Jenn M
Veteran
Sep 7, 2007, 1:12 PM
Post #10 of 16
(1217 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Re: [David L] who has fused P & V??
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Sorry for the delayed response...
To better clarify what I meant - I always believed (and still do) that nothing captures the wedding day events better than video. I'm talking about the action, words and emotions. Stills, to me, are great glimpses of the day - but they don't really tell the whole story, and IMO, their main function is to document the people - not so much the action - again, that's just my opinion based on my own logic. When is the last time you walked into someone's house and saw a picture of their vows or prep or dancing hanging on the wall. You don't. Those are all 'action' events, better captured in video. So I was forming my presentation this way. BUT most people do not agree, at least they think they don't, until they get the video back and realize it's a much better representation of what really happened - BUT (and here's another problem) some people don't really want to know the reality, which is why they may despise video - they prefer the fantasty, the half-truth, the open-ended reality to which they can assign their own meaning. They look at a picture of someone laughing - they can place that image in any scenario that makes sense to them (or makes them happy), when in reality that person could have been in the middle of a sneeze, or yelling at someone, or being mean and sarcastic.
When I say that they make photos the priority before and after the day - I mean they budget accordingly. Most couples (and their parents, esp.) expect to pay more for photo, less for video - even though we all know, video involves much more work. So I had to restructure my pricing to reflect that. I'm getting $2000 for photo coverage and proofs - that's it - job done. So freakin' easy. (If they want an album, that's additional $$$ - so I don't have to do the work unless they pay for it, and surprisingly many of them don't care after the wedding - they make their own prints, they 'design' their own album). I price my video (ceremony & reception coverage) add-on at $995 (highlights are additional). Now, in my mind, it's really flopped - video is $2000 and photo is $995, but they don't need to know that. They need to think they are paying more for photo, b/c that's what people do. I used to have it flopped on the info - and it just wasn't working - brides were 'worried' that their photos would, frankly, suck. (But it's okay if the video potentially sucks, apparently, b/c no one balks at $995 for video.) 
When I say they make photo the priority on the actual wedding day, I mean - they always look for the photographer for events, for photo ops, even for advice. The photographer becomes almost a part of the family. The videographer... well, they are happier not knowing we are even there. So even though they love our video and they likely booked us because of it - they love not paying any attention to us even more. The number one compliment we get is, "We didn't even know you were there!" Problem is, that doesn't always help us do our job b/c we have to rely on other vendors to give us the scoop. Now, since I am the photographer, we have an advantage when shooting video - b/c I know more. I'm 'in the loop.'
So knowing these two facts - the budget norms and the approach people prefer - I knew to change my presentation during meetings to make photo the focus and the priority and make video 'secondary.' And it seems to be working like a charm.
Hope that helps.
Thanks!
-Jenn M
|
And if you're a "photographer", you could charge a LOT more for a photo montage, than a wedding videographer can. I bet I could easily get the same $$$ for a photo montage, as I could for an entire wedding video, if I called myself a photographer. And I'd never have to buy or rent another video camera again. 
