Photographer's hotel room

smkreuz

I have already booked my photographer, and will be getting married at a relatively expensive hotel. The photographer will need to stay overnight. My question is do I have to pay for a room AT the venue for my photographer, or can I book them at a less expensive (but still nice) hotel that is close to the venue? 

Thanks!

thisismynickname2

First, check your contract. 

OliveOilsMom

smkreuz said:

I have already booked my photographer, and will be getting married at a relatively expensive hotel. The photographer will need to stay overnight. My question is do I have to pay for a room AT the venue for my photographer, or can I book them at a less expensive (but still nice) hotel that is close to the venue? 

Thanks!

Ditto PP.  Check you contract.

But also, where are you staying?  I think it would be kinda crappy if you and all your family are staying in the expensive hotel, but you put up the photographer at the cheaper one down the street.

banana468

If a hotel stay is required of your photographer then I think you should pay for it.   But ditto PPs that you should check your contract. 

Maggie0829

I would think that if a hotel stay was required then this is something that should have been discussed prior to signing your contract.

But if you didn't discuss it, then you need to check your contract.  If you are confused, then you should ask for clarification.  For me, if a night stay was required then I would definitely pay for it.

Jen4948

As PPs note, check your contract.

That said, it seems to me that if your photographer has to stay overnight, wouldn't it make sense to book them at the same hotel as everyone else involved in the wedding?

Even if it's cheaper for you to pay for them to stay somewhere else, they have to transport their equipment and get places ahead of the wedding party and guests to get set up and photograph arrivals (if you're doing that), so even if you save money on hotel rooms, you might not be doing yourself a favor by making them travel longer-plus, if you're being charged for time, you may have to compensate them for the time in transit, so you may not even be saving yourself any money.

STARMOON44

OliveOilsMom said:

smkreuz said:

I have already booked my photographer, and will be getting married at a relatively expensive hotel. The photographer will need to stay overnight. My question is do I have to pay for a room AT the venue for my photographer, or can I book them at a less expensive (but still nice) hotel that is close to the venue? 

Thanks!

Ditto PP.  Check you contract.

But also, where are you staying?  I think it would be kinda crappy if you and all your family are staying in the expensive hotel, but you put up the photographer at the cheaper one down the street.

I don't! They're not a guest, they are doing a job. They don't need to stay at el fancy resort. If there is a nearby more modest hotel I think that it's not crappy at all to book them in there. Check your contract of course, and make sure you and your photographer are on the same page, but I don't think you otherwise need to feel guilty. 

Maggie0829

STARMOON44 said:

OliveOilsMom said:

smkreuz said:

I have already booked my photographer, and will be getting married at a relatively expensive hotel. The photographer will need to stay overnight. My question is do I have to pay for a room AT the venue for my photographer, or can I book them at a less expensive (but still nice) hotel that is close to the venue? 

Thanks!

Ditto PP.  Check you contract.

But also, where are you staying?  I think it would be kinda crappy if you and all your family are staying in the expensive hotel, but you put up the photographer at the cheaper one down the street.

I don't! They're not a guest, they are doing a job. They don't need to stay at el fancy resort. If there is a nearby more modest hotel I think that it's not crappy at all to book them in there. Check your contract of course, and make sure you and your photographer are on the same page, but I don't think you otherwise need to feel guilty. 

To me this is like saying that you can serve them a lesser quality meal because they are working a job and aren't guests.

kvruns

I'm not sure why you have to pay for their hotel unless it is in the contract that overnight accommodations are to be provided. Sure it is a nice thing, especially if the hotel is a long drive from their home base

wink0erin

Agree with PPs to check the contract. I will say, it's much better to treat your photog like another guest than "just a vendor." The photographer is far more likely to go above and beyond if you treat him/her well. 

STARMOON44

Maggie0829 said:

STARMOON44 said:

OliveOilsMom said:

smkreuz said:

I have already booked my photographer, and will be getting married at a relatively expensive hotel. The photographer will need to stay overnight. My question is do I have to pay for a room AT the venue for my photographer, or can I book them at a less expensive (but still nice) hotel that is close to the venue? 

Thanks!

Ditto PP.  Check you contract.

But also, where are you staying?  I think it would be kinda crappy if you and all your family are staying in the expensive hotel, but you put up the photographer at the cheaper one down the street.

