To not be surprised that no one used a photo booth at a wedding at £2 a time

[Bearbehind]

I went to an evening reception last night and have heard today that the bride has had a major strop as hardly any of the guests used the photo booth they booked .

It was £2 a time and you got a photo and the couple got one for their book.

I hate having my photo taken so I sure as hell wasn't going to pay for it.

AIBU to think if you want wedding photos you pay for them or you don't sulk if others don't want to spend £2 a pop on a shitty passport photo.

[CloudsAndTrees]

I can imagine it being a lot of fun at the right wedding, but I can't believe the couple thought people would actually pay for it.

Why would anyone pay to have a photo taken at an event where people usually take their own cameras, or at the very least have camera phones?

[BlackholesAndRevelations]

Every wedding I've been to in the last year or two (and that's a fair few) has had one of these photo booths. They're a big hit and can be very funny. However, every single one has been free. I can't see it ever being successful if people have to pay; chances are they've spent s fortune already for the privilege of simply being at someone's wedding!

[GW297]

It should have been free! Ridiculous!

[LastButOneSplash]

If the couple wanted it, it would make them happy for me to use it, and I cared about them, of course I'd use it. Why on earth not? It's £2 to make someone you care about happy. I don't see the problem. I wouldn't want it myself, but I don't expect everyone to think the same as me.

[squoosh]

Another trend I've noticed at weddings is sweet trollies featuring jars of old fashioned sweets And these weddings aren't particularly child populated.

Who wants to eat sweets at a wedding? It's all about the booze people.

[MulberryJane]

YANBU, bridezilla is. Firstly, charging for stuff at a wedding is tacky unless prearranged. Actually, I can see how it would be tempting to charge when they're about £500 to hire but I thought the point was to entertain the guests, I think the entertainment is taken away when you have to pay for the privilege. It also becomes less entertaining when the pictures (all 1 million of them) are posted on Facebook for all to see.

Guests often spend enough money just attending a wedding; after outfits, gifts, travel, childcare etc, etc, etc having to fork out for 'extras' no matter how cheap can sometimes seem like a big ask. £2 suddenly may as well be £10 in situations like this.

[Bearbehind]

I think part of the problem was that it wasn't the most extravagant wedding- think cash bar, not enough food and a request for cash gifts- so this was really a step too far.

[AKissIsNotAContract]

I bet they were hoping that the guests having pics taken would cover the cost of hiring the booth and because it didn't get used they were landed with a big bill.

[raisah]

my cousin had one at his wedding with lots of props. There was a massive queue for it as it was free. I unfortunately didnt get a chance to use it because it was so popular.

[Bearbehind]

The trouble is splash most people seem to have viewed it completely oppositely to you, if the couple wanted it, if it would have made them happy for peope to use it and if they cared about the guests they wouldn't have charged people to use it.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I think it's a bit of a peculiar thing. I mean, if I go to a wedding, I tend to assume the bride and groom are the centre of attention, right? So I wouldn't be expecting to go pose for photos other than group ones, it'd feel self-centred when what I want to be doing is ooing over the bride or chatting to people.

And I wouldn't carry change.

So yes, not very well thought out. That said it's a bit sad the bride is upset it was wasted.

[LastButOneSplash]

Yes bear, I can see that from the thread. Tbh I think that's quite sad. There could be many reasons why they chose to charge. Personally I'd give people I care about the benefit of the doubt and want to make them happy on their wedding day, whether I liked the idea or not. I might think 'how ridiculous' but I'd still humour them. I think I'm allowed to go against the flow on AIBU.

[Bearbehind]

I'm genuinely intrigued by your thoughts though splash. In my mind, if you can't afford it, you don't do it. What possible reason could they have for charging guests for the photos, other than to save them cash?

I don't think it helps that the couple are DH's work colleagues so I really don't know or care about them.

[FairPhyllis]

Sounds like one of those 'let's copy something we saw on a pretentious wedding blog but do it in a half-arsed way because actually we can't afford it' moments.

