I went to visit a new client over the weekend, and they wanted to show me the sort of thing they wanted on a dvd of the bride's oldest sister's wedding from a few years ago. As soon as she put it on, the first thing I noticed was the low picture resolution. I remarked on this and she said "Do you think so?" She said that it was put onto dvd from the original VHS 'which should have made it better'. I ignored that and watched the bits she wanted me to see. The content was ok but nothing special, so we then viewed a couple of mine which she actually preferred.

The point is that at no time did she mention the obviously better picture quality, just the content. Her fiancee had joined us by then and I pointedly asked them what their thoughts were and they both agreed that they much preferred my work. I then asked them about the picture quality and neither had taken much notice, concentrating on the content. I have found this quite a lot over the years and noticed it more since moving over to HD filming a few years back. Occasionally a client will comment that it looks very clear, but normally it's not something they seem to notice or bother about.

On this forum, it is very clear that many wedding videographers are constantly striving for the best possible picture quality, investing a lot of money into high end cameras, expensive dslrs with various costly lenses and accessories. Frequently multi cameras and now with talk of 4kx2k. All of this needs fast editing systems with sophisticated software, monitoring etc.

As professionals, we want to give our clients the best that we can produce, but in our quest for the best, have we lost sight of what most brides want, and are consequently limiting the market? I genuinely believe that if I went into a discount electrical store and bought a pair of the cheapest consumer camcorders that I could find, that I could film and edit a wedding video that would more than satisfy 90% of couples.

Although this will be my best year ever, the photographers that I know are all telling me that they are seeing fewer videos being taken at weddings, but more friends using smart phones and consumer camcorders. Am I alone in thinking that maybe the gap between our own standards and those of prospective clients is widening and that just maybe, there is a whole market out there for quick and easy wedding video!

Roger

most people eat crap, listen to crap, and watch crap. the industry gives awards to crap.
does this mean we should produce crap?
i personally do the best job i can and strive for the best quality i can get. my soul would shrivel and die if i made music videos of rappers throwing money at strippers and glorifying misogyny, violence, mindless consumerism and bragging about themselves. with a SD handy-cam.
i guess just ask yourself: do i want to be a chef, or flip burgers at McCrap?

I think content is the most important, but you shouldn't ignore picture quality and camera technique. Rarely do people comment on depth of field, style of editing when judging a movie, only whether the story was good or not. However that doesn't mean that the technical aspects don't play a part; they are techniques used to sell a story. I don't think anyone would notice the focus pulling of one actor to another when each is speaking unless it was done wrong. However subliminally they are drawing their attention on the person speaking because the focus is on them. It's like special effects - the best effects are the ones you don't notice. I'm sure one special effects guy said the best praise for his work was when people didn't comment on the effects.
That said I have had some clients pick me because they liked a certain technique I did, another telling me that my video looked like a proper one without really defining why and another commenting negatively on some of my video for being too dark and grainy - so some do notice.

Hi Roger

Yes we do become obsessed with resolution and a perfect picture and the bride really couldn't care less as long as the dresses are the right colour and things are in focus. They are simply obsessed with content which is the way it should be if you think about it. I did a survey on a bridal forum a while back and most brides said they couldn't tell the difference between SD and HD!! Why?? cos they are watching the content.

Guys do amazing shots with shallow DOF and the bride looks at it and says "why is my husband's hair fuzzy ?" I have seen plenty shots here where DOF was way, way too small .. to some it might be "arty" but to most bride's it's out of focus and they don't care for it. I always try to cater for content because I know the bride will be pleased with the result. I did a wedding with a 2 cam setup and used my GoPro as a super wide shot high up on a light stand and the bride raved about the GoPro footage and asked for more..not because it was "cool" but simply because she could see everything that was going on.

On the other side of the coin we simply have to be resolution obsessive otherwise what would be have to talk about on the forum. Yes I shoot and render to the best of my ability and don't produce a "VHS" copy but I still put content first and brides appreciate that cos that's what they expect.

Chris

most people eat crap, listen to crap, and watch crap. the industry gives awards to crap.
does this mean we should produce crap?
i personally do the best job i can and strive for the best quality i can get. my soul would shrivel and die if i made music videos of rappers throwing money at strippers and glorifying misogyny, violence, mindless consumerism and bragging about themselves. with a SD handy-cam.
i guess just ask yourself: do i want to be a chef, or flip burgers at McCrap?

I think that perhaps I didn't make my point clear enough! I wouldn't want to do any of the things that you mention either, and I was referring to mainly wedding work. I am also not talking about artistic and filming quality, rather the technical apects. The point I was making was that I could buy a pair of cheap consumer cameras, and use my 27 years of wedding and commercial production experience to make a nicely framed, stable and competently edited video which would satisfy the requirements of 90% of brides. I could probably edit a well taken single camera wedding in a few hours on basic equipment and sell the service for way less than my normal work, probably at a price that would make it highly attractive to those who would not otherwise consider a video on the grounds of cost.

I am not in any way suggesting that techniques go out of the window, rather that we could produce good videos for a fraction of the equipment costs that are essential for high resolution high definition video. My theory is that as we gain in experience and ability, that we also tend to increase our own expectations and the quality and therefore cost of everything that we work with. My wedding work is filmed in HD but mostly delivered on dvd, and many wedding companies seem to be filming and editing on ever more sophisticated equipment that may be above the quality level that most wedding clients would be very happy with.

There is also the point that some wedding videographers see weddings as a way to pay for better equipment and to practice cinematic techniques that will enable them to move into more lucrative areas of videography or film making. There are also plenty whose equipment and techniques are already used in more demanding film projects, but use the same equipment for weddings.

So what I am saying here is for many wedding clients, are we trying to sell a Rolls Royce to a couple who would not appreciate the quality and equipment involved, when they would be over the moon with a family car at a price they can afford? Should be be eploiting the potential of this budget market?

