When most of us plan a wedding, chairs are this huge thing we have to factor in. We rent them, or we line them up through our venue, and then we have to arrange them and decide where people will sit. It’s a huge job, but we have to do it so everyone can sit — right?
I recently photographed a wedding where the couple was so brilliant about how they handled the “chair” issue. They basically had a “standing-room-only” party, and you know what? It worked out awesome! To be fair, their venue was really well set up for this, with some benches around the edges where a few people could sit at a time. But mostly, guests just stood and chatted and had a grand old time.
I think the pros are pretty obvious: You don’t have to rent chairs (which can be a huge savings), and it’s also a great way to fit a few more bodies into your space. A standing body takes up less space than a sitting one in a chair. People will also move around and be more social if they’re not tied to their seat.
The drawbacks? Well, if your wedding guests skew older, the grandparents of the group may need a place to sit and rest awhile (in the wedding I shot like this, they had about 15 chairs for the parents and grandparents to sit in during the ceremony). You can’t serve a plated dinner if everyone doesn’t have a chair, so if you’ve got your heart set on that, it just may not work.
One thing’s for sure: It’s a really interesting way to save some money and change the vibe of your party. I’m curious, would you do it?
Let us know in the comments below if you’d go sans chairs for your wedding — and why!
A dessert-only reception is a classic moneysaver when you’re dealing with a small wedding budget. Catering, bar service and renting flatware, glassware and tableware can add up very quickly if you are serving a lunch or dinner. So should you feel the need to serve a full meal to family and friends who have come a long way to celebrate with you?
A dessert-only reception can be so delicious. If all your prime rib money goes toward chocolate tortes, it goes a lot further. And the effect is compounding: When you’re just serving dessert, not everyone needs two forks, a knife, a spoon, a water goblet and a wine glass. Heck, they don’t really even need a chair. Plus, you could get away with fewer tables and linens, too. When you start considering those savings, it adds up.
On the other hand, there is an old saying that people should buy a wedding gift based on how much it costs you to have them as a wedding guest. I’m pretty sure no one subscribes to that notion anymore, but would you feel cheap by only serving dessert for your guests? With a dessert-only reception, you also have to be careful of the time you hold it. If you host it at dinnertime, guests will be hungry for a real meal and leave the party early looking for something a little more substantial to eat.
Tasty or tacky? Tell us what you think in the comments below.
Valentine’s Day dessert buffet from The Candy Buffet.
Hey all! I’m introducing a new recurring post today that’s all about pushing the envelope. In hard economic times and when we’re trying to keep budgets at an all-time low without sacrificing style, there are some ideas that seem too good to be true — or are they just thinking outside the box?
I’ll be bringing you some extreme cost-cutting ideas, and presenting some pros and cons. We want to hear from you, brides, about whether you think these ideas are a brilliant way to cut back, or going too far. First up? Having a private ceremony.
Having your wedding ceremony be a private affair is a budget-saving tactic: You suddenly have options like going to the courthouse, which runs cheaper than renting a church or hall and decorating it for all your guests. Your ceremony budget suddenly gets rolled into your reception budget, which allows you to invite a few more people or to celebrate in greater style. You can also enjoy some private moments during your ceremony.
On the other hand, some people may want to see your actual marriage ceremony. Or they may see an invite only to a reception as pandering for gifts. Etiquette takes a clearer stance on the opposite of this: inviting people to the ceremony, but not the reception. But this one’s more of a gray area.
Please weigh in below in the comments — we’re dying to know what you think!