I don't! They're not a guest, they are doing a job. They don't need to stay at el fancy resort. If there is a nearby more modest hotel I think that it's not crappy at all to book them in there. Check your contract of course, and make sure you and your photographer are on the same page, but I don't think you otherwise need to feel guilty. 

To me this is like saying that you can serve them a lesser quality meal because they are working a job and aren't guests.

Yup exactly. I also say that. No, someone who is working an event doesn't have to be provided with a 5 course meal. I see absolutely nothing wrong with treating paid staff and your guests differently. 

ernursej

PPs have it covered. Personally, I would feel like a schmuck for sending the photographer down the street to another hotel if no other wedding related people were staying there.

photokitty

As a photog, if I required overnight accommodations, I would include a rating level for my required hotel...but then I would also have it in my contract that I need to be fed the same meal as the guests.

I don't see any issue with putting your photog at a suitable, but less expensive hotel, assuming they have transportation. They are a paid vendor. If your guests can't afford to stay at the fancy hotel, it's not like you pay the difference. I'm sure some guests will opt for the cheaper option, I typically do.

But all this depends on your contact. If the contract didn't address it, I would tell her, "I have booked you a room at CHAINNAME hotel. It is X miles from the reception. Does this meet your needs?" Be polite, I wouldn't offer the expensive hotel. If she responds she needs to stay in the same hotel, you can go from there.

Maggie0829

STARMOON44 said:

Maggie0829 said:

STARMOON44 said:

OliveOilsMom said:

smkreuz said:

I have already booked my photographer, and will be getting married at a relatively expensive hotel. The photographer will need to stay overnight. My question is do I have to pay for a room AT the venue for my photographer, or can I book them at a less expensive (but still nice) hotel that is close to the venue? 

Thanks!

Ditto PP.  Check you contract.

But also, where are you staying?  I think it would be kinda crappy if you and all your family are staying in the expensive hotel, but you put up the photographer at the cheaper one down the street.

I don't! They're not a guest, they are doing a job. They don't need to stay at el fancy resort. If there is a nearby more modest hotel I think that it's not crappy at all to book them in there. Check your contract of course, and make sure you and your photographer are on the same page, but I don't think you otherwise need to feel guilty. 

To me this is like saying that you can serve them a lesser quality meal because they are working a job and aren't guests.

Yup exactly. I also say that. No, someone who is working an event doesn't have to be provided with a 5 course meal. I see absolutely nothing wrong with treating paid staff and your guests differently. 

Well I do.  I have issues with people who treat hired help as second class.

thisismynickname2

Maggie0829 said:

STARMOON44 said:

Maggie0829 said:

STARMOON44 said:

OliveOilsMom said:

smkreuz said:

I have already booked my photographer, and will be getting married at a relatively expensive hotel. The photographer will need to stay overnight. My question is do I have to pay for a room AT the venue for my photographer, or can I book them at a less expensive (but still nice) hotel that is close to the venue? 

Thanks!

Ditto PP.  Check you contract.

But also, where are you staying?  I think it would be kinda crappy if you and all your family are staying in the expensive hotel, but you put up the photographer at the cheaper one down the street.

I don't! They're not a guest, they are doing a job. They don't need to stay at el fancy resort. If there is a nearby more modest hotel I think that it's not crappy at all to book them in there. Check your contract of course, and make sure you and your photographer are on the same page, but I don't think you otherwise need to feel guilty. 

To me this is like saying that you can serve them a lesser quality meal because they are working a job and aren't guests.

Yup exactly. I also say that. No, someone who is working an event doesn't have to be provided with a 5 course meal. I see absolutely nothing wrong with treating paid staff and your guests differently. 

Well I do.  I have issues with people who treat hired help as second class.

Mmm.. I think there's a balance here. Vendors get vendor meals because they have to work during the event. My photographers and DJ had the same hot entree as my guests, but they did not have the soup/salad/intermezzo/dessert because they didn't have the luxury of sitting and socializing for 1.5 hours. 
If I was having my wedding at the Four Seasons, putting traveling vendors up at the Marriott down the street isn't treating them like second class. Putting them up at Motel 6 would be. Not all my guests can afford the Four Seasons and many of them might choose the Marriott themselves. 

banana468

thisismynickname said:

Maggie0829 said:

STARMOON44 said:

Maggie0829 said:

STARMOON44 said:

OliveOilsMom said:

smkreuz said:

I have already booked my photographer, and will be getting married at a relatively expensive hotel. The photographer will need to stay overnight. My question is do I have to pay for a room AT the venue for my photographer, or can I book them at a less expensive (but still nice) hotel that is close to the venue? 

