Church Webmasters - Stop Working for Free | Write

Write

(86) Comments
Article

Church Webmasters - Stop Working for Free

June 7, 2005 in Web Implementation | The Church Online
Short URL: http://boyink.me/s/2486

...after a lot of prayer and research…the church council agreed to the staff’s recommendation that we re-develop our web page with an in-house Front Page format.

Yes, I have a rant today.

Are you a web developer working on your church’s website on a volunteer basis?

Stop it.

Immediately.

Walk away.

Or start billing for your time, at rates competitive in the local market.

Why?

Because when a church gets a website for free, it evidently has no value. Things with no value get replaced or reimplemented on a moment’s notice, on staff whim, or as soon as the person leading the effort is called away.

And if the alternative is another “freebie” to the church offered by a volunteer, there is no changeover cost involved. No initial cost + no changeover cost = no reason to invest any due dilligence into the situation to determine if the move is wise.

Imagine, for a moment, that you have a volunteer tending to your church’s landscaping, and they quit. A replacement person happily steps in to assume the responsibility. They next day they show up at church bright and early with motivation, tools, and a truck. And the first thing they do is fire up a chainsaw, and begin hacking down every bush and tree in sight. Those shrubs by the windows - gone. The trees lining the drive into the parking lot - gone. The shade tree in the side yard, where you serve ice cream in the summer - gone.

What would be your reaction when, after racing out the door and running up to him, wavving your arms and screaming out Why?, this person responds “Oh - don’t worry, I’m going to relandscape everything, and it won’t cost the church a thing. I just didn’t know how to take care of the bushes and trees that were here, so will replace them with stuff I know how to take care of.”

Can you just imagine the response? Can you imagine how many phone calls the church office would get, asking what in the world was going on? Do you think people upset with the change would be pacified by hearing that the change wasn’t going to cost the church anything?

Why don’t we treat our church websites with the same care and concern we have for the landscaping? How likely is a shadetree to play a role in bringing someone to Christ?

No, the site in question is not one that I’ve built. It’s the love-child of a good friend. But it’s at least the 3rd church website in the past year (that I’ve heard of) that has been placed on the chopping block after the lead person leaves.

I’m seeing a pattern here, and it angers me. It angers me that, as the church, we can always find the time and motivation to re-implement a site on a different backend, or change the site architecture, or implement new navigational widgets.

But try…just try…to find someone to invest that same effort in writing interesting, valuable content. Or documenting people’s stories for the web. Or talking at a strategic level about what the church should be using the internet for. Try it and you’ll get unanswered emails, unreturned phone calls, and blank stares in meetings.

I’m starting to be convinced that one of the root issues that is that churches don’t pay for websites, and as a result, don’t take them seriously.

Comments are closed, but you can read the comments other people left.

Tim Bednar on June 07, 2005

I could not agree more!

A case in point, I am just finishing up the last outstanding issues for Kenya Children’s Fund site,

http://www.kenyachildrensfund.org/

Previously, they used a volunteer and basically got what they paid for…a site that did NOT help them accomplish their mission. The board member who advocated hiring me for the project—understood that when money is involved everyone steps up to the plate.

And I did, they did. I think we made a pretty great site.

My volunteer sites always—I mean always—get put on the back burner. Why? Because I’m mean or irresponsible, no because there are no consequences for being late. There are no drop dead dates, no campaigns to accommodate, nothing.

So, nothing gets done.

And typically church’s that don’t pay for the site—don’t end up using any of the cool stuff they “needed”. There is nothing more disappointing than to volunteer your time, and then see the site sit there, unused potential. And then get a call to fix something that if they used it would have been discovered and fixed months ago.

KCF is a different story.

My design is based on web standards (XHTML and CSS), accessible, focused on getting visitors to “sponsor a child”. I then created a viral campaign for free to help promote the site.

I have a button on my e-Church site and have thrown about 3000-4000 visitors their way in one week of the campaign.

In just two weeks since “adding the site to Google”, it now places in the top 10 search results where it did not even land in the top 1000 before.

That is the value of paying, getting something in return that promotes your mission. They are moving from the traditional model of speaking at churches, signing folks up for a newsletter and appealing for money through direct mail—to using Google to connect with folks who want to do something for Kenya right now.

I got approached by my church’s camp to do a web site, volunteer. I told them that was not in their best interest—told them my fee and told them why it was a great value.

I have not heard from them, yet.
David Neal on June 07, 2005

Great article. There’s definitely a lot of truth to what you’ve said. There are exceptions, but more often than not, churches get what they pay for.
Michael Boyink (Author) on June 07, 2005

I don’t mean to say that websites built by volunteers aren’t (or can’t be) quality sites. That’s sorta besides the point I was trying (maybe too hard) to make.

Regardless of the quality of the site, I think there’s a psychological difference in how a site that has been paid for is viewed by the staff of a church.

I think, intrinsically, if a church staff knows $$ went out the door to get what they have, decisions regarding it’s future will be made in a different fashion than if they got the site for free.
FrankJohnson on June 07, 2005

Mike and Tim:

I’m curious to know if you quote your standard rates (or discounted rates) to churches and ministries (the one exception I have made in the past is for missionaries whose vision I believe in - I have a few projects right now that fit into that model).

I generally charge churches and ministries, but at a discounted rate. Even at the discounted rate, I can often “hear” a person’s jaw dropping on the other end of the phone or via email when I quote a discounted rate.

What occurs to me at the moment is that I probably don’t do this part well enough:

“and told them why it was a great value”

Anyway, it’s a great article and I love the comments so far as well.
Michael Boyink (Author) on June 07, 2005

So far I’ve yet to provide a quote to a church or ministry.

At the moment I can’t say what I’d quote - it would probably depend on the organization, the situation, and the personalities involved.

