Am I on the right track?: new wedding packages

thenimirra

Over the weekend, I put together all of my research I've been studying to figure out what to charge for wedding packages and this is what I've come up with. If you have a minute, can you check them out and tell me if you think they are fair? Thank you!

http://www.picture-yourworld.com/gallery/5611959_ibrRZ

Elaine

I haven't looked it all over, but the first thing that jumped out at me are the names "No Frills" and "Cubic Zirconia." To be honest...that sounds cheap. Maybe you're trying to drive people up the scale a bit, but if a lower priced pakcage is all I can afford, I wouldn't be too thrilled with my chosen package having a cheap sounding name. I would want my package to feel as special as my budget would allow and know that the photog would treat it that way, too. Maybe it sounds corny, but that was my first impression of those names. Why not give them all a gem or semi-precious gem name, if that's the theme you're going with?

thenimirra

Elaine wrote:

I haven't looked it all over, but the first thing that jumped out at me are the names "No Frills" and "Cubic Zirconia." To be honest...that sounds cheap. Maybe you're trying to drive people up the scale a bit, but if a lower priced pakcage is all I can afford, I wouldn't be too thrilled with my chosen package having a cheap sounding name. I would want my package to feel as special as my budget would allow and know that the photog would treat it that way, too. Maybe it sounds corny, but that was my first impression of those names. Why not give them all a gem or semi-precious gem name, if that's the theme you're going with?

Hey there Elaine, somebody else mentioned the same thing! I don't know enough about semiprecious stones though. Can you give me another name for some? I agree that I don't want my clients to think they are being cheap (even if they are)

Elaine

How 'bout emerald and opal?

I think I would order them like this, from the top down:

diamond
ruby
sapphire
emerald
pearl
opal

I happen to love opals, as they are my birthstone.

thenimirra

Elaine wrote:

How 'bout emerald and opal?

I think I would order them like this, from the top down:

diamond
ruby
sapphire
emerald
pearl
opal

I happen to love opals, as they are my birthstone.

very cool that is perfect. I got on line and checked out anniversary gemstones and came up with the same list. I think Opal is better than what I was going to use which was Turquoise!

Do you think the price differential between the Opal and the Pearl is too much?

Elaine

Hmm...well, personally, I think there are too many options, with just slight variations in hours of coverage. Having a package for 5 hours, then 6 hours then 7 hours, then 8 hours...it seems like it would be hard to enforce that specific of a time limit. I mean, what if unforeseen circumstances force it to go a bit longer? It's not like you can go back and tell them they actually ended up using a higher level package and try to get more money out of them. I tend to think three (maybe four) price points with ranges of hours and optional add-ons is more realistic. BUT, I have not spent the time researching as you have, and I don't have as much experience shooting weddings.

Sorry, I'm probably not being much of a help here!

thenimirra

that is a really good point to though. It's one of the reasons why I added free bridal AND/OR engagement sessions for the pricier packages as well.

I found a particular wedding photographer in my area and pretty much copied their prices, lowering mine a bit though since they had so much more experience than I did...and I really wanted to be able to do a less expensive option in hopes that I could get more quantitative sales at the lower end if need be in case I don't nail that $1,800 and up section just yet.

Mulder32

my 2 cents
I strictly go by hour. They take number of hours x $150. No prints, no albums, DVD with images only.

Blaker

I think your packages and pricing look great- and I love the photos you've chosen to illustrate the packages as well.
I agree with the person who suggested you revise the hours listed in each package, though. For example, a 6 hour wedding could falls in 2 different categories.
Also , be careful with the 'unlimited exclusive'- you could get roped into doing a long weekend of wedding activties and barely break even for your time!
All in all, I think your pricing page and packages look great - I hope you find a lot of success with them!

evoryware

IMO, raise those print prices especially the 4 x 6.

Prices and packages subject to change.

thenimirra

thanks everyone for responding! I feel much more comfortable about this set up right now and I think it offers a lot of flexibility for me and my clients. I just nailed a reception for Sept. 13. I don't know why the person didn't just spring for the wedding coverage too, but she is giving the photos as a gift to her cousin who is getting married and could only afford so much.

I know times are tough, so I really wanted to provide options for folks who want pics but don't have a lot of money to spin as well as tap into those consumers who can afford a skies the limit wedding. breaking it down to time and putting price sales in the package makes me feel better about getting paid for the real time it takes to get the job done. Thanks for all your support and guidance Grinners!

spider-t

I would also reconsider your first and third image. You should have your real knock-out pictures out front. I find these two conceptually interesting, but see the shadowy elements as distracting. Your other images are lovely.

