not we give away some of these services in large part depends on our pricing structure.

I also think that it implies that videographers are like used car dealers and that we're trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of our clients.

Oh well, maybe I'm being too sensitive. Your thoughts?

Jeff Harper · November 12th, 2008, 03:02 PM

I think you are taking the article a bit more seriously than it deserves to be taken.

My first thought is that a link would have been more than sufficient to access this article and provide feedback.

My second thought is that this is a typical type of article written in a typical style about wedding vendors, often encouraging brides to cut deals, etc. and other "tricks". These are methods to encourage readership and to appeal to the brides-to-be; these articles are often like this.

There are many articles like this floating around about all categories of wedding vendors. I say it is much ado about nothing and it would be best to not personalize it.

Matthew Craggs · November 12th, 2008, 03:08 PM

A few portions of the article bug me as well. For example, the article encourages brides to ask for a 4:3 and 16:9 version of their video for free. If you're pan and scanning 16:9 footage, or letterboxing 4:3 footage, it isn't as simple as checking or unchecking a box when outputting. It involves going through each shot, applying the effect, and selecting the appropriate composition.

Some of the technical details are simplified for the reader as well, which is fine because the target audience isn't interested in details - they're interested in what to look for an ask for when choosing video. Still gets under my nerves a bit when you consider the "videographer = used car dealer" tone of the article.

Noel Lising · November 12th, 2008, 03:59 PM

This is an article written by a Videographer selling his company. Chances are he is offering those services for free. It would have been more believable in my opinion if the writer remained anonymous.

Travis Cossel · November 12th, 2008, 04:15 PM

I just posted a response to the original article.

Basically, the article was okay, but I definitely disagree with advocating that a multitude of services should just be provided for free. I also disagree that brides should expect MP3 files of the music used so they can "share" with all of their friends and family. That's just advocating blatant music piracy.

For the first part I gave this example. Would you start "advising" people to go to McDonald's and buy a hamburger and expect the fries to be provided for free. I mean, it's not like it takes the guy much time to put the fries into a container, right?

I think part of what is wrong with videography today is that videographers are not charging appropriately. When you start charging for your time, no matter how insignificant it seems, your services become more valuable in both YOUR eyes AND your client's eyes.

Dave Blackhurst · November 12th, 2008, 04:44 PM

Unbelieveable... what a maroon...

Advocating "pirating" by "sharing" MP3's??? Does this guy live on another planet?? Where's the RIAA when you REALLY need them <tongue in cheek here>?? I guess he gives a pretty good idea of his value of Intellectual Property since he suggests the client burn copies of the DVD...

Don't know about anyone else, but the only DVD's I deliver have full artwork and are printed on the DVD surface - IOW, they look like a retail item, not something Joe from the IT dept scribbled with a Sharpie... I'd rather be asked for additional copies at reasonable rates than have second rate "bootlegs" running around with MY reputation riding on them... I'll gladly burn and print a stack if asked. I usually have a few extras around anyway if only one or two is needed, or maybe a "second" that the print smeared, but it's obviously just cosmetic... BUT PLEASE, don't just burn "copies"!!! THAT'S CRAZY!

Clearly this article is somewhat old, as the HD/BR wars have long ended. But suggesting 4:3 and 16:9 can be burned off the same timeline along with various other digital formats suggests this guy is either stupid, or doesn't value the rather important aspects of proper framing and fine tuning rendering for best results. I've got to wonder what this guy actually delivers - can't imagine it being "good". Maybe he's delivered in all these formats and has fine tuned templates already, but I doubt it...

I think he gives away ONE pretty obvious "secret"... he's totally clueless. It's no great surprise, as any goofball can type up something on his 'puter and put it on the internet and be an "expert" (or as the old saying goes about opening one's mouth and "proving" you're a fool...). I always hate it when I see a "news" or "editiorial" on a subject I actually know something about... and it's so far off base as to be (best case) useless fluff, and is often far worse... advocating illegal pirating is about as "worse" as I can imagine! His "public" admissions aren't too bright... and I'd be surprised if they don't eventually land him in trouble - he's in "Burbank", right in the heart of the film industry - not a good place to advacate piracy.

MAYBE this helps promote the writers "business", but the lack of professionalism discredits the "industry", and that's unfortunate.

Peter Szilveszter · November 12th, 2008, 07:08 PM

Some good advice to brides there but misleading ones as well. You have all mentioned the issues so no need to repeat. I think someone that supposedly comes from the "film" industry should know that everything you do needs to have a fee on it. It's a once of product so making sound like there are things easily done and for free is not the right way to go about it.

J.J. Kim · November 12th, 2008, 09:19 PM

I agree with what Peter said above.

MP3 file on DVD is crazy, too, IMO.