Not that I’m out to gouge non-profits, but if the project had signs of being more trouble than the average and the organization wasn’t something that I strongly believed in I’d probably quote full rate.
Mean Dean on June 07, 2005

I agree.

I’ve had a couple of instances where the ‘great cloud of witnessless’ that is the Body online has opted to re-spin style instead of sustaining long streams of substance.

BTW, you’ve been blogged: (http://tinyurl.com/at9kw)
Mike Norton on June 07, 2005

Wow, great article. But I’m stuck.

I do web design and consulting as a side gig to my first job, being a senior pastor. There are a couple of things that scare me more than anything. The word frontpage and church. Combine that with well intentioned volunteers and you have nailed it on the head. Not invested value, which equates to no one really caring about the site.

I was going to start out with asking what this “Going Competitive Rate” is, but you kind of answered that in the gray area that is difficult to traverse. I have always been frustrated at the two extremes.

1. If I charge a church thousands of dollars then I feel a bit guilty knowing what actually work went into some sites. (Some being well worth it in time and custom coding excluded)
2. If you offer services for free or a serious cut rate price then no one takes you serious.

So what are we to do? I am looking forward to your thoughts on this fine line and how we can work together as the “Creative Development” community to help ministries and churches be cutting edge with out bleeding them dry.

Mike Norton
http://mikeandtanyanorton.com
Mean Dean on June 07, 2005

> If I charge a church thousands of dollars then I feel a bit guilty knowing what actually work went into some sites.

I don’t speak for Mike, but I think he’ll concur that one of his points was for those of us who are design pros to stop feeling guilty.

Instead, send a bill - even if its stamped “paid in full” - so they understand what it is they have received.

Moreover, I suggest going one step further and try to make said parties aware of some other intangibles. For example, if the church website has a great google ranking, then inform them what the cost would be to ‘recapture’ that presence if lost due to a redesign.

Have them understand the ‘dirty little secret of frontpage’ ... that is you wind up becoming an HTML expert anyway.

But again, MB hits the nail on the proverbial head when he accuses the Church of being more into Flash than compelling content.
Michael Boyink (Author) on June 07, 2005

I don’t propose gouging.

I don’t propose charging more than what a site is worth.

I do propose charging a fair market value - possibly with a discounted rate.

If, after talking with the church and doing the due dilligence to figuring out what kind of a site they need, the estimate was that it would be in the thousands of dollars, then so be it.

But if the same due dilligence leads to the proposing of a one or two page business card site and the estimate is for a couple hundred bucks, then so be it.

There should be no guilt for being compensated fairly for your efforts.

Every church engages with the local business community for goods and services required to do what they do - why should web development be any different than paying for copier repair? Or toilet paper? Or electricity?
Mike Norton on June 07, 2005

Thanks Dean, I had not thought about the paid in full idea. That is great!

And I agree that flash above content has been for to long the norm. I hesetaded putting our church site because I am guilty. I just ripped out the old site which I had running on PHPNuke. The new site is minimal and hopefully to the point once my people are in place. LOL I havnt even changed from the default Drupal template, and may not. http://fblo.org is the site and its poorly underdone. For me its like the old story of the the mechanic. He ussualy has the worst running car in town because hes working on everyone elses.

Not a pitch, but if you want to see the other net ministries we are into look at http://gamingministries.com and http://gmpodcasting.net

Thanks again for that tip Dean.
Mike Norton on June 07, 2005

Your right Michael. Absolutely right. I just need help doing it :-) Well not help so much as just the determination to do it. And I think there are a lot of creative, talented people out there in the same boat. So an article like this is greatly appreciated to help them realize that it is ok to be fairly compensated for there skills. My wife is always telling me that anyway, and I try to listen to her.
Michael Boyink (Author) on June 07, 2005

I dunno about the “paid in full” bill idea.

Maybe I’m in a cynical mood…but I don’t think that approach is going to change the perceived value of the site and prevent hasty and ill-informed decisions from being made regarding it’s future.

There’s no opportunity cost to the church with that route—no sense of “we spent $3K on the website instead of new office furniture because we felt it would have more of an impact to the ministry”.

Sorta like seeing a “list price” on something….what the manufacturer says something is worth is immaterial, what really matters is how much you had to pony up.
Mean Dean on June 07, 2005

Good point Mike. “Paid in full” might sound catchy (it did to me !-) but it may make one “paid in fool” just as much as if they hadn’t charged at all.

I’m not sure what the solution is. The more I work with pastors and staff the more disillusioned I become by their sense of entitlement. Same problem w/congressmen & senators.

Perhaps we all need to get back to Paul’s tentmaker model? In other words, we don’t create these full-time professionals but rather deal in laypersons who perhaps better understand the daily difficulties in producting a consumable product?
Michael Boyink (Author) on June 07, 2005

Oh, I’d *much* rather see the church organizational structure change….but realistically?
FrankJohnson on June 07, 2005

Well, this is a thoroughly enjoyable conversation.

“My cynical self” says that if professional designers go to churches and tell them it’s going to cost them $3K for a website (I’m using Mike B.‘s hypothetical amount, although I’ve quoted both more and less than that to churches), there won’t be many church websites designed by professional designers. :)

I’m actually headed in a bit different direction (I think!).

I’m seriously considering telling churches who approach me regarding designing their site that they can find someone much more talented than I am, both in terms of graphic design and coding skills (I just told a pastor that yesterday in an email). I’m considering instead spending my time discussing with churches and ministries much of the things that Mike mentioned in his original article: the need for good content, the power of storytelling, usability issues, the strategic use of websites for outreach, etc. I would then either charge them an hourly rate as a consultant OR discuss those things with them “in exchange” for the opportunity to present a cause, a non-profit ministry I want to start which will specialize in a few things:

1) web-based outreach projects;

2) consulting with churches and ministries about strategy;

3) teaching believers how to use the web for evangelism;

4) etc., etc.