Best of luck to you!
-Trish

Bill_M

Just curious, on the disk that you give them, you mention 'sized to print 4x6'. Does that mean low-res copies or just uncropped copies?
If low-res, what size have you changed them too?

Thanks...
Bill

Bill_M

...also, you mention...Choose from the affordable "OPAL" option
to the exclusive "DIAMOND" package offering full day coverage.

...but you don't have an Opal option, just an Amber option.

thenimirra

Bill_M wrote:

...also, you mention...Choose from the affordable "OPAL" option
to the exclusive "DIAMOND" package offering full day coverage.

...but you don't have an Opal option, just an Amber option.

I was waffling between Opal and Amber, and decided Opal sounded more elegant.

The shots are reshaped in CS3 to only print 4x6s

to the previous speaker, actually the first and third shots are two of my favorites! I love the shadow of the church in the first image (this couple is extremely religous) and I thought the back lit image of them dancing was a different take on the average "bride and groom dance" at the reception. Plus that shape of the "cross" also works for who they are as well.

Art Scott

Elaine wrote:

Hmm...well, personally, I think there are too many options, with just slight variations in hours of coverage. Having a package for 5 hours, then 6 hours then 7 hours, then 8 hours...it seems like it would be hard to enforce that specific of a time limit. I mean, what if unforeseen circumstances force it to go a bit longer? It's not like you can go back and tell them they actually ended up using a higher level package and try to get more money out of them. I tend to think three (maybe four) price points with ranges of hours and optional add-ons is more realistic. BUT, I have not spent the time researching as you have, and I don't have as much experience shooting weddings.

Sorry, I'm probably not being much of a help here!

Here is basically what I do.....I offer 3 time options 1-2 hrs (for short in the judges office type of wedding) upto 4 hours (standard Ks wedding time is actually around 3-5 hours) and a "YOU got me for the whole day"
Pricing is regular $875.99 summer discount $700.00 requires a retainer fee of $292.

regular $1500.00 summer discount $1150.00 requires a retainer fee of $500

regular $2500.00 summer discount 2000.00 reguires a retainer fee of 835.00

These prices only include the proof book and my time at the wedding and post processing time.

Pupator

thenimirra wrote:

I was waffling between Opal and Amber, and decided Opal sounded more elegant.

That's fine - but the point is, at the top of your page it says "Opal" and at the bottom of your page it says "Amber."

thenimirra

that is strange, I corrected that yesterday but when I looked again this morning it was Amber instead of Opal. hmmm

Plus, on my Dell, all the captions are centered but on my Macbook, they arent?

urbanaries

thenimirra wrote:

I know times are tough, so I really wanted to provide options for folks who want pics but don't have a lot of money to spin as well as tap into those consumers who can afford a skies the limit wedding. breaking it down to time and putting price sales in the package makes me feel better about getting paid for the real time it takes to get the job done. Thanks for all your support and guidance Grinners!

You can try being all things to all people and try to serve the continnum of circumstances, but you may find it hard to make headway. It's very difficult decision to exclude one group over another, but as you continue your business you may encounter the need to focus on one general client profile, and make EVERY business decision focused on nailing that client. Brides that have money to spend generally want (of course!) great images, but reputation is key too...they want that image of having a great photographer. If you have an $800 package that is not going to impress them, even if they don't want that package.

Conversely, if a bride only has $800 to spend, she doesn't want to feel like she's getting bare bones compared to your other clients. So if it appeals to you to serve this market, then hone in on that range. Many brides are on a budget, and if you can keep things simple yet profitable I'm sure you will be very busy!

Thirdly, brides on a budget are very different from those who simply can't afford a wedding photographer at all, and hope someone will do it for nothing. Unfortunate but that's not your role as a professional to cater to that market, when hiring a professional is not in their priority list.

Always remember, you are not necessarily your target market. Your friends and family might not be either. But until you put yourself in the shoes of the people that you WANT to want to hire you, it's difficult to focus your message and image (pun intended) to wow them into hiring you.

Best of luck and thanks for putting up with my rambling!

thenimirra

I understand your point Urban, but at the same time, how do you get the experience to woo the affluent client unless you by filling your port with whatever client you can get to begin with? And I'm not sure if I want a client who will look down on people who can't afford a $3,000 wedding package either. It's a tough call, for sure. But I've been reading that if you can get more clients who will pay at the lower end than you can who will pay at the higher end, then it's really a game of quantity.

Elaine

thenimirra wrote:

... But I've been reading that if you can get more clients who will pay at the lower end than you can who will pay at the higher end, then it's really a game of quantity.

quantity = more hard work for you!