Roger

Isn't there a pretty famous photog, shooting for fashion mags, who uses an old point and shoot film camera? He knows his camera and it's limits well enough that it's never a problem.

Roger, I'm inclined to believe that, as long as you know how to use it, you could easily do a good job with lesser gear. Grab some Canon T4i's rather than a Mark iii and you could still do well enough for almost everyone and only lose a few shots because of low light limitations, or a hard pan.

they won't notice relatively small differences because they're not seeing the quality difference side-by-side. I think there is a line somewhere between a $125 camcorder and the Mark iii/C100 where people would just notice, or you'd be too limited to put a good video together (a single cheap camorder from the back? yuck... or a stock f/5.6 lens on a Canon T2i trying to shoot a 1st dance in the dark).

Roger,
I can not nor will I speak for every person shooting wedding videos, nor will I attempt to speak for every bride and groom in the world or in the USA or in Illinois or in Chicago! ;-) BUT I will speak for the ones that I have shot over the years and yes, I agree we're not talking about VHS qualtiy vs. HD quality.
I agree that the quality of the is less important to me than the VALUE of the shot, meaning does the shot help tell the story and can I live with something that may be a bit unsteady (for example) than another shot? In 99.9% of the cases it is a resounding YES, the VALUE of the shot is more important than the QUALITY of the shot. We have to remember we are there first and foremost to document the day and if we can make a cinematic trailer or a music video out of it, great if that's our style and that's what the B&G wanted and hired us to do but IMO EVERY wedding should be able to be made into a long form doco style that tells the story. Who am I to decide for the B&G what is or isn't important to them?
Yes, I agree with Chris that sometimes we get so involved with the latest and greatest peice of gear we forget what we're there to do and I agree with you that I could take a consumer 1 chip, and still get a quality video that tells the story. Hell that's how I was brought up in the video business and I'll bet many here were as well. One camera cause that's all we could afford.

Sure the difference in viewable quality between cameras can be noticed and even spoken to by B&Gs but I also remember reading an article about one of my heros in the still photography area. Alfred Eisenstadt who had more published covers of Life magazine than any other 2 photographers. He used a single Leica MII with a 50mm lens. That's it. As he said the photograph is made in the mind before it's made on the film.
The emotion of the day needs to be captured be it by a $20,000 camera, a GoPro or a cell phone. Capture that and NOW you've got something to work with.
Maybe I'm just too old school but I know I'm not the only one and I love the toys as much as the next guy but the toys aren't going to dictate my finished product. The toys are only the tool to produce the picture in my mind.

I approach it with the mentality that when I go eat at a restaurant, I can't always identify every single aspect of a dish that makes it delicious. Somedays I would be able to point out that a dish is good because of certain ingredients that I like or I can comment on how my meat was cooked but most of the time, I would enjoy the overall dining experience without too many specific reasons. I just know that the chef works his magic in the kitchen and I like eating the food.

I think brides are also like that. They can't always identify every single aspect of a film that justify why they like it more than another one. Some would maybe notice a few shooting techniques, some would pick on image quality, some would simply comment on the dress. Even when I show my work to another industry friend, they sometimes don't see EVERY single detail that I personally paid attention to when I put the piece together. But that's fine with me because I think it's the combination of everything together that affects the overall enjoyment of my final product.

Would people still like my work if I cut down on image quality?
Would people still like my work if I don't spend time colour grading it?
Would people still like my work if I don't pay attention to sound design?
Would people still like my work if I didn't use X or Y equipment?
Would people still like my work if I cut out certain scenes from my film?

The answer is yes and no for all of those questions. You can certainly get away with a lot of things and still find people who love your work. But you can also cut down on some of it and people would not like your work as much too.

As a perfectionist (or I try to be), I personally aim for the best I can give. So far, I think most of my clients are able to see it and I hope to keep it that way. I tend to believe that brides hire me because they like my work and trust my vision so they will simply let me "cook something delicious for them" and they would just sit back and enjoy it.

I think the whole cinematic thing is just to add value to your business.

Ultimately content and the way you tell the story is everything. Brides don't give a sh!t (to put it bluntly) about your depth of field shot.

I have actually done a few weddings where I took a gamble and tried something different only to smack my head when it came to editing. But the bride and groom didn't notice the defect I was so paranoid about ... instead they mentioned the fact that I didn't show enough of their mum, or a certain member of family.

So in the end the quality of a certain scene which I was paranoid about was irrelevant in their eyes as everything flowed really well ...

I think we are so concerned in trying to become hollywood style film makers that we forget we are being hired to document a family occasion. A wedding. A memory that people want to cherish. We need to capture all the details, and everybody in it ... and try not to miss a scene!

The bride can easily get a family member to document it. But they would rather pay some one out of the family, who is experienced, who does it often to film it !

I just know that the chef works his magic in the kitchen and I like eating the food.

I think brides are also like that. They can't always identify every single aspect of a film that justify why they like it more than another one.

DING DING DING..... WE have a WINNER HERE !!!

I agree wholeheartedly with Long on this analogy. As Chris mentions, a non video person can see out of focus shots, but otherwise has no clue on the mechanics of what is going on...nor do they care !!!

So, IMHO, it comes down to your "magic", how much you want to build in, how much your customer expects and how much your competition may be offering.

As others have stated, content is and always will be king. If you ain't got that, you ain't got squat! But after having all the shots your bride wants, how you get them and how they look, could be the reason you are preferred over someone else's work.

It's interesting to see the comments on this subject and I get as much pleasure out of using great gear and a technique coming off as anyone else here. I also feel that sometimes the work that I put in can only be really appreciated by someone else who is in the same business. There is the satisfaction of a job well done, but the couple just love to see the emotion of the day and all their family and friends..

A couple of years back I was approached by a couple who had a friend film their wedding for them on a very basic old consumer video camera on Hi8. There was four hours of total disaster unedited footage and they asked me if I could do anything with it. I spent 2 days picking out the only bits that were useable, and reluctantly delivered them 25 minutes of edited highlights on dvd. They were absolutely over the moon with it, and treated me as if I was Steven Spielberg.