It is U to expect people to pay for 'extras' when they are your guest. Perhaps with the exception of a cash bar (as long as you provide soft drinks and warn people in advance). People don't necessarily carry cash at weddings.

[quoteunquote]

well that conclusive then,

if you have a photo booth at your wedding, it will be used if it is free and there are wigs and props,

if you charge for it, no one will use it.

someone stick that on the MN wedding planner list.(there should be one somewhere)

[MrsMelons]

I misunderstood, I thought the company they hired it from decided on the charge, I did not realise the couple chose to do this.

That is dreadful and I may not have wanted to pay for it in that case!

Most people I know could not afford to put on a free bar which is fine IMO but to ask guests to pay for something that is an unnecessary extra seems a bit odd.

[MrsMelons]

OMG - I really need new friends or I need to move, only in another world would someone not take cash to a wedding in my social circle.

[Snazzywaitingforsummer]

Isn't this exactly what the packs of disposable cameras are for? And I've just looked and you can get 10 for £20 on Amazon so it's not a lot but it really is something that should be on the couple's budget, not the guests'.

AKissIsNotAContract I think you're right. They hoped it would claw back some of their wedding costs.

squoosh Am flattered now as had retro sweets at my wedding which was hardly 'recently'! I didn't see sweets and booze as an either/or

[Bearbehind]

mrsmelons that sums it up. It was a completely unnecessary extra which people didn't want to pay for.

[Snazzywaitingforsummer]

MrsMelons I do agree on that score. I have only been to one wedding ever that didn't have a cash bar and then super-rich parents were involved. So I would always have cash, but I wouldn't want to spend it on stuff like booth photos.

[MrsMelons]

I am liking the sound of retro sweets and booze - sounds like my perfect night!

[TheSmallClanger]

I wouldn't want to pay for it. I can see how it might be fun if there is a big group of friends there, but weddings are expensive enough as it is, without forking out for pointless photos that are never going to get looked at.

[ComposHat]

Most people I know could not afford to put on a free bar which is fine IMO but to ask guests to pay for something that is an unnecessary extra seems a bit odd

I was getting a bit heart in mouth as we can't afford to offer free booze all night (certainly not with the amount some of our friends can put away) and I've only been to one wedding where there was free booze all night and that was marquee in a back garden do and they'd done a booze cruise to France.

We're giving them drinks on arrival and drinks for the toast and then 'to the cash bar with thee.' Is that stingy?

But I digress, YANBU. It sounds like a bit of a cheek to charge for a photobooth and a wanky idea in the first place. Mind you given the combination of booze and a photobooth I'm amazed bridezilla wasn't left with endless pictures of bare buttocks and v-signs.

[AKissIsNotAContract]

I'm having retro sweets and modern booze at my wedding. You sound like the ideal wedding guest MrsMelons

[LastButOneSplash]

Genuinely? Ok... I could imagine they might have heard about it, loved the idea, looked at the budget and had so many other things their hearts were set on, that they couldn't fit it in their budget. Worked out it would only be a couple of quid each, that that really wasn't much in the whole scheme of things, and so they could afford it that way. Of course they might have wanted to diddle everyone out of their money, and have some kind of scam going with the machine owners where they shared the earnings, and are now sharing a luxury cruise small cheap dinner on the proceeds. There's no way of knowing. But if I cared about them, I'd assume the former. I just tend to assume the people I surround myself with are usually doing the best they can and what makes sense to them at the time. I might think they're wrong, but would assume it made sense to them. I might also think they got carried away with the whole thing, suckered into getting something they didn't need just because they thought everyone was doing it and should work within their budget. But I wouldn't think it would be helpful to make that point to them by abstaining when the chance of that being upsetting to them was pretty high.

Of course it is a partner's colleague rather than someone you care about, I get why you might not be bothered. But the wider point that lots of people didn't do it seems a bit mean to me. I hate filing in those bloody guest books, don't see the point, didn't have one, but I always will write in them as I know it means something to the couple. I appreciate there's no money involved in that, but £2 to me is neither here nor there. Would I pay £2 for someone I care about to be happy? Of course.