The NYT's odd promotion of wedding planners
Today's New York Times had an article that seemed right up our alley: planning a wedding on a budget. People (like us) looking to make their wedding affordable in the face of cultural pressure, high prices and escalating expectations. And how does the New York Times solve the conundrum? A wedding planner.
It isn't that the New York Times didn't recognize the issue, they just don't acknowledge it:
Carley Roney, co-founder of TheKnot.com, which helps brides-to-be plan their weddings, says she doesn’t think so. “You give them a budget, and their job is to make the wedding happen in that budget,” she said. “By not overspending, they can save thousands of dollars.”
See, that's probably true. But if you are considering the category of things that a wedding planner can save you "thousands of dollars" on for your wedding, you are not having a wedding on a budget. You are having a wedding with a budget. The only mention of a person who is actually doing a wedding on a budget makes no mention at all of having a wedding planner involved.
But what really got me was this quote from a wedding planner:
Ms. Seccuro said she would never forget one couple who, when it was time to register for gifts, “actually sent blueprints of a house they were building upstate to all the wedding guests, inviting them to ‘buy’ a door, a window, the kitchen floors, an appliance.” They “wanted their guests to pay for their house,” she said. “They remain to this date the only client I have fired.”
Fired? Frankly, having the guests "buy the house" sounds like a brilliant idea! Certainly it is a better idea than ending up with piles of crystal serving trays or Lladro figurines.
If that is the kind of thing wedding planners disapprove of, that's one more reason we're glad we didn't hire a wedding planner. (Otherwise, we'd never getting away with registering for a dehumidifier.)
I'm with you on the house.
What I'm loving in that article is that apparently even a wedding planner, a paid professional, does't know enough to talk to an expert about the wisdom of releasing butterflies into an enclosed space.
It was The Knot (print edition) that suggested that you make sure your musician contracts clearly state that you aren't feeding the help what you feed your guests. Without the magazine in front of me I have to paraphrase their case study which was roughly "serving ten extra lobsters can take a bite out of your wedding budget."
Nevermind that if 10 lobsters are going to hurt you that bad maybe (just maybe) you can't actually afford to serve lobster?
Posted by: Amanda | 07/26/2006 at 01:29 PM
Only the NYT could print a piece on budget weddings and quote Colin Cowie. There are some salient points, but nothing very helpful for "the rest of us". Excellent point regarding weddings with a budget vs. on a budget.
I found your site today - you guys are great. It's so nice to see someone else who has a sense of humor about this process! I'm a Williamsburg bride who views the wedding industry with a general sense of eschewal, now mixed with outright terror. I even hate the word "fiancee". We are getting married this October and started planning two weeks ago, when a perfect location came our way. We moved on it and suddenly found ourselves with a wedding date. We are dedicated to keeping this shindig small, fun and easy!
Anyway good luck, congrats and thanks for all the links!
Posted by: Charlie | 07/26/2006 at 02:29 PM
Dead butterflies in your guests’ hair and cleavage: priceless.
I'm SO turned on right now.
Posted by: Beeeej | 07/30/2006 at 03:04 PM
i am SO GLAD to find this site. this afternoon i am surprised to find myself considering spending $1700 (that's new zealand dollars, mind) on a (white) wedding dress. i have so much wedding static in my head that i don't even know what i want anymore... how to get married and keep family happy (who are paying for most of it, mind), vs how we originally thought we'd get married. i don't need a wedding planner, i need a wedding therapist.
Posted by: annabel | 08/07/2006 at 12:23 AM
Hey
Stumbled on your site. Okay, I am glad I am not the only one who felt the house idea wasnt that bad...was almost feeling guilty.
Posted by: Ade | 08/08/2006 at 10:10 PM
The buying the house idea actually sounds very exciting. It would give the house a little bit of character, as i t's picked by several different people.
Posted by: Ceetar | 08/15/2006 at 05:37 PM
You are crazy (or brave), Ceetar. In my conception of this, the people "buying" the house would have exactly zero say in how we spent the money. They would only know that they were contributing to our happiness and stylish shelter.
Posted by: Charles Star | 08/15/2006 at 05:42 PM
Glad to have found your site! My betrothed and I (We also don't like the pretentious sounding "fiance.") are just starting this process and seem more and more leaning towards a Chinese banquet. Since, I'm Chinese-American it also makes sense culturally, but as well as economically! Chinese restaurants charge by the table, so it usually comes out to less than $100 per person, which is so difficult. Kudos to you guys for creatively opposing the WIC (wedding industrial complex).
Posted by: Wynne | 09/10/2006 at 02:51 PM
I agree with you. If you're trying to get the biggest bang for your buck, plan it yourself. A wedding planner can save you headaches, but not much cash.
Posted by: Sandy | 06/20/2007 at 12:36 PM
When is it ever okay to send your guests stuff to buy you? I'm all for requesting money for a house rather than a crystal swan in the appropriate place (the website, for example), but I would never EVER do something so presumptuous as to send my guests what seems like a demand for cash.
Posted by: Beth | 05/05/2008 at 12:27 AM
i agree with you so much. I just got married 3 months ago and there are so many expenses to deal with. A wedding planner is just another fee that you do not need.
Posted by: aruba beach wedding | 03/26/2009 at 03:23 PM