As Don said, with the experience and skills you can make almost anything work for you, the thing is are we ignoring a big potential market while we wait for the better paid jobs to come along? Also has the rapid growth of good quality filming on phones and small devices, together with run and gun reality progammes altered young people's expectations of what is good?

Roger

Heh, Roger the cell phones today produce better image quality than most of the very expensive video cameras I used back in the 80s and 90s. I'm sure you found the same thing.
Maybe we should just ditch the cameras, get a couple of cell phones and have at it! ;-)

Maybe we should just ditch the cameras, get a couple of cell phones and have at it!

That is not as off the wall as some may think, as evidenced by the lengthy "Shooting weddings with small handicams" thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-videography-techniques/508631-shooting-weddings-small-handicams.html

I'm sure that everyone has found out in their own time that content always trumps quality. But thats not to diminish the very real benefits of some techological advances. For example original HD footage can be cropped to obtain better compositions than was apparent when you were actually shooting especially content from unattended B cams. And cheap consumer cams may well work for the majority of weddings but you are going to come unstuck very badly the moment you hit a low light ceremony. Then there is the diminutive size of lots of the latest equipment which enables you to be unobtrusive - no more fat sweaty blokes with huge broadcast-style cams on their shoulders ruining the ambience for all the guests. And so on.

Pete

I'll second (or third or fourth) the "doesn't matter what you shoot with", as long as you cappture the content...

Sure, it's nice to have "gear" that makes your life easier (like a nice monopod, some lights, extra audio, etc.), and it's the "little things" that often make the difference between usable footage and what the amateur might shoot. Does that gear have to be "expensive"? Nope, not really, unless you're hoping to impress someone with your "toys".

I appreciate a nice camera as much as the next guy, but if you can't pick up a cheap P&S and get a "good" well composed shot, that $10K camera isn't really gonna make you a pho-to-gra-pher...

Over time I've gotten more and more picky about those "little" details that comprise picture/color/sound "quality" - but we live in a "post yer cell phone video and become a viral sensation" world... things don't go viral because of the "awesome high definition" video, theatrical lighting, and studio sweetened sound... people watch (and pass it along) becasue it "moves" them.


I think the question posed has another aspect we've been tiptoe'ing around - is it possible to seek out more "work" by using less expensive gear so you can offer lower rates... to that I'd say "maybe", but think real hard about the "clientele'" - there's been plenty of discussion on rates, and there's a lot to be said about (NOT) "competing" with the "$299 wedding videographer".


In the end, it's not about the gear, but the operator.... the odds are pretty good that a professional will have a fair amount of gear, both in cameras and auxilliary/grip/support equipment. All the toys are amortized and written off over time, but the skill and talent in CAPTURING THE CONTENT are where the value lies. If your client can only afford $299, and you want for some reason to take the gig, well, that's a personal choice, that should NOT be governed by how much you just spent on a new toy...

Perhaps this leaves the door open for a genuine two tier system. Dave mentioned tiptoe'ing round the 'more work with less expensive gear' question. I think that raises a subject that is almost perhaps seen as taboo, CHEAP VIDEO!

You can almost hear the gasps go up and people covering their ears. Why should the experienced professional even consider competing with the $299 man. After all we have spent years building up expensive equipment and experience and techniques, so you can't expect to offer that for peanuts just to compete with the college kid with a camcorder.

The answer to that is simple DON'T! But as Dave pointed out, the world has moved on, people take videophone clips that go viral, home video clips are viewed by millions on tv programmes as are shows built around cctv footage and police video. The expectations of young people particularly have changed in many ways. Rather than competing with the college kid with the camcorder, why not join him in that market.

There is no reason why a two tier business couldn't offer 'Reality Weddings' alongside their upmarket products. Clients don't get your expensive cameras, gliders, cranes etc, they just get a guy with a camcorder who follows the action, keeping the editing to absolute minimum and doing it for a knockdown price. How many times have you been asked if you can show the ceremony to the evening guests? I normally politely refuse, but with SD card scene recording and one camera, it would be simple. To be honest, if you keep it that simple, you could even take a laptop, and in the evening sit down and do a simple edit, adding titles you prepared earlier. Give them a copy, maybe on a usb stick and the job is done.

Rather than sitting on our backsides waiting for the upmarket jobs, with client meetings, complex multi camera edits etc, etc, we could be filming dozens of quick cheap weddings using the expertise, websites and marketing tools that we already use. It doesn't lose us the expensive jobs if promoted properly, but might gain a lot of work from people who would not normally consider it, or get Uncle Harry to film it.

I've almost talked myself into giving it a go :-)

Roger

Hi Roger

A well know videographer in California once wrote a blog called "That's good enough" and it is so true that there comes a time when you just have to stop and say "That's good enough"

Although I have overwhelming admiration for the guys who spend 60 hours or more just on editing a wedding.. (we have a local guy who said he spent nearly two full days on a 2 minute sequence getting it perfect) that's dedication for you but I think people who overshoot normal edit time foget that they are running a business and you CAN by all means put 60 or even 100 hours into an edit BUT can the market stand a costing of $7500 (and that's without travel time and fuel and the actual shoot itself!)

Kudos to the guys who can get huge fees for their services and if the bride is paying you $10K for your services then even with 2 weeks of editing you are still coming out on top.

For us lesser mortals who have to work in our market confines of maybe $1500 - $2000 ...we have to make sure that our edit time is proportional to our charge and that means not obsessing over days of colour grading and making things perfect and we just have to get to a stage and say "That's good enough" otherwise we simply will not make a living.

Chris

I know nobody likes to admit it but what are you guys charging for these multi camera 60 or more hours of editing projects? Is there average shot getting that much money where you make more than $10 bucks an hour after expenses?

This will be really stretching the boundries of the thread's topic, so my apologies up front if anyone feels I took the topic out too far.

