The "PayPal wedding invitation" and the problem of money vs. tact

September 13, 11:44 PMWedding and Marriage ExaminerElizabeth Oakes

Previous Next

10 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Wedding and Marriage Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

                              You are cordially invited to show us the money.
                                photo: Nic McPhee/Creative Commons license

The title of this recent ABC News item titled "PayPal Wedding Invite Irks Some Guests" is a bit misleading; the invitation was not sent through PayPal but included a link on a couple's webpage to facilitate cash gifting.  However, whether a couple can appropriately ask for cash wedding gifts is a hot topic as the economy continues to founder; I have written before about my take on cash gifts, but the methods used in this case put a new slant on the issue.

Self-titled "couplepreneurs" Vanessa Caldwell and her fiance Cole Parker put up a site called Dollarforawedding.com (which explicitly asks for cash donations and wedding-business sponsors) then virally disseminated the link to family and friends via Facebook. Apparently they're about halfway to their cash goal--several guests have already contributed--and have also swung deals for free services from a florist, photographer, personal trainer, candy buffet company, planner, a PR firm, dress retailer, and venue in exchange for advertising signage at the wedding location, mentions on Caldwell's blog, and ads in a "giveaway bag" distributed to guests at the wedding. 

The Dollarforawedding site spins the cash request in a novel way, stating, "Many people attend weddings but do not get a chance to contribute to the blessing of the marriage.  Cole and Vanessa have created this site to allow you to invest in the celebration and become part of the wedding plans."

I see why invitees might bristle at this--gee, I thought my presence at the wedding was my contribution to the blessing of the marriage.  It's not untoward for prospective guests to be a little shocked that cash might be considered a more important "investment" in a union than friendship and support through the years.

However, I am of two minds about cash wedding gifts (or cash to cover wedding costs, as Caldwell and Parker are requesting.)  There are many cultural traditions where cash is the expected gift, and an old Scottish custom held guests responsible for the costs of their wedding meal.  However, the original intention of wedding gifts was to establish a young couple in a new home (or in the case of the Scots, to cover the expense the guest incurred at the celebration.)  Many modern-day guests may be happy to help a couple get started, but resist the presumption that they should not only "pay for their plate" but pony up for all the luxuries a bride and groom desire.

Though asking for cash to cover wedding expenses may be pragmatic, other etiquette and wedblog mavens have come down on the side of the American tradition which declares asking for cash gifts anathema.  Anna Post commented, "The worry is that some guests will feel like they have to do this or they won't feel welcome.  There is still a very strong tradition in American that when you're hosting people you're taking care of them."

"I don't see how I'm selfish," bride Caldwell rebuts.  "It's the same thing as asking guests to buy you crazy gifts like the ones you see on registries all the time, like a Wii or a microwave that costs $200 and you would never buy yourself." 

On this point, Caldwell's right.  The American wedding etiquette that says it's okay to solicit specific gifts as long as you do so in a roundabout, "wink wink" sort of way doesn't hold up on examination.  Even when gift registry information is distributed via the approved backdoor methods, it's still a solicitation, and invitees still feel obligated to give gifts. 

So why not be practical and honest and ask for the money you really want?  Caldwell's reasoning could almost hold up in court, except for one thing: the advertising.

Call me parochial, call me sentimental: whether a wedding is a religious or non-religious event, I still believe all weddings are sacred in the sense that they should not ever be commercialized.  Yes yes, I'm sneered at all the time by Wedding Industrial Complex honchos who pronounce I'm jousting at a very lucrative and well-established windmill so I should just shut up because I'll never win.  Despite the odds, I'm going to the wall and holding down the fort and all the other metaphors of stubborn refusal on this one: I will not conform to the free-market views espoused by those who see weddings as a product to be sold (or, as in Caldwell and Parker's case, as a vehicle for advertising.)  I will also never sit still when anyone at a wedding--be it bride, groom, or guest--is being exploited for commercial reasons. 

It's just that Caldwell and Parker's approach is so relentless: guests are not only being asked up-front to pay the wedding expenses, but the bride and groom are going to advertise to them too--not just on a website, where ads can arguably be viewed on an opt-in basis, but at the wedding itself, with sponsor placards and giveaway bags laden with more marketing materials.   This looks more like a bridal show than a wedding; have we thrown over not only the concept of tact and unsolicited gifts, but of "host" and "guest" as well?   

Reframing a wedding gift--whether cash or no--as an "investment opportunity," or the only "blessing" of value seems to me to cross an important line.  Maybe I'm kooky, but I see value of the age-old principles of hospitality; a gracious and enlightened bride and groom are more concerned about what they are offering their guests--modest though it may be--than about what they will be able to squeeze out of them for their wedding day.

But that's my personal line in the sand.  Caldwell and Parker have taken a drubbing in the press but are also holding their fort/wall/refusal to conform, and for that I give them credit.  We're in a time when all things wedding are being redefined, and couples are experimenting with novel ideas.  I'm perfectly okay with gift customs being reexamined too (or the necessity of gifts at all.)

It would be interesting to know the outcome of this social experiment.  I'd love to have the opportunity to interview the wedding guests like jurors after a trial to find out how they felt about the event and why.  Perhaps some will comment here, and please leave your thoughts too: is there a way to solicit gifts or sponsorships without compromising the precepts of hospitality?  Is the Caldwell/Parker wedding merely recessionista financial pragmatism, or a rampage of bridal robber barons?  You decide. 

Until next time, a sweet and long life to you all (and you don't owe me one dime for that blessing.)

National Wedding and Marriage Examiner Elizabeth Oakes welcomes your feedback at weddingexaminer@gmail.com; you can easily share this story or subscribe by clicking on the buttons at the top of this column, or read more of Elizabeth's stories by clicking here.

She's also happy to answer your questions about getting married in Los Angeles--check out her work and inquire about availability at MarriageToGo.Com.

All National Wedding Examiner articles ©2009 by Elizabeth Oakes; reposts permitted with link back to original article. All other rights reserved.

• Vicki Howard's Brides, Inc.--American Weddings and the Business of Tradition
• Rebecca Mead's One Perfect Day--the Selling of the American Wedding