Wal-Mart shot my wedding...

ShepsMom

...imagine hearing that??? YIKES!

http://now.eloqua.com/es.asp?s=334&e=609643&elq=3b0470a30a1f447cafc783f84623ccd1

Art Scott

that could very well be the end of Bella Pictures.....

Matthew Saville

To me, this is an indication that corporatization and expansion in wedding photography is drawing near. More wedding photography companies will pop up, just like Zenfolio popped up after SmugMug, and so on and so forth. And once they realize they have an endless supply of decent photographers willing to shoot for "minimum wage", they'll start to see pay cuts.

Of course, that's just my wild prediction!

Technology has always been a double-edged sword. It makes our lives and jobs easier, but it also creates lots of job in-security for the self-employed, custom-service provider. And hey, the industrial revolution was a lot worse than the digital revolution! ;-)

=Matt=

Ed911

ShepsMom wrote: »

...imagine hearing that??? YIKES!

I am left believing that your post is trying to tell us that the same company that owns and operates the photo kiosks in WalMart is acquiring Bella. So, because WalMart rents CPI space for their portrait studios, you're making the assertion that now Bella is WalMart...if so, then you could also relate Sears Portrait Studios and Babies 'R' Us Kiddie Kandids to wedding photography through CPI's acquisition of Bella Pictures, since CPI owns all of them.

The connection is a little sketchy, if you ask me.

No doubt things will change for Bella Pictures. CPI is a big corporation that pushes package deals, up-selling etc. that is what attracted CPI to Bella Pictures in the first place, content packaging. I think CPI must have recognized some similarities in their business plan and the way Bella operates and believes that Bella is a good fit for their operation. Will Bella go away..probably not. Most likely, CPI wants to cash in on Bella's recognition and expand it's already sizable footprint in the photography industry.

tenoverthenose

I'm perfectly fine with this. More stable photography jobs for people who want to be photographers. A standard of quality for brides. Business is business and I wish them success.

Am I worried that my clients will be jumping over to Bella as they grow? Not in the least. My clients realize the value of an individual - a unique artist. I'm rarely if ever hired just because I was available on a certain day.

ian408

Ed911 wrote: »

So, because WalMart rents CPI space for their portrait studios, you're making the assertion that now Bella is WalMart...if so, then you could also relate Sears Portrait Studios and Babies 'R' Us Kiddie Kandids to wedding photography through CPI's acquisition of Bella Pictures, since CPI owns all of them.

I think you might be reading too much into it. I thought Wal-Mart was a euphemism for "big company". Weddings are pretty big business.

I think Matt might be more on track with his estimation with the exception that many of the shooters working for Bella today might decide it's no longer in their best interest (having to work harder to make the same amount of money when they are already settling for less.) and those slots will fill with a lower skill level--you do get what you pay for.

Looks like CPI (NYSE:CPY) is taking a little hit at the moment. The press release is there too.

Matthew Saville

ian408 wrote: »

I think you might be reading too much into it. I thought Wal-Mart was a euphemism for "big company". Weddings are pretty big business.

I think Matt might be more on track with his estimation with the exception that many of the shooters working for Bella today might decide it's no longer in their best interest (having to work harder to make the same amount of money when they are already settling for less.) and those slots will fill with a lower skill level--you do get what you pay for.

Looks like CPI (NYSE:CPY) is taking a little hit at the moment. The press release is there too.

I'm sure that many "boutique" photographers will survive because of the amount of trust it takes to hire a photographer, and the quality of service. Guys like Patrick (tenoverthenose) have a great business going and will probably do just fine. However for each successful thriving business that survives, one or two others will die off as Bella grows, and as more companies like Bella pop up. It's simply the inevitable thing that happens when technology meets art. Where are all the mom-and-pop, "High-Fidelity" record (music) shops? I haven't bought music from more than three places in the past TEN YEARS... (Barnes, Amazon, and iTunes.)

Pretty soon there will be 3-4 huge wedding photo corporations with the power (and quality) to just gobble up the low-end market. Say, 75% of the sub-$3K market, and 25-50% of the $3-5K market. Being conservative.

However I agree with Patrick when he says that this is kind of a good thing, at least for brides. They might have to deal with an impersonal receptionist or "booking counselor" or whatever, and they may not meet their photographer until AFTER they book or not even until their wedding day, ...but on the bright side, their chances of getting GOOD pictures do go way up compared to hiring uncle bob or cousin larry. And the value of the package they buy will be very consistent, market-driven, etc...

The people who will go out of business will be the hacks / fakes who took horrible images and never learned how to run a business. Good riddance! Then, the people who will have to close up shop and *JOIN* Bella will be the decent / good photographers who always hated running a business in the first place. After they swallow their pride and join "the machine", they'll probably be relieved to just get a steady paycheck and not have to deal with all the business management involved.

Of course, AFTER the take-over of 25-75% of the industry, I see another problem on the horizon, which I already mentioned in my previous reply to this topic. Looking at the recent events in the MICRO STOCK INDUSTRY as a sign of what could happen to wedding corporations: In 2-4 years, when Bella etc. realize they have a nearly infinite supply of GOOD photographers, inevitably they'll attempt to screw their "employees" and start handing out pay cuts. It will be the "minimum wage" of the wedding photography industry...

Fortunately, I think this last doomsday scenario can definitely be avoided through teamwork and professional community.

But one way or another, it's going to get crazy in the coming years, that much is guaranteed.

=Matt=

ian408

I still hold the hope brides don't end up at Costco picking up a "gift card" of $500 worth of wedding photos. Yah, some stuff sells like that but I'd like to think a bride's wedding day was too important to her to hire a company ahead of a photographer.