Rodger's last post reminded me of what I was seriously considering before realizing physical limitations wouldn't allow me to do weddings.

When I did my market research, albeit not scientific, I determined that in my area far fewer than 20% of the brides had professional videos done. After getting the percentage estimate, I found out how many wedding a year there were and determined I would have to carve out my sales from the probable number of buyers. My sales would come at the expense of some other videographer, I determined.

When I looked at the number of brides that most likely would NOT buy a video, that number was HUGE, compared to those likely who would. My assumption why those brides wouldn't be buying, hinged on a video's cost, compared to the rest of the wedding budgets here.

So I was sitting here thinking "do I fight the other guys who are already established to steal buyers from them? Or do I try something different, and carve out a business by EXPANDING the number of brides who would buy SOMETHING, but maybe not an entire traditional video?"

I ran this past a few people and got good feedback on the idea. My assumption was, in my area 80+% of the brides already had said NO to $1500 and up, but maybe they'd spend $200-$800 to get just the parts they wanted most. So I was seriously considering going with a "build a video" model and let them choose what they wanted "ala carte".

Where this ties into the threads theme, quality of shooting and audio capture would be there, but post production, as Chris states, would have been minimalistic, to reflect the low cost. This business model would be comparable to the cell phone videos friends would grab, but done more professionally in types of cams, supports and audio capture. Because of the minimalistic nature, a trained novice second shooter with my gear set up, could be the one doing the work. If one had some reliable second shooters, doubling or tripling of dates would be a possibility, if you had enough gear.

Hi Al

You would make more flipping burgers if you only make $10 an hour!! Sheesh..I cost out at $75.00 an hour and that covers everything including shoot and edit time... Then again my edit time is lightning fast cos I would rather create a simple edit that only takes me a day and be able to cost at a decent rate because I know that if I took 60 hours to edit the only thing that would suffer would be my rate and IF I had to work at $10 an hour I would sit home and watch a movie.

Chip? The biggest issue with super low cost shoots is that you still have a "worthwhile" cost...eg: Is it worth my while to drive 20 miles to a wedding venue/ bride's house and shoot for an hour and then drive back home and edit the footage?? It sounds easy but is it worth your while to get off your behind, pack up your gear and drive to a venue for $299.00?? Business wise a short shoot (like a civil ceremony only) here would be under an hour's work as they last for around 20 minutes BUT you still need to be there an hour early and still have to get home and edit it so the 1 hour shoot combined with travel and edit time at my current rate that would give me an effective 4 hours to do everything including sign up the bride get to and from the venue and edit and produce the DVD's ... Now make that price $599 and you are starting to get a bit closer to reality ($599 / $75) gives you close to 8 hours in all which would be practical in actual time spent!

If one could get the bride to book on-line, pick up the end product and limit the venue travel to your city limits only then maybe $299 might have a chance...I'm sure there is a market out there!!

Chris

As you may have read, I have only been doing wedding films for just over 2 years now. Initially I started off charging very less to get a website and portfolio but over working myself severely and offering a lot more for a lot less.

HOWEVER, I have found regardless of what you charge ... £200 or £1500. The brides expect the SAME content and same level of work.

Now you have to ask yourself. What would you do differently if you were to charge much less? Not use a slider? not use a tripod? not use a monopod - just run and gun?

Well to be honest. Using the above tools is just my style and helps me capture the emotion of the day. I can't see myself NOT using those tools because I don't know how to shoot any differently.

Either way, the bride or groom will expect you to cover ALL the content going on in their big day regardless of how you do it. And if that means not using a certain equipment ask yourself, will this degrade the quality of your work? if it will, is it really worth it ...

The bride isn't going to tell her friend who watches it, she only paid £200. She's just going to tell them I used this videographer and this is what he produced ... so that's your reputation on the line if it isn't on the same level as your other work.

My aim is to create quality work and leave a lasting impression. So when extended family and friends see it, they consider me when it is their turn.

We have no repeat business from the same person, so why ruin it by doing cheap weddings.

Hi James

I think you missed the point here..we are talking about just an hour's shoot as opposed to a 12 hour shoot..basically just a single camera so the bride at least has a record of her wedding ceremony. It is feasible to do and I suppose I might do one or two in a year where the bride only wants the ceremony recorded and nothing else. Obviously if you are booked out it's not for you but there are bride's out there that simply cannot afford 1500 like you are charging so rather than do nothing it's not a sin to do a short simple shoot for a lower price if that what's the bride wants... it's their wedding and maybe she simply wants to have the ceremony recorded for overseas family.

On occasional shoots like those my stedicam also stays at home!! Funnily this season they have all requested full coverage so I haven't done a "ceremony" only at all over the 2012-2013 period!

Just for interest what do you cover for 1500 quid?? and how long does it take for the end result (editing and packaging hours)

Chris

I don't think the original poster was suggesting deliberately offering an inferior product. I think the question is are we buying equipment to please the clients or ourselves. Case in point, I've recently added a Voigtlander lens to my kit at a cost of £800. It could be argued that the quality of this lens and it's low light performance will be wasted on my clients and its addition isn't going to get me more work or kudos from the Brides. I maybe pleased as punch to have it, but no one else is. However if running a successful business and making a ton of cash was my only aim, I'd become a plumber, like the one who charged me £80 just to look over my water boiler and tell me it was beyond repair.
Like any filmmaker we're creating videos as much for ourselves as well as our audience (clients) and really the end result in order to justify my hard work and time spent has to please me as much as the bride and groom; because if I'm just churning out videos I think are crap all for the sake of making money I might as well be a plumber.

Hi James

I think you missed the point here..we are talking about just an hour's shoot as opposed to a 12 hour shoot..basically just a single camera so the bride at least has a record of her wedding ceremony. It is feasible to do and I suppose I might do one or two in a year where the bride only wants the ceremony recorded and nothing else. Obviously if you are booked out it's not for you but there are bride's out there that simply cannot afford 1500 like you are charging so rather than do nothing it's not a sin to do a short simple shoot for a lower price if that what's the bride wants... it's their wedding and maybe she simply wants to have the ceremony recorded for overseas family.