Thanks!

Ditto PP.  Check you contract.

But also, where are you staying?  I think it would be kinda crappy if you and all your family are staying in the expensive hotel, but you put up the photographer at the cheaper one down the street.

I don't! They're not a guest, they are doing a job. They don't need to stay at el fancy resort. If there is a nearby more modest hotel I think that it's not crappy at all to book them in there. Check your contract of course, and make sure you and your photographer are on the same page, but I don't think you otherwise need to feel guilty. 

To me this is like saying that you can serve them a lesser quality meal because they are working a job and aren't guests.

Yup exactly. I also say that. No, someone who is working an event doesn't have to be provided with a 5 course meal. I see absolutely nothing wrong with treating paid staff and your guests differently. 

Well I do.  I have issues with people who treat hired help as second class.

Mmm.. I think there's a balance here. Vendors get vendor meals because they have to work during the event. My photographers and DJ had the same hot entree as my guests, but they did not have the soup/salad/intermezzo/dessert because they didn't have the luxury of sitting and socializing for 1.5 hours. 
If I was having my wedding at the Four Seasons, putting traveling vendors up at the Marriott down the street isn't treating them like second class. Putting them up at Motel 6 would be. Not all my guests can afford the Four Seasons and many of them might choose the Marriott themselves. 

I agree with some of this.

I think a hotel stay doesn't need to be at the same hotel as the B&G but it shouldn't be multiple steps down either.   The comparison above is a great one.   If the B&G have white glove service then the photographer shouldn't get quarters for the bed and a key through bullet proof glass.   The other thing to keep in mind is how far apart the other hotel may be.   In some areas the hotels are across the street from each other but a 30 minute ride may not make sense either.   

Similarly if all the guests are getting lobster and filet, I don't like serving vendors a cold turkey club.     There's a difference in the meal though.   With the sleeping arrangements, you're somewhat isolated and not actually seeing the guests from your room.  I think if you serve the vendors a meal that's multiple tiers lower than your own while you eat it comes across as rubbing your nose in their faces.   

And considering you want to keep your vendors happy, I don't like creating a very apparent class system at the wedding. 

Jen4948

banana468 said:

thisismynickname said:

Maggie0829 said:

STARMOON44 said:

Maggie0829 said:

STARMOON44 said:

OliveOilsMom said:

smkreuz said:

I have already booked my photographer, and will be getting married at a relatively expensive hotel. The photographer will need to stay overnight. My question is do I have to pay for a room AT the venue for my photographer, or can I book them at a less expensive (but still nice) hotel that is close to the venue? 

Thanks!

Ditto PP.  Check you contract.

But also, where are you staying?  I think it would be kinda crappy if you and all your family are staying in the expensive hotel, but you put up the photographer at the cheaper one down the street.

I don't! They're not a guest, they are doing a job. They don't need to stay at el fancy resort. If there is a nearby more modest hotel I think that it's not crappy at all to book them in there. Check your contract of course, and make sure you and your photographer are on the same page, but I don't think you otherwise need to feel guilty. 

To me this is like saying that you can serve them a lesser quality meal because they are working a job and aren't guests.

Yup exactly. I also say that. No, someone who is working an event doesn't have to be provided with a 5 course meal. I see absolutely nothing wrong with treating paid staff and your guests differently. 

Well I do.  I have issues with people who treat hired help as second class.

Mmm.. I think there's a balance here. Vendors get vendor meals because they have to work during the event. My photographers and DJ had the same hot entree as my guests, but they did not have the soup/salad/intermezzo/dessert because they didn't have the luxury of sitting and socializing for 1.5 hours. 
If I was having my wedding at the Four Seasons, putting traveling vendors up at the Marriott down the street isn't treating them like second class. Putting them up at Motel 6 would be. Not all my guests can afford the Four Seasons and many of them might choose the Marriott themselves. 

I agree with some of this.

