Dave in Washington says:
I had an epiphany yesterday (as clients cancelled one-after-another because of the snow). And honestly, I don’t blame them. If I had an expensive waterfront or "big view" home I’d want it shot in decent weather too.
I’m getting more and more upper-end homes–and the nightmare of weather-dependent shoots is becoming a real challenge. Last year, I lost a great client after asking politely if she would book weather dependent shoots elsewhere. Now I just take my losses and try to smile. But today the light came on:
Does weather dependent really need to be a challenge?
If an agent calls up and wants to book a shoot but demands that it be weather dependent, no problem--as long as they assume some of the risk too… They do that by buying $100 weather insurance at the time of booking. If all ends well, that money is applied to the final charge. It also gives them license to cancel right up to the time we’ve booked and I pocket the $100
Shortly after I had this thought, a Sotheby’s agent I don’t know called me. Nice home, weather dependent. I held my breath and made the offer… He thought it was a great idea; made the booking and settled the online invoice immediately. Was that a fluke or have I stumbled onto something?!
I don't get a lot of weather-dependent requests (mostly because my city is under six feet of snow half the year) but I could see this concept working very well for those of you shooting in the sunny states, on the coast, etc.
Obviously, the concept of weather insurance would need to be tweaked according to individual markets but overall, what do you guys think of the idea?