On occasional shoots like those my stedicam also stays at home!! Funnily this season they have all requested full coverage so I haven't done a "ceremony" only at all over the 2012-2013 period!

Just for interest what do you cover for 1500 quid?? and how long does it take for the end result (editing and packaging hours)

Chris

I only charge £1500 at expensive Asian weddings but I hire a helper. (hence why I state on my site, ask for a quotation - when they give me the location of the event etc I do a bit of googling and check out venue prices etc and get an idea). Every asian wedding I have done they have money to burn and always splash out big time ... (i've done a total of 5 so far, the last 2 had a fleet of super cars hired out just for the Groom to arrive in style!) Church weddings my Cinematic cost is more or less £950 give or take.

But what I have found is, regardless of what you charge. They expect the same.

However if you CLEARLY tell them you will just cover an hour of filming. Just the ceremoney etc then I guess it's fine.

But I don't see myself getting any business doing that ... people want you to cover everything at the best price possible.

My thoughts on this was to compete with the cell phone/Uncle Bob and his camera videos.
Uncle Bob and those cell phone are not going to have any support, as Uncle Bob and the cell phone users, have no clue that "stabilize that camera" is the first rule of video.

So set up would be:
1. Place mic on camera
2. Place camera on tripod
3 Turn on and then stuff recorder in grooms pocket
4. Place lav on grooms lapel.

At this point you are way ahead of Uncle Bob and the cell phone shooters for grabbing some quality. Set up time for all of this, realistically, 20 minutes tops. Tear down even less.

You grab some footage of her coming down the aisle. After that you shoot what she wants up to the entire ceremony. Grab some footage as they come up the aisle, knock down go home.

Sync audio with video clips via Plural eyes, clean up front and back of each clip, stuff a title and some transitions in, render out. There is no menu on the DVD, she puts it in and hits play. Entire post production, less than two hours.

Meeting personally with the bride is going to increase sales, so you do that if you have to. Delivery...that's what the US Mail is for, they go everywhere for about $5.

When I did my market analysis, if I just got an even slice of the projected brides who would buy video in my market, I would have gotten 8 jobs in the years time. That was assuming everyone who was doing video here got the same percentage. With me being brand new in wedding videos, that assumption would have been unrealistic. If I was an established company and was filling most dates, doing this would be a bit foolish, unless I hired out the shooting.

But the ratio of brides in this market who will NOT buy a traditional video compared to those that will is about 8-1. There were a lot of guys already competing for the 1, but no one was trying to convert any of the 8 into AT LEAST buyers for SOMETHING. She already has said no to the traditional "full ceremony" someone else wanted $599 and up, for. She's not even considering a $1000-$5000 video either.

That "micro ceremony", could you sell that to one of those 8 and give her: her march down the aisle, the high points of her ceremony including her vows and a march back out on a DVD with good audio and get her to pay $299 maybe?

This goes back to the thread theme, as your competition for this is Uncle Bob with his camera and her girlfriends and their cell phones. If she was going to be satisfied with that quality for free, how much more quality do you have to give her, and at what price point, to turn her into a buyer for SOMETHING?

This is just discussing the ceremony, which IMHO, most non buyers might spring for, if they bought anything. But my intentions were to carve up an entire traditional video into sections, price each individually and let her pick and choose what was important to her. Does she want you at her house for an hour while she runs around in t-shirt and pajama bottoms? Or does she really just want that neat slider shot of her dress, her shoes and her bouquet ??? Does she want the whole reception, or just her first dance with her new husband ???

When she buys her prints from the photog, she is picking and choosing what she wants. But the traditional wedding video seems to be a "take it all or nothing" proposition and my analysis says 8 out of nine are saying "nothing".

There is no reason why a two tier business couldn't offer 'Reality Weddings' alongside their upmarket products. Clients don't get your expensive cameras, gliders, cranes etc, they just get a guy with a camcorder who follows the action, keeping the editing to absolute minimum and doing it for a knockdown price. How many times have you been asked if you can show the ceremony to the evening guests? I normally politely refuse, but with SD card scene recording and one camera, it would be simple. To be honest, if you keep it that simple, you could even take a laptop, and in the evening sit down and do a simple edit, adding titles you prepared earlier. Give them a copy, maybe on a usb stick and the job is done.The problem with this scenario is that it's still a day of your time when you could have booked an upmarket wedding. The wedding video market is rather inelastic as most weddings are on Saturday so you need to maximise your income on that one day. There are weddings mid-week but they tend to be more modest affairs where they might still hire a photographer for a few hours but are unlikely to hire a videographer.

A 'Pile it high & sell it cheap' business model can work for wedding photography where the couple just want a record of the day & aren't worried about the 'art'. There are companies who will book wedding photography at £299/£399/£499 & then send out one of their team of part-time photographers who get £100-£200 beer money for shooting the wedding. If the volume is high enough then you can make a good living. I don't think that you can find enough reliable part-time videographers who will work for beer money & produce an acceptable product.

The Shoot It Yourself model where you get the clients to do the shooting & you just do the editing is an interesting & innovative approach to the wedding video market & does get over the problem of how to increase the number of weddings that you can cope with when you can only work on a Saturdays.

I actually offer re-editing old wedding films.

Transferring VHS to DVD, and giving it a fresh make over using one of the software suites I have.

But guess what? I have done it twice out of the two years in business.

It's just not popular enough ... if people can shoot a wedding, they more than likely can use Windows Movie Maker to cook up something half decent and watchable.

All this talk about 'fast-film like fast-food' is making me worried that wedding videographers will change the brides perception of wedding films.

We need to stick together and regulate it. Keep the prices high enough to make it a worthwhile job for us. Keep brides expectations up that films cost a lot of money and it doesn't come cheap BUT it is DEFINITELY a worthwhile investment.