I think a hotel stay doesn't need to be at the same hotel as the B&G but it shouldn't be multiple steps down either.   The comparison above is a great one.   If the B&G have white glove service then the photographer shouldn't get quarters for the bed and a key through bullet proof glass.   The other thing to keep in mind is how far apart the other hotel may be.   In some areas the hotels are across the street from each other but a 30 minute ride may not make sense either.   

Similarly if all the guests are getting lobster and filet, I don't like serving vendors a cold turkey club.     There's a difference in the meal though.   With the sleeping arrangements, you're somewhat isolated and not actually seeing the guests from your room.  I think if you serve the vendors a meal that's multiple tiers lower than your own while you eat it comes across as rubbing your nose in their faces.   

And considering you want to keep your vendors happy, I don't like creating a very apparent class system at the wedding. 

Sorry, but I don't agree about "very apparent class systems" at weddings with regards to vendor food.  I think it's very entitled for vendors to assume that they are entitled to the same meals guests get.

Vendors are there to work the wedding.  They are not my relatives or friends.  I am not entertaining them.  Thus, I am not going to serve them fancy meals. If I wanted to do that, then they would have been invited as guests and not working the wedding.  If they want to eat fancy meals, then they can do that at home on their own time or at someone else's wedding where they are guests.

This doesn't mean I am going to let them starve, because I'm not, but I don't believe they are entitled to prime rib or wedding cake just because that's what I might be serving my guests. The vendors are not my guests. Also, I think that if you are working, you need to stay sober, so they are not going to be served alcohol.

And I will not hire vendors who demand to be served the same food I feed my guests.  If I come across that in a contract, I will renegotiate that clause or not hire the vendor in question.  

Maggie0829

thisismynickname said:

Maggie0829 said:

STARMOON44 said:

Maggie0829 said:

STARMOON44 said:

OliveOilsMom said:

smkreuz said:

I have already booked my photographer, and will be getting married at a relatively expensive hotel. The photographer will need to stay overnight. My question is do I have to pay for a room AT the venue for my photographer, or can I book them at a less expensive (but still nice) hotel that is close to the venue? 

Thanks!

Ditto PP.  Check you contract.

But also, where are you staying?  I think it would be kinda crappy if you and all your family are staying in the expensive hotel, but you put up the photographer at the cheaper one down the street.

I don't! They're not a guest, they are doing a job. They don't need to stay at el fancy resort. If there is a nearby more modest hotel I think that it's not crappy at all to book them in there. Check your contract of course, and make sure you and your photographer are on the same page, but I don't think you otherwise need to feel guilty. 

To me this is like saying that you can serve them a lesser quality meal because they are working a job and aren't guests.

Yup exactly. I also say that. No, someone who is working an event doesn't have to be provided with a 5 course meal. I see absolutely nothing wrong with treating paid staff and your guests differently. 

Well I do.  I have issues with people who treat hired help as second class.

Mmm.. I think there's a balance here. Vendors get vendor meals because they have to work during the event. My photographers and DJ had the same hot entree as my guests, but they did not have the soup/salad/intermezzo/dessert because they didn't have the luxury of sitting and socializing for 1.5 hours. 
If I was having my wedding at the Four Seasons, putting traveling vendors up at the Marriott down the street isn't treating them like second class. Putting them up at Motel 6 would be. Not all my guests can afford the Four Seasons and many of them might choose the Marriott themselves. 

Of course, they are working, but like you said you served them the same entree, not a deli sandwich.  Also, vendors generally don't eat the apps during cocktail hour because they are working.  it isn't like they are going to throw a fit because they couldn't sit down for 2 hours to enjoy the food and company. But I would never in a million years feed them something less then what I was serving to everyone else.  To me, I don't consider that a vendor meal, but rather them just eating the entree being offered at a time/place where they are comfortable.  Vendor meal, to me, means something of lesser quality.

And if I was having my wedding at the Four Seasons, then I would put them up at the Four Seasons.  I think it would be silly to make them stay down the street instead of at the place the wedding is taking place.  Just seems like it would be easier all around for them to already be in the building.

