To do a straw poll on people's opinions on weddings which are partially funded by the guests

[Bearbehind]

Not ATAAT but certainly inspired by one.

I believe that you should pay for the wedding you book but there seems to be a train of thought whereby you book an 'exclusive use' venue where the amount your guests spend on rooms is deducted from your bill.

It got me thinking- would you be happy to partially fund a couples wedding?

Would it make a difference if they were upfront about the fact they benefited from you choosing accommodation at their chosen venue?

Would you be annoyed if you subsequently found out your entire spend had been deducted from the wedding bill?

There's a lot of wedding talk in certain parts of my life ATM but this hasn't been an option anyone I know has even considered.

There are two ways this works though...some hotels will do weddings and offer some 'first dibs' rooms in case guests want to stay. Other (sometimes smaller) hotels will offer to hold all the rooms available (exclusive use) but they are paid for all together. In either case, if people would be staying at the hotel anyway (if it isn't massively more expensive than nearby options) then it is fair enough that the guests pay their own costs. Exclusive use of a hotel can be great if there are families with small kids: much nicer to know that there are no random people wandering the halls, for example, but it all depends on how it is presented and how the guests take it. I see that someone on here would object to being influenced to stay at the hotel venue, for example, but IME most people having to travel would appreciate some guidance on local hotels.

But sometimes, with weddings, whatever you do will be the wrong thing: leave people to sort themselves out and you are unhelpful, provisionally book rooms at the venue so guests can fall into bed at their convenience and you are being pushy or trying to make money from them. Some people won't like either option. Some MNers seem to take umbrage with weddings generally and families can go very odd when weddings happen My DM for example: we provided details of the local travelodges and premier inns for our wedding, and provided buses in both directions. gave them a code to use when booking so all guests could be together if they wanted, and arranged to pay for all the travel and hotel rooms..... According to my Mother we were cheap and should have booked everyone in to somewhere nicer.....

The last wedding I went to was an exclusive use venue some distance from any alternative accommodation. Filling the rooms was clearly key to the b&g's finances. I asked for the least expensive room and told the b&g that it was a cost issue (the cheapest room was well over £100). There was no access to the venue before 1pm and you had to be out by 10am the following day due to weddings on both the day before and day after.

The b&g insisted on putting me in one of the most expensive rooms (due to me being an old friend) which left me in a very difficult position. They wanted their guests to buy elements of their 3 week honeymoon (meals, outings, wine etc) so I went off piste and just bought a small token gift as it was all out of my price range.

The room when I arrived was small and not particularly well maintained. Nowhere near worth the money and it felt all the time as if you were on a wedding conveyor belt.

Makes you long for the days when it was just village hall/local hotel reception and the focus was on having a lovely time sharing the day with the b&g, catching up with friends and family without spending the equivalent of a week's family holiday to participate.

We had a venue that was exclusive use. It didn't have to be, but that is how we booked it. We would have paid it even if nobody stayed over. We offered rooms at a significantly reduced rate to what they would otherwise have been, and yes, that money went to us. But we had already paid the hotel for those rooms, so not really sure what the difference is.
We gave rooms to close family members at no cost to them.
We also provided details of other hotel options, including cheap ones etc.
There were quite a few rooms free but that didn't bother us - we wanted the privacy of exclusive use and were prepared to pay for it. Had we not had exclusive use, the same guests may have stayed in the hotel at greater cost so I didn't view it as them funding our bill.

If the B&G are offering rooms in the hotel there is no obligation to stay or take them. That doesn't even enter my thought process.

I think being asked for money for honeymoon or anything is rude and you always know the ones who will do it. My latest wedding we've received bank details before we received the invite.

I also don't want to attend a wedding where I have to BYOB or a pot luck dish- sounds shit. Not only can you treat me like a guest but you expect me to put some work into it. Not happening.

Another who thinks you should book the wedding you can afford and not expect anyone else to 'fund' your day. I've been to all sorts of weddings over the years and they are certainly no less enjoyable for being in the local village hall with a mobile bar set up in the corner.
If there are a lot of guests that have to travel, then it is helpful if the B&G can point people in the direction of a variety of local places to stay, but I don't think they should "expect" people to fork out for expensive hotel rooms in order to bring down their costs for the wedding celebrations they have booked.

It's the sneakiness I can't comprehend - I'm sure these guests don't know they are inadvertently funding this

But they aren't funding the wedding, they are paying for their own accommodation.
My niece looked at a hotel for her wedding a couple of years ago and the quote included a minimum number of rooms, she didn't think they would sell all those rooms at the price so she didn't book there.
My daughter is getting married this summer and there is no accommodation, so I reserved a load of rooms at a nearby hotel. If they aren't sold they will go back on the market.
Some places will only do the wedding on an exclusive basis, of course you expect those who stay there to pay for their room. It's no different to the other scenarios. This is not cheating your hapless guests into paying for your wedding.

MN is really sour and mean about weddings.

The fact that the couple are underwriting the cost of the rooms doesn't mean that the money paid for the rooms goes back to the couple! That's like saying that if someone guarantees a loan you take out from a bank any money paid back to the bank goes back to the guarantor. I think you're a bit mixed up OP.

I agree mellojello.

OP do you think that the wedding guests should stay for free at the hotel as that's the obvious conclusion from not charging for the rooms?