Hi James

Sadly that won't happen as the "beer money" guys will always do it for less with their handycams..sure they don't last long because it's simply too much effort but there is always a disallusioned but enthusiastoc amateur ready to step into his place.

Best not to worry about them ..they come and go and are always around and the "normal" quality minded bride is not stupid and will pick a pro regardless of the extra cost. Yes there are brides there who have to "scrape the bottom of the barrel" to afford a $299 wedding but most won't skimp and your wedding films are safe from being compared to what amateurs produce so stop worrying!!

Every market has cheap and nasty products but as long as your are good value for money you have nothing to fear. In fact I was with a bride and groom an hour ago and she wanted the works and never questioned price because "it's only going to happen once and I want good memories"

Chris

All this talk about 'fast-film like fast-food' is making me worried that wedding videographers will change the brides perception of wedding films.

We need to stick together and regulate it. Keep the prices high enough to make it a worthwhile job for us. Keep brides expectations up that films cost a lot of money and it doesn't come cheap BUT it is DEFINITELY a worthwhile investment.

This sounds like a throw back to the 1970s with trade demarcation and unions resisting the use of new technology to protect their member!s jobs. If you try to club together to maintain higher prices and higher 'quality' you are in very dangerous territory. You can't dictate a technology based market, you have to follow the flow or you will end up sadly waving your banner while the world bypasses you.

There will always be a market for high quality, carefully crafted and pricey videos, but I am suggesting that it is us as videographers that are enthusiastic about the quality of our work and equipment, while the brides just want a record of their day to show friends and family.

In days gone by, couples would buy furniture for their new home when they got married, or families would buy it for them, and it would be an expensive hand made item that they would keep sometimes for life, even passing on to children. These days those who can afford it can still buy expensive hand made furniture, but perfectly acceptable mass produced furniture is now bought by most young couples because it is cheap and does what they want.

In my opinion we are craftsmen in a quick fix youtube world where, as Chip has succinctly pointed out, 80% of the market don't want to pay for what we are offering. We can choose to ignore that fact, or club together to protect our craft, or alternatively offer new affordable products. These don't have to be 'crap' as some have suggested and there is no reason why they should be, rather than a total rethink to offer a good low budget product that embraces the lost 80% of the market.

Nigel pointed out that if you take 1 low budget on a Saturday, you have killed the chance of a high budget one. I agree to some degree, but 40% of my work this year is non Saturday. Can we honestly also all say that every single Saturday is fully booked? Great if it is, so offer a low cost reality wedding for midweeks only, or how about doing what many large wedding photography companies do and sub contract in a videographer that has enough basic skill and equipment to cover your requirements. You can still cover your big wedding whilst paying perhaps £100 for your reality camerman and making £200 for a couple of hours editing. The are plenty of camera people out there that would jump at the chance to just turn up with their camera for a day, film the wedding and hand you the footage, easy money for them.

You could even badge it as a partner company:- 'Joe Blogs Bespoke Wedding Films', and 'JB Reality Productions'. That way you can maintain your desire to produce high income quality work preserving your reputation, whilst also catering for the 'youtube Crowd'.

Roger

All this talk about 'fast-film like fast-food' is making me worried that wedding videographers will change the brides perception of wedding films.

We need to stick together and regulate it. Keep the prices high enough to make it a worthwhile job for us. Keep brides expectations up that films cost a lot of money and it doesn't come cheap BUT it is DEFINITELY a worthwhile investment.

I can't speak for other areas of the world but I can say on good authority that around here...that ain't gonna happen.
One of the freedoms we all have regardless of the country we live in is the freedom to decide how much I'm going to charge for a certain bit of work and if that's less or more than others might charge, oh well, my choice.
Gotta go, the seminar is about to start. Later!

Let's face it.

The main point of ANY wedding is the brides dress. How it looks and how she looks in it, is all she cares about. That's the main reason why girls want to marry so badly, to wear THAT dress.

That is not chauvinistic, just years of experience of listening to my wives friends, when they talk about weddings. None of them ever mentioned the groom or what he is wearing. All is centered about the dress, the shoes (the second most important thing), maybe hair & makeup and what the bridesmaids wearing. Than comes the rant about, what every other women was wearing (and how she had the nerves to wear that) and that's about it.

And yeah all that will be sugar coated later with other wedding reasons, but come on...

If you get that dress (and shoes) right, you are golden. No mater what resolution, color grading, DOF (unless the dress is in focus all the time), and overall quality you have.

Frank

In my opinion we are craftsmen in a quick fix youtube world.....

13 years ago today I started a stint at a dot com in my day job's industry. Every single long time business owner I knew in the industry back home, told me this idea would never work.

The dot com gig ended 54 weeks later. It didn't end because it didn't work as was told to me. It ended because of poor fiscal management and infra-structure overbuilding.

TODAY, of those long time business owners who have not gone out of business, EVERY SINGLE ONE of them uses some forms of doing business EXACTLY how the dot com had set itself up to do.

Something to think about.......

We have also drifted off Roger's main topic here (pretty usual for us guys so no complaints) but the bottom line is that as long as we are not lowering our profits by spending huge amounts of time getting obsessive about quality perfection and colour grading and such, then produce a good video and the bride will be happy.

However keep your obsessive thoughts in hand so we still have forum items to discuss.

Chris

You know. All of this talk about market restrictions and who's buying video and who's not is very depressing. I think it's important for all of us to decide what we really want to do and stop listening to those that are telling us that we're wasting our time, or that we shouldn't chase some significance. I think all of our goal should be do be able to do what we really want to and be paid well for it. If you want a business that does basics, then do basics. If you want to try and craft a story, and make something more, you should do that. Just make sure you have your goals set and way to get to your goals. If you continue to do what you're doing, you're going to continue to get what you're getting. The bar is being raised whether you like it or not. Specialize in staying under it, or attempt to leap it. There are no real restrictions on you beyond the work you put into it. There. I said it. No offense intended, but I respectfully disagree with the notion that our time invested in improving and learning is wasted.
Bill

Quite a refreshing post actually.