My (perhaps naive) thinking tells me that this is a better fit for my skills and passions and could, in fact, prove more helpful to the Christian community.

But part of this direction might come from the growing fatigue of dealing with churches and ministries who just don’t get it.
les on June 07, 2005

Mike,

great article and I haven’t even read all of it yet. I’ve been there and done that with the “help the church for free” bit and the results, most of the time, ain’t pretty.

If there is no investment, there is no value for the receiver. My spiritual approach is that if God is with this church project, then he will provide the money to pay for it too. And its beautiful, because he does.
Vincent Flanders on June 07, 2005

I’d like to quote a designer friend of mine Michael Willis (willisdesign.com). He told me “I charge non-profits either full price or nothing—and if they pay nothing, they can’t tell anyone I gave it away for free ‘cause everyone will want it for free. I don’t want my name showing up in the ‘Thank You’ section of some newsletter.’”

“If you discount your services, they will give you the same amount of trouble as if they paid full price and half the time they cause more trouble.”

My personal experience with non-profits is they know their site “has problems” but they’re not sure what they are. I will give them a 2-minute summary of their failings, but they have to take notes. I won’t fix them—even for pay—because it would be a conflict of interest. (I’m a web-page critic and it would look like I’m extorting them.)

It’s my personal feeling that churches/non-profits have either a “poor me” attitude or a “we’re doing good in the world (or the next world) and you should help us out for free.”

I loved the article.
rob on June 07, 2005

I totally agree. Great post. I’m tired of seeing bad Christian websites becuase it’s done for free. I think it’s great to offer free service, but we Christians need to realize not everything is or can be received for free. We have to count the cost in everything.

Great post!
Mike Norton on June 07, 2005

Well, now just because you pay for it it’s not gauranteed to be good :-)

I had a message about 2 months ago about the cost of living and that God will not ask us to do things that cost us nothing. It then means little. Here is a devotion I did on it, before the podcast version http://dev4gamers.com/2004/10/18/a-living-sacrifice/
Doug Walker on June 07, 2005

Sometimes what helps churches understand the need the most is a failure. I quoted a price of a few thousand dollars to a church once, and watched their eyes glaze over in disbelief. They decided to give their site to a volunteer at their church.

A few months later, they contacted me again, and this time they understood why I quoted the price I had earlier. Their volunteer attempt had failed, and they were ready to invest some time and money in their site.

Sometimes failed attempts are the best teacher that web sites cannot (or at least SHOULD NOT) be thrown together!
Mean Dean on June 08, 2005

Mike Norton “Well, now just because you pay for it it’s not gauranteed to be good ...”

That’s not the point here - and I’m tired of hearing that as a reply here and elsewhere.

The point is, just because an organization can’t pay for it doesn’t mean said organization can/should toss it away without due dilligence—and as Boyink put it, consideration of maintaining substance over re-inventing style.
Kevin on June 08, 2005

I just want to thank you all for commenting and discussing this issue so thoroughly! A timely post! You’re many opinions are truly treasured!

I have been the webmaster for our church’s website, http://coaldalembchurch.com, since January (it was Javascript focused, and based on FrontPage before). Once I complete the youth’s interactive sub-domain section, I need to send them the bill (time, domain registration, hosting $$$). I like the concept of “paid in full”, yet I have struggle with giving away the SEOs, outside link updates, and directory submissions I worked so hard to obtain.

I went into this task ‘telling them I knew what I was doing’ and sharing with them I didn’t want any ‘tweaking suggestions’ or ‘slight changes’ until the design was done. Their only task was to create intriguing and compelling CONTENT! We’ll see if they keep this up!

My process with the church went as follows: (1) They stated the purpose, goals, and top 3 objectives, (2) We sat down together and they told me what the previous site lacked, and what 3 aspects they ‘needed’ in the new site, and (3) Finally, they could only comment and make suggestions after the site was “live” and up to date.

I in turn promised to (1) make it clean, stable, simple, and accessible, (2) make it easily up-datable by the staff, and (3) during the process, I would not be ‘immediately available’ for each question, as their site was not my full time job.

Could you all comment more on how I, the webmaster, could protect myself more from future suggestions of “site redesigns”, “moving to a flash design”, or erroneous other suggestions from the church board / staff? Their original site wasn’t updated in 4 years, it’s links unusable, and it was horrendous advertising for the church ~~ I have helped them move beyond all that ... and I want this to continue to be a positive experience.
les on June 08, 2005

Hi Kevin,

protecting scope creep is the same. Be gentle, but firm. Make them sign a contract, not just verbally agree to terms.

The #1 thing I did for non-profit work that helped the most was force whatever committee was making decisions to have a representative that “spoke” for the committee. After that, I almost dealt directly with the representative and made him my advocate within the committee. I forgot where I got the idea from, but it worked well.

This is more difficult to do in commercial projects, but gold if you can pull it off. The representative should be someone with authority who is generally well-liked and not overbearing. Don’t be afraid to list these requirements when the committee is searching for a representative.
Mean Dean on June 08, 2005

I swear, next time I’m lugging out my IEEE manual from grad school and lay on them some righteous templates from my 1016 and 830 documents - adding an estimated price to each requirement specification detailed, documented, coded, tested and signed-off.
Tim Bednar on June 08, 2005

Holy cow! Must have struck a nerve or something. Mike is always one to stir up trouble. Anyways, a couple of comments…

1. Frank J. asked about rates. I just raised my rates (I decided that I’m a real professional so I’m going to start charging like one) so I quote my old rate for ministry/churches. But that is meaningless because I work from a lump sum (guaranteed). So, the rate is a bit of marketing voodoo. I always ask what their budget is up front. And I talk about money straightforwardly. I think normal site should go from $2k to $5k.