My most concern is what Dave said,
"Don't know about anyone else, but the only DVD's I deliver have full artwork and are printed on the DVD surface - IOW, they look like a retail item, not something Joe from the IT dept scribbled with a Sharpie... I'd rather be asked for additional copies at reasonable rates than have second rate "bootlegs" running around with MY reputation riding on them... I'll gladly burn and print a stack if asked. I usually have a few extras around anyway if only one or two is needed, or maybe a "second" that the print smeared, but it's obviously just cosmetic... BUT PLEASE, don't just burn "copies"!!! THAT'S CRAZY!"
I give very unique and distinctive looking DVD with label and case design and that's as important as actual video on DVD. That's why McDonald has different wrapping on their burgers and fries from other chains and vice versa.

JJ

Jeff Harper · November 13th, 2008, 01:43 AM

I have a couple of points to make about this conversation.

1.This is a public forum.
2.These posts will be seen in the search results for anyone researching the author of the article (who is mentioned by name in William's original post) after this page had been crawled and indexed by the search engines.

Tom, the statements made about the individual who wrote the article have been posted in a public forum and could easily damage this man's reputation unjustly. What you have written can and likely will be seen eventually by him, customers researching him, and other vendors. He could lose out on a job/money at a time when he and his family most needs it. If you don't care, you should.

Those comments have no place here. When talking this way about people do it privately. Or better yet don't talk this way about people at all.

I still do not understand the point of bringing up this obscure article and then pointing out the obvious in it. I suppose if you are relatively new in the business you may feel it is your duty.

It is not our job to protect the public from "rogue" videographers or deviant articles about wedding videography.

We are not working on a cure for cancer or heart disease. We are wedding videographers. Get a grip.

Dave Blackhurst · November 13th, 2008, 03:06 AM

Actually the guys site isn't too bad, aside from the Quicktime freezing so much I couldn't watch his main reel, but what I could see by fiddling part way through was pretty nice. Obviously there are some encoding issues, but who hasn't had those? I think if he manages to deliver reliably in all the formats, he's got an interesting "hook", and the other things I read on the site were consistent with many ideas on this forum...

8 hours of raw footage does seem a bit crazy, but maybe it sells for him. He's got happy clients, his prices seem reasonable, he seems to have a "good eye", and I've seen a LOT worse end product. And again, if his clients are happy... I can't imagine most clients sitting through waiting for his samples to load, I've got a "big pipe", and unless someone has a T3, I don't think they are going to wait around to even see his stuff... which is actually rather a shame, as he's got some chops behind a camera, and in the edit.

The advocating copyright violations and suggesting the client make bootleg copies of the DVD... well, those are still wacky ideas any way you slice 'em. I'd hate to have someone come to me and ask for all the "secret extras" thinking they were "OK", and have to explain the glaring inaccuracies and why I would be reluctant to "give away" IP... maybe he just doesn't know anything about that stuff...

Jeff Harper · November 13th, 2008, 03:38 AM

I agree Dave. He has some decent material, but the site needs work.

William Smyth · November 13th, 2008, 05:17 AM

I agree with Jeff's last post. (Well, the part about damaging the writer's reputation). I started the thread to generate discussion about how wedding videographers are seen by potential clients-on a very popular website, not to bash any one or hurt their reputation.

Miraj A. Berry · November 13th, 2008, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

I just posted a response to the original article.

I just weighed in with my $3.

Basically, I said the most important thing we should do is to all sort of come together, as an industry, and stress to couples the importance of having a wedding video period. That should be the advocacy.

I blah-blah-blahed about this and that, but this was my main point.

Chris Hurd · November 13th, 2008, 07:51 AM

I have withdrawn a few posts from public view that were a little too far over-the-top. Please remember, this forum is primarily for discussing technical and creative issues. Business matters are definitely fair game, but let's please keep our emotions in check.

If you want to rant 'n' rail about something, please start your own blog -- post to your own web site. I'll have to insist that DV Info Net isn't used for that purpose. Remember, this is *not* your average internet experience here. Let's please keep it that way.

Clearly the issue with the article linked above is a matter of value. Pricing should never be established on how difficult or easy a project is to do; or how many mouse clicks or how much or how little time it takes to do. Pricing should be established on the basis of what kind of value something has for the customer. Let's all please work together to increase the perceived value of wedding videography in general. Thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion,

November 12th, 2008, 02:45 PM	#1
William Smyth Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida Posts: 153	WeddingBee.com article on Videographers: Your thoughts? From the weddingbee.com: Wedding Videography Explained Weddingbee The Wedding Blog I just read this today, and while I'm glad someone is advocating videography on Bridal websites, I'm bothered by sections of this. For instance, I feel telling brides they can get some of the services above for free is hurting us all. - I don't think we should be gouging every penney from out clients and with some of the stuff he mentions, I may in fact, give the service away for no charge. But I resent the implication that these things should be freebies. Maybe, it's easy, but our time is worth money too. And whether or not we give away some of these services in large part depends on our pricing structure. I also think that it implies that videographers are like used car dealers and that we're trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of our clients. Oh well, maybe I'm being too sensitive. Your thoughts? __________________ www.williamsmythvisuals.com Last edited by William Smyth; November 13th, 2008 at 05:25 AM.

