One thing that still seems to be under-examined is just what kind of a market there actually is for decent paying wedding photography.

So I ran a few of the numbers I've run across.

There are apparently about one million weddings per year in the US - or .33% of the total population. That would mean that if you live within range of a population area with 3 million people (not too difficult - the greater Tampa Bay area is over 2.5M), then there should be about 10,000 weddings per year - or 200 per week on average.

Now it gets interesting. The average amount paid for wedding photography nationwide is about $1500. (That number apparently doesn't include weddings without a professional photographer at all, but for now let's just ignore that.)

So let's do a bell curve with $1500 at the center. From what I've seen, wedding photography tends to go up in price geometrically, so let's make the first standard deviation at twice that or $3,000 and the second standard deviation at twice that or $6,000.

Doing that gives us these predictions: 34% or 68 weddings in this area each week would pay $1,500-$3,000 for wedding photography; 14% or 28 weddings would pay $3,000-$6,000; and 2% or 4 weddings per week would pay over $6,000.

Remember, that's assuming that all weddings pay something for professional wedding photography. I would bet, however, that 25%-30% don't, which would reduce those final numbers by a similar amount.

Now, of course that doesn't take into account seasonal variations or differences between different population areas (in terms of cultural demand for higher end weddings). From what I can tell, the Tampa Bay area is below average in demand (say 2/3), while Orlando might qualify as average. You have to go to a much bigger center (NY, Chicago, Southern California for example) to get better numbers.

do you like being a wedding photographer?

At the beginning if your conjection you left out couples who didn't pay anything for photographer, than at the end you subtracted it again.


What's your point to this whole thing?

it's good information, and good to help you figure out whether you are in an overly saturated market and what you can reasonably expect to charge.

on the other hand, i think looking at the data from a nationwide point of view doesn't really give enough information to draw conclusions. i would prefer to start with the information for a particular area, there are just too many factors otherwise.

of course, we don't have to just take the numbers lying down. we can try to be a force in the market to raise awareness and encourage people to make photography more of a priority in their wedding budget.

I agree with that - but as I mentioned in a previous post, there are a lot of cultural factors working against us too. It's an uphill battle.

One thing the numbers show is just how much demand there is for reasonably priced photography.

And from what I know about the Tampa Bay area - numbers of photographers and studios and what they are charging, these numbers are pretty close.

"4 weddings per week pay over $6k"

Yep...that sounds like our area. lol We have Neil & Liesl, Luke, Gary, Brady, Frank & Bob K, Sauro... I think that's IT for the over $6k crowd. 4-6 of them, not shooting every week = about right.

M

The other thing is - if you think there's such a demand for $1500-2200 photography, go shoot it? I'm not sure what the point is - that we can't all live off $5k weddings? Obviously people are going to and have always situated themselves into their market or gone out of business. That's still happening. If the point is to keep people from going out of business, teach them how to educate & market, not bend over & wait for their own demise at $1500.

Ummm I liked that math.

I'm glad you liked the math. If you didn't I would expect you to say what it was you didn't like about it.

I'm also glad it sounds right then. Actually, since prices are higher up north both because of the higher cost of living and the shorter wedding season, I'd raise those curve numbers a bit - maybe make it $2K, $4K, and $8K. Those seem to be more representative of northern prices - and it would put those photographers in a slightly wider part of the bell curve where they belong.

Interestingly, though, I just saw the stats from TheWeddingReport.com which says there are over 2.4M weddings per year. However, it also has contradictory info on budgets and spending. The average budget is listed as about $10K - but the average spending is about $24K. Overall, their numbers are just too consolidated to tell much from them. Maybe someone else can help sort them out.

Of course, the point is that even doubling the numbers doesn't change things much at the high end. (Particularly since we have to remember that there's no shortage of wedding photographers in any price range. Whether you want to shoot a $1K wedding or an $8K wedding, it means taking that wedding away from someone else.)

And yes, I think a lot more people should be concentrating on shooting $1,500-$2,000 weddings - or building businesses which cater to under $1,500 weddings. The vast majority of wedding photographers are part-time anyway - and the majority of the market is for weddings that don't pay enough to be full-time unless you do very high volume.

Thanks for running the numbers John.

The important issue here is more of what will happen to the established photogs... those that are hot right now in a particlar area as more new photogs enter the wedding market in their area... make their chops and start attracting the brides in the upper price range.

My market of Indy is a good example of that, and the numbers John ran of 10,000 weddings per year is exactly what our market is at.