2. “Explaining the value” of hiring me as a designer is getting easier for me to say straight up.

The first is that I actually know what I’m doing, I have results, I have dozens of sites as experience. Although I experiment a lot, I’m not guessing. I pretty much know what works, if I don’t I’ll email Mike or Dean and ask. And the truth is that NOT everyone does know what they are doing. And working with an ignorant but well intentioned person will cost your organization money, time and mission.

The second is the most important. I join your team, I get passionate. I’m a partner. I will be a long term resource—and hopefully a long term vendor for the church.

Third, I am an expert in this field of design and community development and monetizing traffic (for commerce or mission). I also am up to date on what’s going on—AJAX anyone?

Fourth, I WILL guarantee measurable results. I’ve said they can keep a percentage of the payment if I don’t deliver x, y and z results. Not just nice looking pages, but google results, email sign ups, visitor increases. (Don’t worry I’m covered—remember the lump sum voodoo—I consider it an bonus/incentive to work hard and deliver.)

Last, I think Vince F. is right.

Do it for a price or for nothing. None of this in between stuff.

Last—If I’m going to do work for a church/ministry I want to meet the “content” person first—who’s going to fill this site with content and do they know what they are doing or are they willing to learn.

If that’s a go and they’re willing to pay for real design time, to me, that is a guarantee of success.
Mike Norton on June 08, 2005

Dean, sorry you thought I was saying opposite to what the article stated. I admit it did split some.

Mike is absolutely correct. The church MUST take a closer look at why they have a web site. Far to many put up sites in the beginning simply because some other church that they wanted to mimic did. And as Mike’s last sentence points out, I also do not think that the church takes it seriously.

This is precisely where we have two very clear issues.

The first being the desire of creative/performance minded people wanting something cool and jazzy. They move to every new fad out there causing the page to change in appearance regularly. All the while its content remains lacking and unchanged.

How many church web sites have we all visited that are slick looking but have an events calendar that is over 6 months old?

The second is that some of the best content providers sometimes are not able to produce this type of look, but have far better reach by the stories that they tell. I have to admit that in the last year I have had to come to this realization myself. I have always wanted a flashy site with great graphics. But with the explosion of blogging where people can write and in mass, such as this site and comments, we see that simple templates do the trick just fine if not better than flashy sites.

From a personal point I am great at design and lacking in content. I am working on that by forcing myself to write more. It was a chore at first but is becoming a joy. I have also got my wife going on it.

So I agree completely.

Where I split the topic and wish there was another article on the subject is the bringing together of these two areas without taking advantage of the church.

Yes, we need to pay for services. However the fact is theire are and will always be, very small churches that need assistance to get off the ground that can not and will not afford these prices. So it is that fine line, and very delicate line that is so hard to define.

My prayer and convection is to help equip other believers with these tools and options. Let’s face it, most of us here are geeks. The major church attender and staff person is not. We need to find a way to bring this information to them.

I hope this makes sense. I am truly enjoying the fellowship and subject very much.
Frank Johnson on June 08, 2005

Mike:

I feel for small churches that want a website but don’t have the means to create what they think constitutes a proper church website.

What I wish I could tell them all (I tell as many as I can) is that they don’t need a complicated website to be effective in the online arena.

The very first article I wrote on my blog was regarding how a small church could use a very simple website to help them reach their community for Christ. Cost would be $60 per year.

Rather than repeat the whole article here, you (and anyone else who is interested) can look here on my site:

http://tinyurl.com/aolrz
Dave Walker on June 08, 2005

Hi there. Interesting discussion.

I do quite like the idea of sending an invoice to the church saying ‘paid in full’.

Just out of interest, would you advise the person running the kids group, mowing the churchyard, arranging the flowers or changing the lightbulbs to do the same? If not what makes us web designers ‘special’?

Does the ‘do not let your right hand know what your left hand is doing’ principle have any influence? Actually, having seen some of the websites I’ve designed it evidently does.
Rob Childs on June 08, 2005

Here in the UK the whole idea of church websites is still along way behind what goes on in the States. I built a site for our small church on a volunteer basis (I’m not even a web designer by trade, I do network support) using Postnuke.

The whole thought of asking to be paid for work that I give freely chills me. Small churches just don’t have the budget to pay the sort of figures required to do the job properly as with much of the work that goes on such as the fabric (building) upkeep.

I’m sure that we could get a better job done if we paid someone to do it for all the reasons that you state in your post but in doing this work as a ministry in the church I try to make sure that I do the best job that I possibly can at all levels (I suppose it helps that I am a deacon in the church) and I am working with another member of the church with a view to him taking over the ministry once he is ready to do so in order to keep some continuity.

Great article, it’s realy got people talking!
Matt on June 08, 2005

What a fanciful notion…that charging for web development will inspire the church in question to respect the work more.

As someone who actually does web development professionally, I can say from vast and intimate personal experience that paying clients by and large don’t respect their web sites either. At least half of my fees are, to my mind, compensation for coping with exactly this sort of attitude.

The difference between churches and businesses is not so much that businesses pay and churches don’t, but that when businesses abuse their sites and thereby push people away, it’s merely a bad decision, whereas when churches do so, it’s a violation of a holy mission.
Mean Dean on June 08, 2005

Matt - I agree about 80% of what you say.

Usually, when someone pays, they expect a certain level of performance and satisfaction - so an attitude can arise when expectations don’t match delivery - hence the need for detailed SRS and SDD documentation.