November 12th, 2008, 04:15 PM	#5
Travis Cossel Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 2,933	I just posted a response to the original article. Basically, the article was okay, but I definitely disagree with advocating that a multitude of services should just be provided for free. I also disagree that brides should expect MP3 files of the music used so they can "share" with all of their friends and family. That's just advocating blatant music piracy. For the first part I gave this example. Would you start "advising" people to go to McDonald's and buy a hamburger and expect the fries to be provided for free. I mean, it's not like it takes the guy much time to put the fries into a container, right? I think part of what is wrong with videography today is that videographers are not charging appropriately. When you start charging for your time, no matter how insignificant it seems, your services become more valuable in both YOUR eyes AND your client's eyes. __________________ Black Label Films www.blacklabelweddingfilms.com

November 12th, 2008, 07:08 PM	#7
Peter Szilveszter Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Yeppoon, Queensland Posts: 332	Some good advice to brides there but misleading ones as well. You have all mentioned the issues so no need to repeat. I think someone that supposedly comes from the "film" industry should know that everything you do needs to have a fee on it. It's a once of product so making sound like there are things easily done and for free is not the right way to go about it. __________________ www.livinglens.com.au \| www.livinglens.com.au/blog

November 13th, 2008, 01:43 AM	#9
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I have a couple of points to make about this conversation. 1.This is a public forum. 2.These posts will be seen in the search results for anyone researching the author of the article (who is mentioned by name in William's original post) after this page had been crawled and indexed by the search engines. Tom, the statements made about the individual who wrote the article have been posted in a public forum and could easily damage this man's reputation unjustly. What you have written can and likely will be seen eventually by him, customers researching him, and other vendors. He could lose out on a job/money at a time when he and his family most needs it. If you don't care, you should. Those comments have no place here. When talking this way about people do it privately. Or better yet don't talk this way about people at all. I still do not understand the point of bringing up this obscure article and then pointing out the obvious in it. I suppose if you are relatively new in the business you may feel it is your duty. It is not our job to protect the public from "rogue" videographers or deviant articles about wedding videography. We are not working on a cure for cancer or heart disease. We are wedding videographers. Get a grip. Last edited by Jeff Harper; November 13th, 2008 at 03:43 AM.

November 13th, 2008, 05:17 AM	#12
William Smyth Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida Posts: 153	I agree with Jeff's last post. (Well, the part about damaging the writer's reputation). I started the thread to generate discussion about how wedding videographers are seen by potential clients-on a very popular website, not to bash any one or hurt their reputation. __________________ www.williamsmythvisuals.com Last edited by William Smyth; November 13th, 2008 at 07:35 AM.

November 12th, 2008, 03:02 PM	#2
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I think you are taking the article a bit more seriously than it deserves to be taken. My first thought is that a link would have been more than sufficient to access this article and provide feedback. My second thought is that this is a typical type of article written in a typical style about wedding vendors, often encouraging brides to cut deals, etc. and other "tricks". These are methods to encourage readership and to appeal to the brides-to-be; these articles are often like this. There are many articles like this floating around about all categories of wedding vendors. I say it is much ado about nothing and it would be best to not personalize it.

November 12th, 2008, 03:08 PM	#3
Matthew Craggs Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Welland, Ontario Posts: 311	A few portions of the article bug me as well. For example, the article encourages brides to ask for a 4:3 and 16:9 version of their video for free. If you're pan and scanning 16:9 footage, or letterboxing 4:3 footage, it isn't as simple as checking or unchecking a box when outputting. It involves going through each shot, applying the effect, and selecting the appropriate composition. Some of the technical details are simplified for the reader as well, which is fine because the target audience isn't interested in details - they're interested in what to look for an ask for when choosing video. Still gets under my nerves a bit when you consider the "videographer = used car dealer" tone of the article.

November 12th, 2008, 03:59 PM	#4
Noel Lising Major Player Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 789	This is an article written by a Videographer selling his company. Chances are he is offering those services for free. It would have been more believable in my opinion if the writer remained anonymous.