Or as a photographer, after the second or third wedding album, you can guess what company shot the wedding. Meaning the photographer has become less important than the company booking the wedding

mmmatt

Im totally not threatened by any of this. I know that the big corps will always charge at least 2-5x what they pay the photog. They will always be there to make the money first, and only for that reason, so they will never be cheap. I see this kind of thing turning into a cookie cutter wedding package with a book full of go-to poses and much less of the photogs or the b&g's personalities in the shots. If CPI has any influence on Bella, there will be a lot of "place light 15' from subject, set at 25%, set camera to 1/60th and f4" type of training to allow unqualified people to produce predictable results that minimize post production time. Big business is all about reproducible results and maximizing profit. This big business model can work, but the small business model that most of us subsribe to will always be king of the heap in wedding photography. Weddings are deeply personal events to most people and there will never be a good substitute for a quality conscious wedding photographer who can make things fun and unique. Some people will always pay a little more for that and be willing to seek that out.

ShepsMom

tenoverthenose wrote: »

I'm perfectly fine with this. More stable photography jobs for people who want to be photographers. A standard of quality for brides. Business is business and I wish them success.

More stable photography jobs? If they are willing to work for a minimum wage, maybe. What is an average pay of PictureMe employee/photographer in the studio?

And how are they going to pick their wedding photographers? Do they just hire any photographer "wannabe" and send them on their way to shoot a wedding? Do they give them cameras, which are probably locked on a certain setting cause those "wannabe's" didn't really take their time to learn anything about the craft, 1 long lens and one wide lens and bunch of memory cards?
Sure, they will pay you $50 to cover the day, photogs be happy and hopefully their brides too.
A standard of quality for brides?!

Maybe they wont have to go anywhere, and just do weddings right there, right between cookware and hardware aisles

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?p=3210

Matthew Saville

ShepsMom wrote: »

More stable photography jobs? If they are willing to work for a minimum wage, maybe. What is an average pay of PictureMe employee/photographer in the studio?

And how are they going to pick their wedding photographers? Do they just hire any photographer "wannabe" and send them on their way to shoot a wedding? Do they give them cameras, which are probably locked on a certain setting cause those "wannabe's" didn't really take their time to learn anything about the craft, 1 long lens and one wide lens and bunch of memory cards?
Sure, they will pay you $50 to cover the day, photogs be happy and hopefully their brides too.
A standard of quality for brides?!

Maybe they wont have to go anywhere, and just do weddings right there, right between cookware and hardware aisles

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?p=3210

I've looked into Bella a little bit, and personally know a few Bella shooters, so I can say that it's not THAT bad. They only hire talented, skilled photographers who know what the heck they're doing. They do give you free reign of the photos on the wedding day, mostly. You're just there to do what the bride wants.

So I'm not really worried too much about the quality of photography dropping with companies like Bella. In fact as I said, I think it'll improve if anything. Bella will have a reputation to uphold, and they'll set a decently high standard of quality that only X number of photographers will be able to achieve. So in general I think it's a good thing for brides, compared to having an inexperienced cousin / friend shoot the wedding for free.

They'll monopolize a lot of the low-end market, below $3K or so... (At least in my area, I'm sure prices fluctuate based on geography...) But I have hope that I can rise above that, and be a reputable photographer at a higher price point, where there's enough business to go around. We'll see what happens of course!

=Matt=

studio1972

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I've looked into Bella a little bit, and personally know a few Bella shooters, so I can say that it's not THAT bad. They only hire talented, skilled photographers who know what the heck they're doing. They do give you free reign of the photos on the wedding day, mostly. You're just there to do what the bride wants.

So I'm not really worried too much about the quality of photography dropping with companies like Bella. In fact as I said, I think it'll improve if anything. Bella will have a reputation to uphold, and they'll set a decently high standard of quality that only X number of photographers will be able to achieve. So in general I think it's a good thing for brides, compared to having an inexperienced cousin / friend shoot the wedding for free.

They'll monopolize a lot of the low-end market, below $3K or so... (At least in my area, I'm sure prices fluctuate based on geography...) But I have hope that I can rise above that, and be a reputable photographer at a higher price point, where there's enough business to go around. We'll see what happens of course!

=Matt=

Maybe this is an American phenomenon, but I really can't see big companies taking over the wedding market on this side of the pond, even at the lower end.

First of all, larger companies have to charge VAT (20%) unlike smaller self employed photographers. Also as an employer they have to pay employers taxes and provide benefits such as holidays, sick leave and pensions. Then there are the working hours directives etc. from the EU. On top of that is the overhead of actually running and marketing the business. It would be very easy for a self employed photographer to undercut them with a similar quality lever.

Mid to high end photographers meanwhile should have their own distinctive look or style which their clients appreciate and a corporation can never match that either, not to mention the personal service that a small company or individual can provide.

Not saying there isn't a niche where some clients might prefer the idea of using a larger company, especially if it had a well known brand name, but I don't see it becoming a big part of the industry.

chrisjohnson

studio1972 wrote: »

Maybe this is an American phenomenon,

I doubt this is true. After all, Tesco was a UK invention.

The good news is that the need for paid photography is becoming a mass market, even in the age of cheap digital cameras which everybody owns. The "bad" news for some is that serious freelancers are challenged to produce unique work and a different service. I see it as a natural evolution and just like the delicatessen thrives alongside the supermarket, there will be room for anyone able to offer something special.

I suspect a lot of good photographers will be drawn to the commodity work to fill their empty hours - also not a bad thing for a pro.

Blurmore

Yeah I got this in an email...

I doubt much will change on my end, so long as I can

A. Work whenever I want
B. Not have anyone telling how I should do my job
C. Never have to look at the people I photograph again (if I don't want to)
D. Get paid...

I don't care where the money comes from.