I think the biggest differences between churches and businesses these days is the sense of entitlement and expectation donned by ministries that should be serving the body as the body serves one another.
Michael Boyink (Author) on June 08, 2005

Holy Cow is right!

Thanks, all of you, for your visit and your comments. One of my ongoing frustrations has been that there doesn’t seem to be much critical thought when it comes to church websites, so this discussion (if nothing else) helps me see that’s not the case.

Is the idea - that the perception of value changes when you pay for something - fanciful?

I’ll be the first to admit I could be all wet.

But what is it, then, that’s inherently different about a website from bushes and trees? Or hymnals? Or carpet in the Narthex? Or coat racks in the foyer? I’ve been at churches when changes were needed with these physical things, and they were treated differently than churches treat websites.

You set out to change a hymnal….and you’re in for a wild ride. For some churches a hymnal is deeply integrated into their identity…their doctrine…their history. Make too big of a change and you’ll have people leaving the church.

But the website? Feh….whatever.

Why is that?
Mean Dean on June 08, 2005

“Why is that?” Mike asks?

Because maintenance sucks.

Anyone who does maintenance programming will attest to that.

So we redesign and redevelop to avoid the nasty work of figuring out what the person before us did.

That said, it is irresponsible for a church to allow this to happen when said ministry is effective - even if it the building, landscaping, hymnal and/or website needs a facelift.
IndyChristian on June 08, 2005

Excellent post and comments everyone. We’ll definitely send some surfers your way from IndyChristian.com. [hat-tip, Orangejack]

I just want to add one thought… ie, a new theme some of us are now promoting…

“It’s not about a church web-SITE. It’s about a church web-STRATEGY.”

Just like the Church is not defined by the building, likewise the Church is a composite of its membership. So develop a web strategy to proliferate the message of the church/Church pervasively throughout your whole community of members and their sites.

Did I say ‘bloggers’?

Encourage your individual members to start a free site and reciprocally-link with the church site(s) and other member-sites.

Perhaps also AGGREGATE your members’ RSS feeds at the church site.

And for heaven’s sake… produce a church RSS feed so local Christian portals (not to mention local journalists) can help you.

How does this all impact the issue at hand? Integrate the church’s site so tightly among the Church (not to mention, the Community), that if the new staff/volunteer webmaster changes anything for the worse, he/she will be excommunicated. **smile**

[You could read the entire article at LovingChange.com]
Mean Dean on June 08, 2005

IndyChristian

There’s only one problem with your approach, church staff would have to learn how to blog, which would mean they would have to learn how to use software outside of their comfort zone!

Look how long it took, and how much pain was involved, in get pastors to use word processors, then to change from WordPerfect to Word!

Now we’re asking them to use online forms to input their data—on a regular basis? Yo, Neil, dude, I want somma the crack your smokin!-)

Kidding aside - MIKE makes the point that one of the reasons we see so many churches level their existing systems and start over all new is because they don’t have a plan to maintain content. Period!

No plan == no savings in manhours and effort in getting an effective site online. no plan == brand new devo. efforts everytime a volunteer leaves. No plan == no blogging by staff or laypersons.

Or as I like to say (often) and HealYourChurchWebSite.com ... those who fail to plan plan to fail.
Mike Atkinson on June 08, 2005

Great article, Mike! When I started my agency last year, my pastor came to me and asked if they could be one of my first clients - paying clients! (I had done a free website about 7 years ago that obviously sucked by now.)

So I did it. But at about a third of the normal cost. But because there was cost involved, the pastor AND subsequently the staff were motivated to do a good job. That involved me doing some education with them on marketing and standards.

All in all a good process.

Mike
Mike Norton on June 08, 2005

Dean, I love ya bro :-)

Give pastors a break, not all us are afraid of this new fangled thing called WordPerfect ;-)

I actually think that what Mike, you, and indyChristian just wrote are all on the same plane.

The church does need a web strat, and we need talented people to help implement it since there are those who do not have the know how.

And you are absolutely correct in saying that having a plan is vital. Amen to that.

Just give the church some credit. I cant speak for all of us, but im sure trying to figure all this out. :-)

Oh, and good morning everyone.
les on June 08, 2005

good thoughts and comments. I also want to add in this.

Having a prayer team devoted specifically to the development of a church’s website (strategy) is immensely helpful. And its often overlooked, especially by us professionals.

Part of the reason that church websites appear to be more difficult than other projects is because there is spiritual value to a well-done church site. And because of that, the Enemy really does work against well-done church websites.

I think that as people who offer professional services we should be aware of this critical factor.

Even if the church pays us what we’re worth, takes the website seriously, produces amazing content, has a comprehensive strategy, and figured out how all of this glorifies God and brings people to him, things can go deadly wrong. And the only solution to some issues, the ones we can’t see, is prayer.

Let me give you an example. Let’s say someone is really hounding you to use such and such a technology which you know is really detrimental to the website. You can do all the good, professional things you can to deal with this person and sometimes it just doesn’t work.

What’s the deeper issue here? Why is this non-web professional so insistant and seemingly out to ruin the site? That’s where a prayer team can be a wonderous help. Say “Hey prayer team, something bad is going on here and I just need you to lift up this whole situation in prayer. I’m depressed about all this….”

We need to take the spiritual side of things just as seriously as we want the pastors (or whoever) to take us seriously as professionals. Put everything involved in the project in prayer in addition to being the professionals we are at our day jobs.
Brad Hinman on June 08, 2005

I don’t think the problem you describe really has as much to do with compensation as it has to do with leadership and volunteer management. Every ministry needs a direct link to a staff member that owns the ministry’s vision. A leader that empowers, supports and manages volunteers in an appropriate manner.