November 12th, 2008, 04:44 PM	#6
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Unbelieveable... what a maroon... Advocating "pirating" by "sharing" MP3's??? Does this guy live on another planet?? Where's the RIAA when you REALLY need them <tongue in cheek here>?? I guess he gives a pretty good idea of his value of Intellectual Property since he suggests the client burn copies of the DVD... Don't know about anyone else, but the only DVD's I deliver have full artwork and are printed on the DVD surface - IOW, they look like a retail item, not something Joe from the IT dept scribbled with a Sharpie... I'd rather be asked for additional copies at reasonable rates than have second rate "bootlegs" running around with MY reputation riding on them... I'll gladly burn and print a stack if asked. I usually have a few extras around anyway if only one or two is needed, or maybe a "second" that the print smeared, but it's obviously just cosmetic... BUT PLEASE, don't just burn "copies"!!! THAT'S CRAZY! Clearly this article is somewhat old, as the HD/BR wars have long ended. But suggesting 4:3 and 16:9 can be burned off the same timeline along with various other digital formats suggests this guy is either stupid, or doesn't value the rather important aspects of proper framing and fine tuning rendering for best results. I've got to wonder what this guy actually delivers - can't imagine it being "good". Maybe he's delivered in all these formats and has fine tuned templates already, but I doubt it... I think he gives away ONE pretty obvious "secret"... he's totally clueless. It's no great surprise, as any goofball can type up something on his 'puter and put it on the internet and be an "expert" (or as the old saying goes about opening one's mouth and "proving" you're a fool...). I always hate it when I see a "news" or "editiorial" on a subject I actually know something about... and it's so far off base as to be (best case) useless fluff, and is often far worse... advocating illegal pirating is about as "worse" as I can imagine! His "public" admissions aren't too bright... and I'd be surprised if they don't eventually land him in trouble - he's in "Burbank", right in the heart of the film industry - not a good place to advacate piracy. MAYBE this helps promote the writers "business", but the lack of professionalism discredits the "industry", and that's unfortunate.

November 12th, 2008, 09:19 PM	#8
J.J. Kim Major Player Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Wheeling, IL Posts: 270	I agree with what Peter said above. MP3 file on DVD is crazy, too, IMO. My most concern is what Dave said, "Don't know about anyone else, but the only DVD's I deliver have full artwork and are printed on the DVD surface - IOW, they look like a retail item, not something Joe from the IT dept scribbled with a Sharpie... I'd rather be asked for additional copies at reasonable rates than have second rate "bootlegs" running around with MY reputation riding on them... I'll gladly burn and print a stack if asked. I usually have a few extras around anyway if only one or two is needed, or maybe a "second" that the print smeared, but it's obviously just cosmetic... BUT PLEASE, don't just burn "copies"!!! THAT'S CRAZY!" I give very unique and distinctive looking DVD with label and case design and that's as important as actual video on DVD. That's why McDonald has different wrapping on their burgers and fries from other chains and vice versa. JJ

November 13th, 2008, 03:06 AM	#10
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Actually the guys site isn't too bad, aside from the Quicktime freezing so much I couldn't watch his main reel, but what I could see by fiddling part way through was pretty nice. Obviously there are some encoding issues, but who hasn't had those? I think if he manages to deliver reliably in all the formats, he's got an interesting "hook", and the other things I read on the site were consistent with many ideas on this forum... 8 hours of raw footage does seem a bit crazy, but maybe it sells for him. He's got happy clients, his prices seem reasonable, he seems to have a "good eye", and I've seen a LOT worse end product. And again, if his clients are happy... I can't imagine most clients sitting through waiting for his samples to load, I've got a "big pipe", and unless someone has a T3, I don't think they are going to wait around to even see his stuff... which is actually rather a shame, as he's got some chops behind a camera, and in the edit. The advocating copyright violations and suggesting the client make bootleg copies of the DVD... well, those are still wacky ideas any way you slice 'em. I'd hate to have someone come to me and ask for all the "secret extras" thinking they were "OK", and have to explain the glaring inaccuracies and why I would be reluctant to "give away" IP... maybe he just doesn't know anything about that stuff...

November 13th, 2008, 03:38 AM	#11
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I agree Dave. He has some decent material, but the site needs work.

November 13th, 2008, 07:51 AM	#14
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	I have withdrawn a few posts from public view that were a little too far over-the-top. Please remember, this forum is primarily for discussing technical and creative issues. Business matters are definitely fair game, but let's please keep our emotions in check. If you want to rant 'n' rail about something, please start your own blog -- post to your own web site. I'll have to insist that DV Info Net isn't used for that purpose. Remember, this is not your average internet experience here. Let's please keep it that way. Clearly the issue with the article linked above is a matter of value. Pricing should never be established on how difficult or easy a project is to do; or how many mouse clicks or how much or how little time it takes to do. Pricing should be established on the basis of what kind of value something has for the customer. Let's all please work together to increase the perceived value of wedding videography in general. Thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!