Four years ago began a large shift in our wedding photography market. We had several soon to be haute photogs enter with low pricepoints, great styles, and they gave away everything to get their buzz going. Out of the four I'm thinking of, only one or two still include the master files of wedding as part of their package.

It was the "You get the digital negatives" that myself and the even older guys fought. We lost the battle and the business. Most of the older studios are still working on their old business plans without including the digital negatives and scratching their heads about why the brides won't come find them.

Most of these studios are surviving by adapting and shifting their business models to less reliance on weddings. But lets face it... weddings are the easy springboard into the photography market. This is where the easiest money for the least work is, and this is where most new photographers will enter a market.

Now, as new photogs hit our market, about half of them are surviving their first two years, and hitting the $2,500 price range. The glass ceiling is in place though. The $3,500 market and above is easily saturated.

With projections of only a 10 percent growth in brides (the echo boomers) over the next ten years, and a constant increase of 30 percent of photographers that survive past the two year mark in this area, I ask this:

How are YOU going to survive in a market like that, when the growth rate of professionals is triple the growth rate of consumers?

So, as a percentage, how many of those weddings will be shot with a MkIII?

John, bud, I think this is long overdue:

Shove your statistics. You have a terrible attitude, and that's why you're stuck in the market you're stuck in. Period.

EDIT: In my saturated market, I've raised my prices 49 percent in the past year. And I'm booking just fine. It's a shame, because your work is very good John, but that attitude has to have a negative impact on your business. How can you market effectively if you have such a low opinion of your profession?

+1

If you think you won't do well, you will not. If you believe you will do well, think you'll do well, and work hard enough at it, you will. It's that simple. Think about bad things and bad things will happen. Think about good things and good things will happen. These are proven facts.

Disclaimer: the following may appear to be harsh or abrasive; neither are my intention - just want to open up some eyes. (PS: I'm typing fast and I'm ADD so hang on this could get bumpy.)

I'm not sure where the nation average of $1,500 came from but why do we allow this to be so low. My costs are about that, on average.

Who owns your business? Is it you or your client?
How do you calculate your cost of sales? What percentage do you operate at?

These are very real questions that need to be answered.

In the diamond industry who do you think set the standard of how much an engagement ring cost? Was it the baker? No! It was the diamond dealers - namely DeBeers. Why do you think they set the standard of "two months wages for an engagement ring". I love the way the sold it too; "we wanted the consumer to know who much to expect to pay for an engagement ring." BRILLIANT! They set the mark. Ask anyone how much an engagement ring costs and they will quote that verbatim.

So why can't the photography industry do the same - set a mark. Well, I have or do. I make it well known that photography should be 15 - 20 percent of your wedding budget. And it's sold as, "we want couples to know who much to expect to pay for wedding photography, after all it's one of just a few things you really get to keep after the wedding". PERIOD.

Side trip: Don't you love it when the wedding planner gets 15% of the the overall budget. (not to be meant in any disrespect to wedding planners - I get a lot of business from them.)

Of course, I know that each area of the country or world has different with respect to what the market can bear. But costs are costs and you are a business. If you are not pricing your products/services accordingly you will be out of business pronto.

PPA did a bunch of research and has set a bench mark for photography studios. If you are a home based studio you should be operating at a 40% cost of Goods/ 50% General expenses / and 10% net profit. As a storefront studio your cost of goods needs to be just a bit less or 30% cost of goods / 60 % General expenses and 10% net profit. So inother words if you are a home based studio for every dollor you take in thirty cents is for COG, fifty cents are for general expenses, and ten cents are for gross profit.

It is so important to totally understand your COG and what is included otherwise you are giving away the farm.

Side tripe: Just a little story. I was at a small trade show taking with a national vendor and up walks "Joe Newbie" and the three of us were chatting and Joe says, "Oh, I have to be cheep because I'm new." I almost dropped my teeth and replied, delicately but sternly, "Never say cheep, you can be less expensive but never cheep. Secondly, why do you have to be less expensive? Are your costs lest than mine? Do you get lower prices from national vendors or your lab because you are new? Of course he replied No. "So why", I continued; "does that make you think you have to low ball your prices?" He just looked at me and said he just thought he have to because he was new in the business.

I attended a program by Hanson Fong (no relation to Gary) and some one yelled out from the audiance, "How much should I charge for an 8x10?" Hanson stopped mid-stride turned to the audiance and say, "As much as you can." Everyone laughed, and he continued, but you had better be able to support your price". In otherwords your product had better live up to the price or preceived value.