It’s important to keep volunteering in perspective. I volunteer at my church because I fully believe in its purpose and I want to a part of it. I want to be a servant. Now I have gotten burned out serving in various capacities in the past. It’s been for a wide range of reasons. I think probably the most common one is that I’m in the wrong role. A role that doesn’t match my talents, gifts and passions. A close second would be because I felt trapped in the role, unappreciated and frustrated with others. When someone finds the right role and gets to volunteer under great leadership, then everything falls into place and serving is a wonderful thing.
Rob Childs on June 08, 2005

I realy think you’ve hit the nail on the head there Brad. Our church has had to learn that lesson the hard way over the last few years or so (even in the last month!). Leadership is the key, if there is no ‘buy-in’ at the start of a work, be it a youth meeting, Alpha, a website, anything you care to mention then it is ultimately doomed to failure.
I found it invaluable when developing our website actualy being able to talk to the leadership team and get them on-side before any work began and keeping them up to date with progress.

Now I just need to get more of the church using it and I’ll be happy :-p
Frank Johnson on June 08, 2005

Part 1:

Brad - I agree with what you say, but I think the specific situation Mike B. is talking about involved an additional wrinkle (Mike can correct me if I’m wrong because I’m reading between the lines a bit).

This is the sentence from Mike’s original article which I think is telling (and which brings back some memories which I can’t exactly call “fond”):

“But it’s at least the 3rd church website in the past year (that I’ve heard of) that has been placed on the chopping block after the lead person leaves.”

Having a direct link to a staff member is great until that staff member leaves and the new liaison on the staff doesn’t have the same vision as the original liaison. Then if the senior pastor leaves, everything can fall apart.

I developed a site for a church over a period of 1-2 years (they were painfully slow in contributing content). I started out with one staff member as my liaison and the philosophy of the site was hammered out in many meetings with him. We then presented the vision to the senior pastor who strongly embraced the vision.

Then my liaison left the staff. That’s when it became interesting. The new staff member who was appointed to be the liaison did not have a lot of web savvy and just wanted to get the site up and get it off his plate. I spent a fair amount of time with him going over the original vision. I even had to explain the vision to a person he brought along with him to a meeting to try and convince me that we should just launch the site (even though it was incomplete).

After an involved conversation one day, the second liaison finally understood and pretty much embraced what we were doing. We were so close to launch at that point that I pushed ahead (maybe I should have circled back with the senior pastor because of the potential that the vision would be lost, but ...)

Then my second liaison left the staff. The third staff member who became my liaison (new to the church) was actually web savvy, but just couldn’t grasp the concept we were trying to implement (a series of in-depth profiles of believers in the congregation, designed to intrigue unbelievers enough that they would want to meet those believers and check out the life of the church).

During my first meeting with him, he casually said that he had a good friend who designed websites. I knew at that point that our vision was “in danger.”
Frank Johnson on June 08, 2005

Part 2:

Then the senior pastor left. Months went by with no proactive contact from my third liaison, even though I tried to contact him and the office staff repeatedly about information I needed to update the site. During this time, I kept updating the calendar (which was the only basic information I had as I was not attending the church).

I was probably too naive, but it didn’t totally dawn on me that the relationship had deteriorated (for what reason, I still don’t know) to the point that the church would start looking for another designer.

Finally, the long downward spiral culminated when I found myself locked out of the ftp site one morning, without any notice. I tried to get an explanation for months, but my third liaison would not return my phone calls or emails. After months of trying, he finally sent me an email with a curt message saying that they had decided to go a different direction.

I still don’t know the whole story. Even the senior pastor who left (who I am still on good terms with and continue to work with on web projects) doesn’t know what happened (even though his brother-in-law is the chairman of the board of elders at the old church).

I’m convinced that the third liaison wanted to have his friend develop a new site, but something fell through with that. Now they have a new site developed by a volunteer in the church which, in all honesty, doesn’t come close to approaching what I had developed for them, in terms of look and feel, usability, etc. But most importantly to my mind, in terms of philosopy and vision.

All of that long-winded story to say this: having a direct link to a staff member is great and important, but that link won’t do much good when the staff member leaves or when the senior pastor leaves.

When a church has paid for a website, they won’t be so quick to abandon it even when the senior pastor leaves. I think that was part of Mike B’s point.

In hindsight, I think I would have pressed to present the vision for the website to the board of elders and would have refused to be involved if we didn’t get total buy-in from the board and staff. Live and learn.

(sorry for the 2 parts, but I didn’t think I could pare it down to fit in 1 comment).
Ken on June 08, 2005

Sorry if this is rambling…wanted to get my thoughts out quickly…

I think Brad is starting to hit one of the real problems.

Why should a volunteer’s time be less valuable than his money? When we nullify a person’s time we do a lot more damage than when we waste his money.

I should say that there seems to be a difference between someone that is part of the Body/ministry volunteering to design the website vs. someone outside the organization donating it.

Would we be less frustrated by the fact that they quit using our site if they paid us?

Another key issue is that web sites take an amount of effort ongoing that not many really seem to interested in putting forth. My guess is that every good web site has a person or team dedicated to agressively pursuing content, not just “when you get a chance, shoot us some content”

I understand MB’s frustrations here, but I really doubt that paying for them will really help. I have seen $$ spent for many things that rotted in a corner when the person that decided the church needed it left.

gotta run…sorry, i have more…
Michael Boyink (Author) on June 08, 2005

Interesting choice of words - “buy in”...;)

Here was my experience - I had verbal buy in. I had a direct links to the leadership. I had regular meetings and checkpoints. We put together a site plan that matched the church’s vision and direction.

Heck…we worked on the site for a year before there was anything visual to pass around - all due dilligence work of driving out needs and requirements for a site.

And when I left the church? All that wasn’t worth a toot. The site got trashed (within hours) and re-implemented on an inferior tool.