Thread title implies that B&G are asking for money for the wedding - I agree if they were doing that by say having one of those grabby little poems or putting their bank account details on the invite then that would indeed be a sorry state of affairs.

However I really can't see all the angst from expecting wedding guests to pay for a hotel room if they choose to stay at the hotel overnight.

I definitely had my eyes opened to the wedding industry on that thread, and how people are 'sold' packages they don't need or want, and that suit neither them or their guests.

The learning from that other thread is that the couple buy the hotel for the night, and pick the price to sell on the rooms to their guests.

If the couple are selling the rooms to the guests at the price they would be charged if the room went unfilled, no issue.

If they are selling them at a higher price, to make a 'profit' then that is underhand and a little sneaky. I was shocked to hear on the other thread that some hotels actually suggest this to the B/G.

Also there's a world of difference between suggesting a guest stays at the exclusive use hotel, but giving them the option not to, and coercing them to stay there or having a situation where the hotel is in the middle of nowhere and they can't feasibly go anywhere else.

No, an actual marriage costs very little. £500 for a church and about £200 for a registry office. It's the rest that costs and none of it is necessary.

Attending weddings shouldn't cost the guests anything more than their outfit and cab home. If the bride wants somewhere fancy in the middle of nowhere or where you can't travel home that night they should provide accommodation.

More and more seem to be less about the vows and actual marriage and more look at my big fancy day that I managed to only pay x towards as the guests paid the rest. As for cash requests, vulgar and crass. If you have everything, then say no gifts. Very easy.

That's like saying that if someone guarantees a loan you take out from a bank any money paid back to the bank goes back to the guarantor. I think you're a bit mixed up OP.

No I'm really not mixed up.

What I'm talking about is nothing like the example you gave.

It's quite simple- you book a venue that includes a certain number of rooms- the total price won't change regardless of who stays in what room.

B&g then 'sell' those rooms to recover some of their costs- thus are partially funding the wedding.

Bear I agree you are not mixed up. That thread was very illuminating.

I actually have more respect for those 'grabby little poems' than this scenario of guests inadvertently funding a wedding by reducing the B&G's bill behind the scenes.

If the bride wants somewhere fancy in the middle of nowhere or where you can't travel home that night they should provide accommodation. -
really Autumnleaves?

A lot of people don't stay in their birth town these days, when I got married DH and I lived in Scotland, whereas I was originally from Northern Ireland and DH from England, guests were from a variety of places including London and DH's hometown.

Our wedding was held at a venue about a 40 minute drive from Edinburgh, therefore it would have been perfectly feasible for those coming from there to drive home if they wanted to, not so much for everyone else.

Should we have paid for all our guests accommodation that weren't within an hours drive of home? Answer is we didn't and I think they would have been rather surprised if we had done, we did make sure that we offered the addresses of a variety of differently priced options near the venue.

rookie you do sound lovely and considerate. I think the problem is about the couples who get a bit conned into exclusive use by venue wedding planners and end up by default having to hope their guests chip in.

No rookie, who leaves their hometown? Two people, two family hometowns, two (or, in our case, more) university locations, multiple working locations.

I don't even work within an hour of where I live, let alone have only wedding guests that occupy that particular circle of the country.

But expecting guests to pay money to stay in a hotel is not asking them to chip in, that's my point. The alternative is that the guests stay in the hotel for free and that's never been offered to me at any wedding I've attended.

Surely you book a venue with a certain number of rooms so people can stay if they want? Yes, some hotels will charge you for them anyway. That still isn't getting people to pay for your wedding.

Autumn my daughter is getting married in our local parish church. Guests will be coming from the other side of the world. They aren't having to stay because she's a selfish bridezilla who's insisted on a fancy venue in the middle of nowhere!

It's quite simple- you book a venue that includes a certain number of rooms- the total price won't change regardless of who stays in what room.

Yes, but you only book those rooms on the understanding that guests will need a place to stay and therefore book the rooms themselves. So you'll only end up paying for unbooked rooms. You accept a risk that you'll end up paying something but that's all. Completely different from asking guests to chip in for the venue itself.

rookie you are missing my point- I'm specifically talking about the trend for an exclusive use venue being booked on the basis the cost will be reduced by the amount of rooms other guests pay for.

I agree that, with the best will in the world, some people are likely to need accommodation. I just don't think the B&G should benefit in anyway from this.

We couldn't afford a big wedding. We had a registry office wedding and then a meal at a lovely local pub.
We did ask if people could buy their own meals, but we put some money behind the bar for drinks.
The pub made a lovely effort to make it special as did our guests.
It was lovely and relaxed and we all had a lovely day.

I would expect to pay to stay in a hotel to attend a wedding. We did for my nephew's wedding. It wouldn't occur to me not to pay.

Bearbehind - I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

I think 'exclusive use' can be pitched in a few ways.

We had exclusive use. We paid a fixed fee for that. On our invoice, there was a line for 'Hotel rooms x 7 £X'. Therefore, we viewed it as underwriting the cost of those rooms, then distributing these rooms to guests who wanted them. Guests actually paid the hotel directly though - we just covered any shortfall (in fact, we ended up paying for nearly everyone who stayed there).

If there isn't a clear cost per hotel room, it might seem a bit more like the B&G is trying to claw money back.