I hope I haven't straighed too far off from the original post, but it frustrates me so much when I see studios pricing their work for pennies on the dollar and literally loosing money.

So I guess I've gone full circle here. My points are simple:

1. You be the business owner.
2. Know what your true costs are
3. Price accoudingly
4. Set your mark
5. Attend a class on pricing (and I'm not talking about a 2 hr seminar I mean a 3 - 4 day down to the brass-tacks where you really sharpen your pencils and come up with a true management plan.)

Ok, I'm going to hit the "add reply" button and hope nothing blows up.

Here are some interesting new stats from The Wedding Report:

Photography Budget (for all 2M weddings in the USA) and number of photographers and their incomes in the Miami/Fort Lauderdale area.

so if I book 30 weddings at 3500, I'm twice as good as the national average?

(30 at 3500 is barely my goal - I'd be sad with almost anything less. i can't imagine doing 15 at 2200 - why bother then?)

The point is that if you book 30 - that's 30 less for someone else to book.

The other point is that the real untapped money is to the left of center of the bell curve: 1M weddings at an average of, say, $1,000 apiece.

My head is spinning reading this thread but I do have a comment about this:




I couldn't disagree more. IMO, weddings are much harder work than portraiture. Sure, it may be a one day gig, but sorting through 1000 pictures vs. 50 from a portrait session is WAY more work!

You know something just struck me as interesting.

The people in the industry who love what they do, it shows in their attitudes, in their work, in their clients etc. They all seem to also have the attitude and mindset that there's enough business to go around. And it seems that these photographers, whether they be the Mike Colon's or someone who's only been in the industry for a year or two, they are successful.

Sure there is lots of newbies in the market, and there will always be the consumer who's looking for uncle Joe to photograph their wedding, but are we really looking for them for clients anyway?

I am CONVINCED that along with skill, attitude has a LOT to do with your success, AND what you can charge people for your photography. If you go into it with the attitude that you care about them, about their day, and that they are your friend more than just client, you success rate will go up, and people will be willing to pay more for your services.

Chris and I just went on a consultation on Friday and spoke to the bride. She was saying how she is so happy so far with all the vendors she's decided to go with. They ALL have felt like friends to her, they are all offering to help where they can in the wedding and really want to do whatever they can to make her day special for her. They are on a budget, but she has been willing to go a bit over budget where necessary in order to get that vendor that she has made an connection with and feels that they are looking out for her, and will give her the desired outcome for her big day.

I agree Megan, I SWORE I wasn't going to enter the wedding market. Too much pressure, too much editing, just TOO MUCH. I went for the portrait market instead. Sure in the last few months we accepted some weddings as well, but only because some of our clients literally BEGGED and wouldn't take no for an answer (boy does that make you feel good and reassured both Chris and myself that we are doing things right). The wedding market in my opinion is much more difficult and contains more details and things you have to think/worry/plan for.

I'm sure there are some people who may view it differently, and that an outsider who is just getting started may see it as less work (one day shooting) for more money, but 2 things will happen to that person. They will (1) not take care of those details and intricacies and will therefore let down their brides (thus not able to stay in the market) or (2) will have to adjust their prices and time accordingly to cover all the things they didn't think about. Either way, it all works out

Let's not attack John, here. He's a good person who is willing to help other people. In my opinion I think he does a great job at getting us to think a little differently. He approaches things from a very analytical point of view, something many of us do not do. The numbers are definitely worth considering. Taking the time to work numbers is not what many people like to do, especially if you are an artist-type of person. However, I believe Mike Colon, DJ, Liana Lehman, Jessica Claire, Becker all know numbers and how they affect their businesses, etc.

John brought up numbers, he made no comments about whether they were good or bad, helpful or hurtful. He just posted them for our information. Let's try not to jump down his throat for just putting the information out there for us.

We all approach things differently and I believe we can learn from everyone. Maybe I've been away from the forum for a while and something's been happening with John and every one else that I'm not aware of. But for me I know he's generous albeit somewhat controversial in his posts sometimes but I believe that other people posting here have had controversial posts and said that it's a good thing...and we still like you.

This can be a good thing...really.

Already Pam has made some really relavant points that may not have been shared without this post.

Thank you so everyone here for your views. I love this place because for the most part we can all post our thoughts and still care about one another and refrain from being mean.

Numbers are my least favorite thing in the world. However, considering them is vital to growing your business. I appreciate the info.

I would have to agree....hey...I live in the same town as him!