I remain convinced that if the church had paid for the site’s development (which would have been roughly $7500 at my full rate) that wouldn’t have happened, as there would have been more questions asked, at least from the financial folks.
Frank Johnson on June 08, 2005

Thinking about the “buy-in” phrase a bit more, I do think there may be a spiritual principle involved. Matthew 6:21 - “for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

Our pocketbooks often drive what we give our attention to, and I think that applies to institutions as well as individuals.

Sounds sort of crass in a way and I’m not offering this as a firm conviction, but it did occur to me lately. I’ve been thinking a lot about that verse, so ....
Tim Bednar on June 08, 2005

Frank J. said something really important—most churches just need a five page web site and nothing more. Even if you paid for this, it would not amount to much when compared to “printing” a newsletter or having a vinyl sign made at Kinkos. There is a difference between what is possible and what a church will actually use.

This is an ROI point that I usually make to clients—I compare the one-time investment in a web site with a content managment system with publishing the monthly newsletter; a line-item that even in small churches can run into the 1000’s. I think we can demonstrate a web site has a better ROI.

Dave W. asked if we should the apply the same logic to the nursery. I say that is a false analogy. Web designers should be treated the same as the carpenter or electrician.

I agree with Dean, Matt is 80% right when he says paying clients don’t care either. The difference is that I got paid—at least for me it was not a waste of my time/passion.

Mike B. is right that church web sites are still viewed as throw aways when they should be viewed as “property”.

IndyChristian has some nice ideas. But Dean is right. Every client I’ve had to teach how to build good content has failed, pastors are especially bad just like small business owners.

As with most things, success is dependant on the people involved and less on technology or strategy.

As for the difference between a web strategy and a web site or ministry or whatever, we don’t need to re-invent the wheel, most of this stuff is already figured out; it’s just no one does it.

Brad H. is correct. The real issue here is how pastors view “volunteers” and “delegate” (not just web designers but all volunteers). If the church leaders would view its congregation as co-creators, co-visionaries a lot of this discussion would be mute.

Here is a nice article on 10 Bad Project Warning signs that I just read this morning.

http://www.andybudd.com/archives/2005/05/10_bad_project_warning_signs/
IndyChristian on June 08, 2005

Tim…

You said… ***IndyChristian has some nice ideas. But Dean is right. Every client I’ve had to teach how to build good content has failed, pastors are especially bad just like small business owners.***

Yeah. I never said it was easy **LOL**, but it’s enormously productive once they get a thirst for it. Here in Indy, we now have 31 pastors or other innovative leaders posting together at IndyChristian.com… and modeling it for everyone else. Doing a blogsite is no harder than doing meaningful emails. Log in, write something, hit submit.

Here’s a note back from one of our blogging leaders today… “you are slowly but surely changing us all. Hmmm…Sort of transformative.”

Thankfully, the tough part is over. The blogosphere now has achieved critical mass and they sell the theme for us. Pastors are coming along very quickly now. Before long they’ll be begging all you guys to help them create the local tapestry of connected Christians that constitute the local (big-C) Church.

...and begging you for the necessary package of web-services to facilitate integrating and communicating among the whole local network.

Btw, hope you all read the WSJ article re blogging for paychecks. [link at IndyChristian.com] You think churches will be far behind?
Dave Walker on June 08, 2005

Tim said:

“Dave W. asked if we should the apply the same logic to the nursery. I say that is a false analogy. Web designers should be treated the same as the carpenter or electrician.”

I’m not sure about this. Is there something more ‘spiritual’ about doing the jobs in a church that involve dealing directly with people rather than the fixtures and fittings, website etc? I’m not sure I’d want to make that distinction. I may well have completely misunderstood the point of course.

IndyChristian. Well done is all I can say. My experience is that getting a community of your friends to blog is possible, getting church leaders to do it is… less so. You can lead a Minister to the login page but you can’t make them blog.
FrankJohnson on June 08, 2005

Tim: regarding the idea of most churches just needing a five-page website and nothing more, that’s not quite what my thinking represents.

Instead, I think a one-page site, if done correctly, can be infinitely more effective than a 200-page site. I think a site with no graphics whatsoever, if done correctly, can be infinitely more effective than most fancy church websites today.

The key is in doing it correctly.
FrankJohnson on June 08, 2005

One more thing occurred to me this morning as I was driving in to work. Not sure how on-point it is, but I think it’s related.

Mike B.‘s original post, if I read it correctly, didn’t concern itself so much with what a church should do with its website, but who a professional Christian designer should choose to work with.

As I was contemplating my journey as a Christian web designer this morning, I recognized that there had been a subtle shift in my thinking over the years.

When I first started out, I would work for anyone who asked me (apart from pornographic sites, gambling sites, etc. - which thankfully no one has ever asked me to do!).

Somewhere along the line, I got so busy that I recognized that I couldn’t work for everyone, so I started only accepting work which came to me when I had a relatively free schedule.

Lately, I’ve been approaching it differently. I think God has called me to a particular mission (helping the church use the web for outreach). Now, if an opportunity doesn’t further that mission, I refuse.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that I refuse projects unless they are outreach-related, because certain projects have benefits for the overall mission because of networking factors (who knows who - sorry to say, it’s important in the church world these days).

But now days, I’m not trying to evaluate projects in terms of do I have the time, will they pay enough (although I still tend to agree with the premise of Mike B’s original article), etc. Instead, I’m evaluating them in terms of whether they help further the mission to which I believe God has called me.

A somewhat different, and at least for me, refreshing perspective.
Dave J. on June 08, 2005

I know Mean Dean and I have had this discussion on his blog…that one of the root causes is that there is no ‘owner’ of the website within the church, oftentimes. My church has no ownership of marketing either.

