Setting Celebrant Fees in a Regulated Environment

A method that used to be very common in freelance journalism, charging by the word is both impractical and very difficult to justify for a ceremony. But the fact that, in Australia, Registry Office ceremonies have traditionally been a set ceremony, the fact that the word length of a celebrant ceremony is flexible therefore cost per word far less expensive can be a good selling point.

This method doesn’t fly well with clients, most of whom want a high degree of certainty as to how much they have to budget for celebrant services. It also requires you to assess and forecast how much time a particular couple will require of you. It is relatively easy to forecast how much time will be required on the day; however, it will be a rare celebrant who never strikes a needy or demanding couple. Add unexpected complications with legal compliance and your estimate can blow out. In Australia accepting the Notice of Intended Marriage and verifying identity and whether the couple is free to marry is the sole responsibility of the celebrant. In other legal jurisdictions where a government or local authority entity is responsible for that legal component, the risk of time blowout may be lower.

Quoting a fixed price is currently the preferred method for most celebrants. How an individual celebrant arrives at that price, however, can differ and may have unintended consequences.

My observation is that the most common pricing methodologies used by celebrants include

• What my competition is charging

or at least in that ballpark, aka as What I think the market will bear.  In the absence of detailed information. (There is none, as there is no comprehensive and exhaustive collection of information by anyone, and any “research” done by the bridal press does tend to focus on high end weddings).

• Less than what other celebrants in my area are charging

a tactic assumed to get a foot in the door intending to increase my fees as I get better known. Unfortunately, when a surfeit of celebrants new to the industry adopts this tactic it results in overall depression of celebrant fees because it impacts public perception of celebrant services worth. A race to the bottom can quickly result if other celebrants then drop their fees to price-match.

• What the competition is charging but with numerous special offers or generous discounts

Not only does this tactic negatively impact public perception of what a celebrant’s services are worth, it also alienates clients who have paid full price and generates suspicion that “full price” is artificially inflated.

• What you think the client can afford

It is not unusual for celebrants to adjust their quoted fee according to their perception of what the client can afford based on other information, such as how expensive the venue is, what the clients’ respective occupations are, and so on. Risky, because it is easy to get those estimations wrong. Case in point. A celebrant colleague was approached to quote a very low price for a couple because of their personal situation and that the whole wedding would be very much a low budget affair. The price quoted and agreed was way below what it cost to deliver the service. And the wedding turned out to be a large affair with no other expense spared.

• What you think you are worth

While charge what you are worth is easy to suggest, in practical terms it often comes down to a form of price matching with the top-end-of-the-market, or what, in the absence of reliable information, you think the top end of the market is charging.

• What I call FIGJAM pricing

You know what that means. In Australia and the UK, as in many other countries, puffery (defined by the [UK] advertising codes as ‘obvious exaggerations’), together with claims that the average consumer is unlikely to take the exaggerations literally, are allowed and require no substantiation provided that they are not “materially misleading”. New Zealand, with its admirable penchant for and ability to tell it like it is in simple, straightforward language, makes no bones that “If you can’t back it up, don’t say it”. Despite any belief that no consumer will take puffery claims seriously, some people do. I’ve seen numerous discussions on various Face Book forums for brides about celebrant fees (usually starting with someone asking what a reasonable charge is), in which someone will say they are paying double or more and happy to do it because their celebrant is the “most sought after” celebrant in [Large City]. Nonetheless, for every couple that falls for FIGJAM puffery and pricing, many more will roll their eyes, go to your competition, and tell them, and everyone else, why.

• Some government entity will be charged with authorization, oversight, and control of independent celebrants who are allowed to solemnize legal marriages
• Independent celebrants, whether established, emerging, and future, will be required to jump through some hoops to achieve authorization to solemnise legal marriages. Extrapolated from the Australian experience, this could involve successful completion of mandated training undertaken through approved institutions, payment of an application fee, and meeting requirements that they are a fit and proper person, some of which has been mentioned by the Law Commission
• A quota system may be implemented to control the rate and numbers of independent celebrants being authorized to solemnise legal marriages
• A directory will be established to provide marrying couples with an easy way of checking whether their chosen celebrant is authorized to solemnize their marriage. You can see what is on the Australian directory at https://www.ag.gov.au/families-and-marriage/marriage/find-marriage-celebrant. Because the date of authorization is the date published, any prior experience is obscured
• Controls/limitations may be instituted on the content of ceremonies, acceptable advertising, conflict of interest, general conduct, and so on
• Annual completion of professional development hours may be required with cost of compliance borne by the celebrant
• Celebrants may be required to pay for official stationery, such as registers and certificates
• Professional indemnity insurance will be required

The Australian experience, where Registry Office/Courthouse ceremonies have historically been short, standard, and limited to participation of the couple only with no personalization of vows or inclusion of readings, is that what the Registry Office charges for a marriage ceremony becomes the benchmark in the minds of the marrying public, regardless of differences in the level of service offered by civil celebrants. This can act as a constraint on what celebrants feel able to charge without pricing themselves out of the market.

Where to from here?