[Deleted User]

Jen4948 said:

banana468 said:

Mmm.. I think there's a balance here. Vendors get vendor meals because they have to work during the event. My photographers and DJ had the same hot entree as my guests, but they did not have the soup/salad/intermezzo/dessert because they didn't have the luxury of sitting and socializing for 1.5 hours. 
If I was having my wedding at the Four Seasons, putting traveling vendors up at the Marriott down the street isn't treating them like second class. Putting them up at Motel 6 would be. Not all my guests can afford the Four Seasons and many of them might choose the Marriott themselves. 

I agree with some of this.

I think a hotel stay doesn't need to be at the same hotel as the B&G but it shouldn't be multiple steps down either.   The comparison above is a great one.   If the B&G have white glove service then the photographer shouldn't get quarters for the bed and a key through bullet proof glass.   The other thing to keep in mind is how far apart the other hotel may be.   In some areas the hotels are across the street from each other but a 30 minute ride may not make sense either.   

Similarly if all the guests are getting lobster and filet, I don't like serving vendors a cold turkey club.     There's a difference in the meal though.   With the sleeping arrangements, you're somewhat isolated and not actually seeing the guests from your room.  I think if you serve the vendors a meal that's multiple tiers lower than your own while you eat it comes across as rubbing your nose in their faces.   

And considering you want to keep your vendors happy, I don't like creating a very apparent class system at the wedding. 

Sorry, but I don't agree about "very apparent class systems" at weddings with regards to vendor food.  I think it's very entitled for vendors to assume that they are entitled to the same meals guests get.

Vendors are there to work the wedding.  They are not my relatives or friends.  I am not entertaining them.  Thus, I am not going to serve them fancy meals. If I wanted to do that, then they would have been invited as guests and not working the wedding.  If they want to eat fancy meals, then they can do that at home on their own time or at someone else's wedding where they are guests.

This doesn't mean I am going to let them starve, because I'm not, but I don't believe they are entitled to prime rib or wedding cake just because that's what I might be serving my guests. The vendors are not my guests. Also, I think that if you are working, you need to stay sober, so they are not going to be served alcohol.

And I will not hire vendors who demand to be served the same food I feed my guests.  If I come across that in a contract, I will renegotiate that clause or not hire the vendor in question.  

And I think this is hilarious because I expect to be bringing my photographer and/or DJ beer and cake as the evening goes on.  I'm not going to be doing shots with the videographer, but she can have a glass of wine.  It's the perks of working evenings at weddings rather than days in an office building.  Let them eat cake!

STARMOON44

I'm not saying stick them in a camp ground, but I'm also not paying for them to stay at the Four Seasons when there is a safe convenient Holiday Inn Express available. I absolutely treat the paid staff as second class compared to the guests. Because they are.  They are doing a job. They need to be treated respectfully and courteously and provided for in accordance with the contracts they sign. They don't need to be wined and dined out of some misguided sense of nobless oblige. 

thisismynickname2

In regards to "vendor meals" we have to remember that those are defined by the caterer. For me, the vendor meal was the same hot entree the guests got. It was a fraction of the per-head cost because, like I said, the soup/salad wasn't included, and neither was the bar package. Personally, I wouldn't serve filet mignon to guests and a turkey sandwich to a vendor either, so it was nice that my caterer's "vendor meal" was the same quality steak or chicken or seafood the guests were choosing too. 

So this is why OP needs to go back to her photographer contract. If she can afford to put up the photog at a hotel like the Four Seasons, it would be really nice of her to do so. I doubt she is required to, but surely just being a decent person means she won't put them up at the Bed Bug B&B a half hour away and will choose a quality hotel nearby if the FS isn't feasible. 

Besides, this is what you get for hiring vendors that have to travel in the first place. Like there weren't any other local photographers? Putting them up at a hotel with some quality is definitely a cost of this business decision. 

Maggie0829

STARMOON44 said:

I'm not saying stick them in a camp ground, but I'm also not paying for them to stay at the Four Seasons when there is a safe convenient Holiday Inn Express available. I absolutely treat the paid staff as second class compared to the guests. Because they are.  They are doing a job. They need to be treated respectfully and courteously and provided for in accordance with the contracts they sign. They don't need to be wined and dined out of some misguided sense of nobless oblige. 

Yeah, it isn't out of some noble obligation, but rather me just liking to treat people as well as I can, even if they are only working the event.