I can imagine people feeling as if they aren't offering enough because the 'other' company is doing something way more creative.

But as you rightly said. If you specialise in basics. Just do basics and charge accordingly. But if you want to specialise in creativity / story then by all means go for that market.

I don't disagree with Bill, as I don't think there is anything wrong at all with striving to get the the best possible quality and charging a higher rate for it. Neither should anyone feel that it is a mistake to continue to learn and improve.

The issue here is not really about improving and learning, but rather that whilst we are concentrating on that, are we perhaps missing the fact that the wedding market particularly is changing. There will always be a market for high quality well paid work, but if that is the only thing that we offer, there is a huge untapped market that could also be available at the quicker simpler end.

To use an analogy (I use them a lot ;-)) there will always be a market for top end performance cars, but if that is all that manufacturers produce, there will be a lot with no sales and people will find other forms of transport they can afford.

I spent all day yesterday exhibiting at a wedding show and the most common comment I got was that we would like a video but can't afford it, so my friend/brother/uncle is filming it! This has become very noticeable at shows over the last 12 months and sadly, brides do not see the need for a professional video as for most of them it is a bit of fun to show their friends or put on Youtube. The photographs are still the most important part by far as they see the romantic bridal magazine pics and it fulfils a fairytale dream to wear a gorgeous dress and show their friends and family. Unfortunately, most brides don't see the professional video the same way while they are booking for the wedding and frequently see it as an expensive luxury.

Roger

Hi Roger

If you can get $5K for a wedding and the market is there then shucks you would be silly not to tap into it.

I find the same issue with you in my market here.. I can book as many weddings as I need as long as I stick to a $1500 limit ...sure I have tried a dual market approach and the second site generated a lot of lookers but no takers and sometimes we simply have to accept that the market bulk has a limited price range..We can, of course, choose not to tap into it and rather do just a select few at a much higher rate and maybe not make as much money ..that's a personal choice.

I enjoy doing budget weddings (as I call them) which are run-of-the-mill brides in my area and I know there is more than enough work out there (In fact I'm constantly on-referring brides to others) It's my choice and I do it well and most importantly I make a decent profit for my time... Do I want to do a wedding for twice the price with 4 times the work? Nope ...my costing is the way I like it and it also gives me time for myself during the week and also time to get some variety doing commercial work.... I really and truly don't want to labour for 3 weeks on one wedding video when I can do my budget wedding edits in a day. I also like to be able to have a client's DVD's done and dusted within the week so I'm clear of any editing when the next wedding pops up .... If I had to "upgrade" to high end, it would mean essentially that I could only shoot one wedding a month if I kept to my "finish the last one before shooting the next one" and that would be no fun because I enjoy shooting new weddings.

I guess we all work differently and none of us are doing anything wrong at all ... Variety is the spice of life!

Chris

Roger,
This is what I find interesting about our industry. If 80% do not hire a videographer, then that is an empowering number to target. We know it's important and we know that once they have it, it will be worth the money. You have to temper your results from a bridal show by understanding what goes on at bridal shows. I imagine very few well paid videographers do well at them. I offer the car analogy back to you. I won't even use extreme examples like Ferrari or Bentley. Look at Infiniti. There is not a budget option at infiniti. If you want a versa, you have to step back to Nissan. There is certainly nothing wrong with representing two brands that focus on different levels, but what we are saying here is that nissan should not worry so much about making an upscale product because the Sentra outsells the G37. My goal is to be ferrari. I want to make a very few, very specialized vehicles and sell them for a premium price. Ferrari is about passion, and focus, and artistry, and it is what I aim for. 99% of the population won't buy a ferrari. Their market share is much worse than ours, but they sell enough of them to make it worth it. Believe me, I'm selling Chevrolets in a used Hyundai town. If your market says $1500 then mine is under $1k. The reason a bride doesn't want a video is because she hasn't seen the right video yet. You make that right video, she will pay whatever it takes.
Bill

To those concerned that 80% of Brides don't book Videographers, we should consider that good quality Wedding videos are still a very new concept when compared to Photography. I edited recently some Wedding Video footage shot in the late 80's and the picture quality was terrible. Colours were off, detail was non existent, really terrible sound. A photo of my Parents getting married in the 60's on the other hand could have been shot yesterday - obviously done by a Professional, it still stands up today. Before the Internet, photos were far easier to show than video, with every couple likely to have seen someone's Wedding photos before getting married, but far less likely to have seen a Wedding video.
I would say that it's only been in the past decade where non linear editing via computer and HD cameras that there has been a quality that can compete with what can be seen on the television and which via the internet can reach a wider audience than the immediate family. I know this idea of quality reverses the original posters idea that Brides don't notice this only the content, but when you read forums where Brides talk about researching us and watching one cheesy badly made video after another before selecting one they liked, it's clear they do have some criteria when it comes to picking which Videographer they want for their Wedding.

I genuinely believe that if I went into a discount electrical store and bought a pair of the cheapest consumer camcorders that I could find, that I could film and edit a wedding video that would more than satisfy 90% of couples.

In my country, yes, you could do that, my clients just want to have all the important parts captured and they don't care with what you shoot, she just wants to see the emotion, how beautiful she looks in her dress, they want to hear the vows, the speeches and people having fun. They simply want you to capture everything they paid for that day.

If I would shoot with a Canon c500 or a sony handicam, they won't notice, if I would shoot with the onboard camera mike or with external recorders in every corner and on every speaker, they won't notice. They do notice if you charge 50 dollar for the mileage you have to drive and that can become a point of discussion.

I simply believe that the videographers that can do high end clients all the time are for a part lucky they live in a area where 1. money is no issue and 2. video is a part of the culture and people expect that. I always said that if you placed those same videograhers in my country at the prices they currently charge they would have to take on a second job.

