To be honest I see three distinct categories. Those in suburb weddings where all the bells and whistles are put on and no expense is spared, those on a true budget where costs here and there have to be controlled, and those in the country where weddings range from really bare base to a modest wedding. The bottom line is in these few cases the the budget for the cost of a photographer fell well below the scope of what might be considered normal. At the end of the day if they cant get a photographer for under $700 they just simple wont hire one and then put some blind faith in the happy snappers attending the wedding. Yes, as horrifying at this is it does occur and the pair really dont have a great expectation of what a wedding photography may deliver. There is a market there, possibly one only to be filled by an amateur photography of relative experience who is simple happy to chase a few bucks to help fund the hobby. I think there lies the issue and a good basis for the term "you get what you pay for". But in extending this thread discussion - would a pro really care if amateurs were cutting these gigs and providing suitable photos that capture the day? I would think not.