Jen4948

adk19 said:

Jen4948 said:

banana468 said:

Mmm.. I think there's a balance here. Vendors get vendor meals because they have to work during the event. My photographers and DJ had the same hot entree as my guests, but they did not have the soup/salad/intermezzo/dessert because they didn't have the luxury of sitting and socializing for 1.5 hours. 
If I was having my wedding at the Four Seasons, putting traveling vendors up at the Marriott down the street isn't treating them like second class. Putting them up at Motel 6 would be. Not all my guests can afford the Four Seasons and many of them might choose the Marriott themselves. 

I agree with some of this.

I think a hotel stay doesn't need to be at the same hotel as the B&G but it shouldn't be multiple steps down either.   The comparison above is a great one.   If the B&G have white glove service then the photographer shouldn't get quarters for the bed and a key through bullet proof glass.   The other thing to keep in mind is how far apart the other hotel may be.   In some areas the hotels are across the street from each other but a 30 minute ride may not make sense either.   

Similarly if all the guests are getting lobster and filet, I don't like serving vendors a cold turkey club.     There's a difference in the meal though.   With the sleeping arrangements, you're somewhat isolated and not actually seeing the guests from your room.  I think if you serve the vendors a meal that's multiple tiers lower than your own while you eat it comes across as rubbing your nose in their faces.   

And considering you want to keep your vendors happy, I don't like creating a very apparent class system at the wedding. 

Sorry, but I don't agree about "very apparent class systems" at weddings with regards to vendor food.  I think it's very entitled for vendors to assume that they are entitled to the same meals guests get.

Vendors are there to work the wedding.  They are not my relatives or friends.  I am not entertaining them.  Thus, I am not going to serve them fancy meals. If I wanted to do that, then they would have been invited as guests and not working the wedding.  If they want to eat fancy meals, then they can do that at home on their own time or at someone else's wedding where they are guests.

This doesn't mean I am going to let them starve, because I'm not, but I don't believe they are entitled to prime rib or wedding cake just because that's what I might be serving my guests. The vendors are not my guests. Also, I think that if you are working, you need to stay sober, so they are not going to be served alcohol.

And I will not hire vendors who demand to be served the same food I feed my guests.  If I come across that in a contract, I will renegotiate that clause or not hire the vendor in question.  

And I think this is hilarious because I expect to be bringing my photographer and/or DJ beer and cake as the evening goes on.  I'm not going to be doing shots with the videographer, but she can have a glass of wine.  It's the perks of working evenings at weddings rather than days in an office building.  Let them eat cake!

But that's your choice, and that's fine.  It's when your vendors try to make that choice for you by inserting clauses into their contracts that require that they get everything a guest is entitled to that's not fine.

Maggie0829

Jen4948 said:

But that's your choice, and that's fine.  It's when your vendors try to make that choice for you by inserting clauses into their contracts that require that they get everything a guest is entitled to that's not fine.

And those clauses were most likely added after they were treated like crap by previous clients.  So they are just protecting themselves from being treated like shit again.

geebee908

I'd like to think that treating vendors well will result in superior service. I'd hate to be thought of as a client from hell.

Jen4948

Except they're not being "treated like shit" just because they're not being served alcohol or desserts or appetizers or a fancy meal.  Serving them hamburgers, sandwiches, pizza or the like is not treating them like shit, and an attitude that they are comes off as really entitled.  They're not there to party with the guests.

banana468

Maggie0829 said:

Jen4948 said:

But that's your choice, and that's fine.  It's when your vendors try to make that choice for you by inserting clauses into their contracts that require that they get everything a guest is entitled to that's not fine.

And those clauses were most likely added after they were treated like crap by previous clients.  So they are just protecting themselves from being treated like shit again.

STUCK IN THE BOX:

I had a conversation with my DJ who said, "I think it's pretty awful to get a soggy turkey club as my vendor meal. "   He didn't require the same meal the guests ate but he did say he wanted a hot meal.   I made sure that he was offered one of our options.

It's all about being respectful of people who are working for you.   Anytime you're "the boss" you can pull a line and say, "You're hired to do a job," but if you continue that sort of mentality without treating your employees well all they're remember is that you're all about the work and not about a little something - you know - for the effort.

I can tell you that when I worked crazy hours in middle management and saw upper management treat themselves to parties and holiday rewards that were multiple tiers above me, it left a poor taste in my mouth.   