Now not taking the budget into consideration, I think that the way a trailer is edited makes more difference to a client, not with what you did shoot it, a well edited trailer of a wedding where you have all the ingredients like sufficient meaningful speeches and lots of emotion is pure gold if you edit it well and that will attract the client attention but what they are eventually willing to pay you depends on the videoculture of your country.

I have an older trailer on my site from a American couple that got married in Belgium where the groom had some very impressive vows, from a technical point of view (image and sound) I think that all my newer trailers are better yet most of the brides I meet rave about that video because of his vows, they are simply swept away with that. For me that's proof that emotion sells, not hardware.

I also had a American bride contact me as they had family in Belgium and wanted to get married here, I was already booked on her date but we got into a conversation, she said; "I would happily pay double the amount of what you charge to get a nice video", she also said that she found it necessary that there would be 2 videographers present. I have been trying to sell a 2 videographer package a long time but each time they see my work they ask, "did you do that alone?" and when I say 'yes' they say: "1 videoguy is ok" to save on costs. This also shows me the difference in videoculture. Here f.i. they easily pay the photog the double amount of what I can get, if you want to survive doing video or photo here you need to become a photog, no way you can survive on weddings only doing video.

Noa,
I don't know you nor have I ever been to your country, but if they have money to spend on photo then they have it to spend on video. You just have to find a way to motivate them. The fact that most people don't do it is a marketing advantage. Is it so different in Russia where Oleg Koleyn is killing it? I think the difference is motivation and not geography. If your country doesn't appreciate it, that becomes your mission. Make them appreciate it.

Is it so different in Russia where Oleg Koleyn is killing it? I think the difference is motivation and not geography.

Europe is not like the States Bill, each time you cross a border here you will hear a total different language and have total different traditions, so yes, it can be very different.
If I would have to make this my mission I might as well try to solve crime or do something against traffic aggression in the big cities, that should be about the same :)

but if they have money to spend on photo then they have it to spend on video
Yes, if they have a 100% budget for photo/video 70% goes to photo and 30% to video, in one city where I did a wedding last year (at the city hall where they get legally wedded first) they told me that out of 100 weddings they had almost every wedding had a photog and about 20% only video, that's says a lot. I don't know any videographer that can survive on weddings only and the ones that can do photography as well, there is where the money is at.

Sorry that you feel like this is so locked down and no way to change it. It's just hard to believe. I used to feel the same way about my town until I stopped telling myself and everyone else it's not possible. My goal now is to be paid more than the photographer. I have more work, and I get more impact after the wedding. This has nothing to do with percentages or what "they" find important or what most people see. This is about you changing the game. I believe you can, and I've never seen any of your work. It starts with you believing you can.
Bill

@Noa - I find myself in total agreement with everything that you say, my experience in the UK is virtually identical to yours. I do make a living from wedding video, but I exhibit at a lot of wedding shows and have acustomer base of 27 years for recommendations.

@Bill, I totally understand where you are coming from, but I feel that many of your motivational points are not relevant to many of the non US wedding markets. There is a very different cultural background in the UK and I'm afraid that no matter how fabulous and desireable a wedding demo was, it would not swing a greatly increased video budget from the bride. I am quite happy to concede that there are unlimited budget weddings available here, but only in certain areas of the social strata. There is also less gloss and glamour evident in the average UK wedding compared with the US one, and this is quite evident from the endless clips that we see on reality tv clip shows.

My weddings, like Chris in Australia, fall in the mid price range, but I think I would find it far easier to pick up many budget quick weddings rather than occasional high paying high workload ones.

Roger

Coming late to this, but wanted to add my 2 cents.

The majority of our clients remark on how their wedding film "looks like a movie".

Of course content is king, but if you have content AND great aesthetic, then you trump all.

I also personally don't give a hoot what x% of couples would probably be happy with. I want to raise the game with every single wedding I shoot. No exceptions. Even if the couples wouldn't notice in a million years.

Too bad fellas. I feel like you're letting tradition determine the direction of your business. No one is more traditional than the american south. Yet somehow here we are. It wasn't easy but its continuing to grow.

You have to be realistic Bill, you can't change a few decades worth of tradition on your own by making pretty videos.
There is either a videoculture or there isn't and there is either an audience with deep pockets or there isn't, you happen to live in a part of the world where you seem to have both.

Not true. Neither deep pockets nor value for video. I wish you guys luck though .

Okay, admittedly, I ve only done 4 wedding videos in my life. And admittedly they were all for family. So I probably don't have a right to say anything/, but here goes anyway...

But in those films, I shot what I though was important-- ie, the family relationships. So i wonder when I see one of those real nicely filmed wedding videos that has this slider shots across pallets of make up and the attendant snap focusing on a bride an/or her maid of honor brushing on make up, lipstick or eye liner--- I wonder if the clients ever really treasure that kind of shot... It looks professional and all that, but in 10 years when the video gets viewed again by the couple with their kids, will mommy be saying "Why did they think that had to show me getting all painted up. Why did'nt they show the fun me and my girls were having, instead of these dramatic makeup applications shallow focus shots.

Just wondering....

Hi Chris

Ten out of ten for that comment....I don't do slider shots and I don't do pans across the make up palletts either..I capture the emotion and the fun of the day so I film people ... content is still king but you also have to remember to supply content that makes the bride look good rather than making you look good!!

I keep saying that it's not about how clever you are as a videographer but rather about the couple and their day!! Luckily I don't even own a slider ...the only semi-creative bit I do is during the photoshoot on stedicam otherwise the rest of the shoot is entirely about memories on the day.

Bill? We all do different things different ways and I'm glad you are making big money doing it your way!

As long as the bride is happy with the result then it doesn't really matter on the method. Weddings done in Belgium by Noa will even have a totally different format to USA weddings to capture the specific mood and will be approached differently ...One size sadly doesn't fit all!!

Chris