I feel like Lynne's point also means that by trying to cater to everyone, you end up catering to no one.

I get your dilemma, though, and it's certainly interesting to read the different takes on this issue.

urbanaries

thenimirra wrote:

I understand your point Urban, but at the same time, how do you get the experience to woo the affluent client unless you by filling your port with whatever client you can get to begin with? And I'm not sure if I want a client who will look down on people who can't afford a $3,000 wedding package either. It's a tough call, for sure. But I've been reading that if you can get more clients who will pay at the lower end than you can who will pay at the higher end, then it's really a game of quantity.

Elaine is right. I learned the hard way too. Started charging cheap, and when I raised my prices, I had to start all over building clients and portfolio to target the new market. If I had to do it over I would have started my prices in my target, but offered big discounts to build my portfolio.

I didn't say anything about clients looking down on other clients. It is just that perception is reality and prices say a lot about how you value yourself, and how others value your work.

Once I got (what appeared to be) a high end wedding in my portfolio, it was much easier to sell to my target market. And marketing is built on the four P's - product, price, positioning, packaging. Product is only one!

Maybe approach a higher end venue in your area and let them know you're looking to build your portfolio and offer to shoot an event for free if they get in a bind, or need marketing materials, etc. Then you come to mind when clients ask them for recommendations, and maybe even let them know if they have clients that seem to be on a budget, they can mention that you have a really good deal for clients with weddings at that particular venue (eg, your "portfolio" discount). Just a thought!

Moogle Pepper

-Taking notes.

I am not sure about the multiple packages, that you are offering. There is just so much to choose from!

As a consumer, I would be waffling to choose which one, regardless of the price. It's like seeing all the lenses you want right in front of you and you can only choose one. Pretty tough. If I chose one, I would have an inkling of a regret of why didn't I choose option A, or B, or etc. I prefer the option where you said you are willing to create a package just for me.

A wedding Photographer who I have been following online for about a year or so, has only 2 packages. one extreme one and a mid range. Although I do not fully appreciate his post processing style of the photographs, I admire his business model and how he markets his work. The only difference between his packaging his the time he is shooting.


Just my 2 cents.

Bill_M

thenimirra wrote:

The shots are reshaped in CS3 to only print 4x6s

Sorry, I still don't understand. What prevents them from printing these images larger?

Thanks,
Bill

thenimirra

you can constrict the size of the image in Photoshop.

Blaker

Does it actually constrict the size ( as in decreasing the number of pixels), or does it just constrict the dimensions?

thenimirra wrote:

you can constrict the size of the image in Photoshop.

NateWagner

I want to second that you should probably raise your rates for the various photos.

The primary reason for this is that if you are going to charge 4500 dollars for this (1200 dollars more than the ruby one) and the only difference they are getting is marginally more hours (1-3 more hours when they would have 12 anyway) and the difference in photos which is really maybe 100-200 dollars with your pricing scale really isn't worth it at all.

What I mean is why would somebody choose the diamond? unless they desperately needed those last couple of hours, financially it would be quite silly.

If you boost the price of the prints (I'm thinking 40 bucks for an 8x10 and 75 for an 11x14 (maybe you could do canvas and stuff as well) that would be really helpful).

thenimirra

based on what everyone has said, I think I will rework the packages again. One of my close mentors also explained to me why quantity = more work for me as well, and that people are paying me for my talent and expertise. It's not my obligation to cater to people who really can't afford to pay unless I make that my business model from now on. He said instead to really talk to these clients and ask them what they truly want, what's most important to them and then work accordingly.

To that end, I think I plan to get rid of the lower package and the higher package as well to make the options more streamlined. take a peak and tell me what you think now.

as far as the 4x6s, I can lower the resolution as well as constrict the size.

Bill_M

thenimirra wrote:

as far as the 4x6s, I can lower the resolution as well as constrict the size.

What do you set them at? The reason I ask, is I have yet to find a way to make this work. Even an image at 72 dpi with a 4x6 canvas size can still print a decent-looking 8x12 image.
What's your technique?

Thanks,
Bill

thenimirra

do you also change the size? i'm still pretty new at this too and someone else can probably answer better than I can, but I make them no larger than 800 on one side, making them about 1 MB or less.

thenimirra

I found this vid....is this what you are talking about? Your questions gave me pause too and I wanted to make sure I was doing this right so no one would be able to print something larger than a 4x6 if that's all they were paying for.

http://www.all-things-photography.com/resizing-and-printing-photos.html