STARMOON44

Jen4948 said:

Except they're not being "treated like shit" just because they're not being served alcohol or desserts or appetizers or a fancy meal.  Serving them hamburgers, sandwiches, pizza or the like is not treating them like shit, and an attitude that they are comes off as really entitled.  They're not there to party with the guests.

I agree. I'm not saying treat them poorly, but I don't think a convenient but not luxury hotel is being a client from hell or treating them like shit, or a reflection on me as some sort of horrible person. 

Jen4948

banana468 said:

Maggie0829 said:

Jen4948 said:

But that's your choice, and that's fine.  It's when your vendors try to make that choice for you by inserting clauses into their contracts that require that they get everything a guest is entitled to that's not fine.

And those clauses were most likely added after they were treated like crap by previous clients.  So they are just protecting themselves from being treated like shit again.

STUCK IN THE BOX:

I had a conversation with my DJ who said, "I think it's pretty awful to get a soggy turkey club as my vendor meal. "   He didn't require the same meal the guests ate but he did say he wanted a hot meal.   I made sure that he was offered one of our options.

It's all about being respectful of people who are working for you.   Anytime you're "the boss" you can pull a line and say, "You're hired to do a job," but if you continue that sort of mentality without treating your employees well all they're remember is that you're all about the work and not about a little something - you know - for the effort.

I can tell you that when I worked crazy hours in middle management and saw upper management treat themselves to parties and holiday rewards that were multiple tiers above me, it left a poor taste in my mouth.   

Not providing any meal at all, or a poor-quality meal, would be "pretty awful" and disrespectful to a vendor, but while it might be pretty awful to get a soggy sandwich, vendors are not entitled to "hot meals" just because they are working at a place where other people are being served them.  

ShesSoCold

Holy hell I agree with Jen. It's a banner day. :P

I also agree that there's a big gap between treating a vendor like shit and giving them the exact same offerings as guests.

Obviously there's nothing wrong with giving a vendor lobster, but I agree with Jen and Starmoon that they are vendors and not guests and therefore don't NEED to be hosted as properly. But giving them a hamburger or chicken instead of prime rib is hardly "treating them like shit".

To everyone arguing that vendors need to be treated the same as guests - did you offer bartenders, wait staff, coat checkers, valet parkers, etc. the same meal? Probably not, so why are they not as good as the photographer and/or DJ?

FTR, I offered my vendor the same food as everyone else. I included him in the guest count and told him to enjoy the food and bar.

banana468

Jen4948 said:

banana468 said:

Maggie0829 said:

Jen4948 said:

But that's your choice, and that's fine.  It's when your vendors try to make that choice for you by inserting clauses into their contracts that require that they get everything a guest is entitled to that's not fine.

And those clauses were most likely added after they were treated like crap by previous clients.  So they are just protecting themselves from being treated like shit again.

STUCK IN THE BOX:

I had a conversation with my DJ who said, "I think it's pretty awful to get a soggy turkey club as my vendor meal. "   He didn't require the same meal the guests ate but he did say he wanted a hot meal.   I made sure that he was offered one of our options.

It's all about being respectful of people who are working for you.   Anytime you're "the boss" you can pull a line and say, "You're hired to do a job," but if you continue that sort of mentality without treating your employees well all they're remember is that you're all about the work and not about a little something - you know - for the effort.

I can tell you that when I worked crazy hours in middle management and saw upper management treat themselves to parties and holiday rewards that were multiple tiers above me, it left a poor taste in my mouth.   

Not providing any meal at all, or a poor-quality meal, would be "pretty awful" and disrespectful to a vendor, but while it might be pretty awful to get a soggy sandwich, vendors are not entitled to "hot meals."  

Correct.   Guests aren't entitled to a hot meal either.   

I'm saying that a vendor should be treated well.   And while I think this is going to be a constantly debated topic, one treats a vendor well by making sure that they have a meal and plenty of non alcoholic beverages to drink.   The meal doesn't need to be exactly the same as what the guests eat (although ours were) but when there is a very large disparity between how you treat your guests vs how you treat your vendors expect them to notice.

The fact that my DJ mentioned this to me means that he's been treated poorly by others who have hired him in the past.   Maybe that's not how YOU would treat your vendors @Jen4948 but the fact is that he has had bad experiences and felt it necessary to address avoiding one on my wedding day.