First, let me say "Thanks" on behalf of all wedding videographers to Mike Nelson - "father of 'Bridal Elegance'" and innovator of numerous creative techniques. I've profited from his ideas, as have many of us.

However..his latest article in event DV magazine (page 50, July 2007), has me very concerned. Mike talks about finding things like "...number and length of toasts; speeches; presentations; and musical numbers" - apparently things the bride had not specifically contracted for - "..After reviewing the footage in the post-wedding meeting, and seeing how much we have that she didn't contract for...it is common for a bride to add an additional 50 to 100% to her package for additional products."

He goes on to say, "Some people call this an upsell, but they're wrong.." You're right Mike, they are wrong, this sounds more like a "hold-up" than an "upsell". Nowhere in his article do I see Mike cautioning wedding videographers to carefully spell out what the bride's contract does and does not cover; to have contracts that are simple to understand and are not predatory. Nowhere do I see him taking any steps to protect brides. He doesn't specifically state what he is going to bill her extra for or how his contract is worded to set the bride up for this, so I have to read "between the lines" a bit, but I don't like what I'm reading there.

Because many others may see this article, like I did, as a plan to set brides up for having to pay for more than they'd bargained, I would like to see Mike do a follow up article to clear up this notion. I checked his website (www.rememberwhenvideos.com) and could find no mention of rates, no contract that could be downloaded and read and no explanation of plans and what they do and do not cover. I think this information should be clearly available to brides and we all should operate in the "sunlight".

Obviously, once you've shot her wedding, you're going to have video that the bride just "has to" have. By wording your plans and contract so that it is likely you'll have video that isn't covered without extra charges, you're being unethical, in my humble opinion.

If the bride contracts for five hours and you (with the bride's permission) stay six and you want to be paid overtime if the bride wants the extra video included - I guess there's nothing wrong with that, so long as the hours were clearly laid out and understood in advance and so long as you're not charging a lot more for the extra video than what the bride would have paid had she contracted for the extra time in advance.

But when you, as an experienced wedding videographer, word your plans and your contract so that it is likely there will be video that is not covered - video you know you can hold for a big ransom later - well, is it just me and my old-fashion sense of morality, or is this just plain wrong?

Now please understand, I'm not saying that this was Mike's intention or that this is how he operates. But I'm saying that his article appears to leave room for this type of operation and I feel he should have made it clear that this is NOT what he was talking about. To do that, he would also need to show some specific examples of how he does this in an open, honest manner that is not geared to take advantage of brides. I respect Mike's work and what he has done for our community. I can't believe he meant to leave his article open to this type of interpretation, but I do wish he would clarify it. On the other hand, this quote from Mike makes me wonder..

"I have been able to charge twice as much for exactly the same thing after the wedding as I would if contracted to produce it prior to the wedding day.." - Mike Nelson

Why would you do that, Mike? Why would you charge twice as much? Just because you can? Kind of like having a gun to her head, after the video is in the can, isn't it? I think we need to think about how we should (or should not) use that power. Mike, if you feel this is ethical, then I challenge you to post this quote - and your entire article, on your website.

event DV magazine is well-respected in the wedding videography community and I know I look forward to each new issue. But I don't feel that they can fully support wedding videographers without also supporting integrity within our field and taking at least a measure of responsibility for also protecting our clients. With that in mind, perhaps more caution should be taken to not allow things to be read "between the lines" that might lead some to, perhaps unthinkingly, take actions that would not reflect well on our industry.

I understand there is little repeat business in wedding videography but that should not be construed as a license to take advantage of a very vulnerable client.

Readers - we'd love to hear your comments!

- Hank Castello