A simple 5 page website is fine in most cases, whoever said that.

(IMHO, what a church needs to learn to manage is email and e-newsletters. )
Mike Norton on June 08, 2005

Or podcasting :-)
Tim Bednar on June 08, 2005

Five pages done right, yep that’s what I think.
Tim Bednar on June 08, 2005

No really.
Dave Bourgeois on June 08, 2005

This is something that has interested me for some time. A student of mine did some research last year on this topic, and found basically the same things that are being discussed here: church web sites are being created/maintained by volunteers and that churches have no real clear concept of what they want to do with their web sites. I’ve posted the link to this research on my blog at http://lessonsfrombabel.blogspot.com.
Jake Lyman on June 09, 2005

Wow, there is a lot to ingest here, folks. Do any of you have any documentation you’d be willing to post on your sites? What I mean by that is this: Do you have forms or documents you give out to church clients that explain the process of designing their site to them? Potential pitfalls? An explanation of what is required of them? A “Here are the first ten steps you need to take before we’ll design a site for you” kind of thing?

Would love to get my hands on some resources like that.

Thanks!
Michael Boyink (Author) on June 09, 2005

Jake - the commercial web development world has tons of resources in that area are easily translated to church web development.

I’d recommend the “Polar Bear Book”, otherwise known as Information Architecture for the World Wide Web as a starting point.
Fortunate on June 09, 2005

In reading this post I realise how fortunate I am to be working for a church that pays me full time to run their website.

Not perhaps at a salary commensurate with my skills but enough so that any outside work I do (which is quite a large amount) is added bonus rather than having to support my life…

I too am dismayed at the mentality of and in churches (meaning business owners in the congregation) that to work at something that has the potential to expand their profile should be offered by me for nothing. Or that I should have to wait months, and months for my cheque…

In my mind this whole question speaks to a much greater problem and that is the culture in the church that makes these questions relevant.
Jake Lyman on June 09, 2005

Thanks, Michael!
Simon Job on June 10, 2005

Sorry for jumping in late…

It would be nice to be a paid church webmaster full-time or even part-time, but it’s not going to happen - at least not in most churches. In our church, there are a lot of other priorities first - like trainee ministers, more gospel preachers, resources for a church plant and even an office person to free the bible teachers to get on with their primary task. Does it mean that we don’t value the Gospel because we don’t pay for all the gospel work happening in our church? Of course not.

If we work to bring glory to God through our ministry in a church - be it running a web-site, or sweeping the floors, then we are acting in accordance with God’s will. Will there be frustrations and deliberate ignorance along the way? Absolutely - it’s called sin, and as Christians we should know more about sin than anyone.
Mean Dean on June 12, 2005

Simon, no one is talking about getting paid full time, just for the work the actual work of planning, designing, developing, testing and deploying a church website through the various phases of the software lifecycle.

It is the hope of some of us that in putting a real market value on such services - those who maintain content would understand - at least in terms of finanical replacement - what it is they’re so capriciously tossing away - and/or ignoring.
Simon Job on June 12, 2005

Dean, you teach Sunday School I think. Do you expect to be paid for it? Yet I know Sunday School teachers who’s work is not valued, yet they continue to do it for the sake of the Gospel.

If every volunteer in Christian ministry required fair market value for the work they put in, then would the gospel have got past Samaria?

I understand the problem of work being undervalued, but I don’t think expecting payment is the solution.
Michael Boyink (Author) on June 12, 2005

Question - are church webmasters to be considered “apostles”?

I came across this passage from 1 Corinthians in church today, and it sure *seems* appropriate.

——————————————-

1 Corinthians 3-
3This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas[a]? 6Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?

7Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? 8Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.“Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?

——————————————-

The notes in our study Bible say “Paul sets forth the principle that Christian workers be paid for their efforts.”
Simon Job on June 13, 2005

Yes, so the _full-time_ Christian worker, the person who makes it their job to proclaim the gospel should be paid by those whom he or she serves, from verse 11 of 1 Cor 9 (not 3): “those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel”.

But, are webmasters apostles? I would argue “no”. In 1 Cor 12:28, there is an order to the importance of activities in our church: “And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.” Really, the webmaster is in the helping/administrating section. Can the web-site be used to proclaim the gospel? Absolutely. But the content writer is doing that, not the webmaster.

My point is, that I don’t think church webmasters should be trying to claim compensation for their work, rather if they want to be seen as valued, use education. The people running our churches are not of the ‘net’ generation, they probably don’t understand the power of the web for evangelism. So, educate them - gently. Change in most churches will be met with resistance, so it will require patience and perseverance.
Michael Boyink (Author) on June 13, 2005

Again, just to be clear (even though I might have muddied the waters myself).

This thread isn’t about whether web folks (or any other volunteers) should be paid, or worrying about how else they should “be seen as valued”.

It’s about getting the *site* to be valued by the staff, and the notion of paying for it in order to create that value.

If the site has $$ value in the eyes of the staff it will get treated differently and with more respect than a site given to the church.

That’s my point, really, plain and simple.

What the web person would do with that income is up to them. Maybe slip it back into the collection plate, or donate it somewhere else. Whatever.

I tried the “education” route. Meetings. Emails. Demonstrations. Links to sites and white papers. All to a staff so overwhelmingly swamped with doing their current jobs that they hardly had time to breath, much less learn (or want to learn) about the internet.

Nope - I’m convinced - even after all this discussion - that the best and quickest way to inject a website with a perception of value from a non-technical staff is to have them pay for it.
Rich Stone on June 18, 2005

My experience over the last 7 years with my church’s website has been similar. As a volunteer, I made a contract with the administrative pastor that the content would be the responsibility of the staff or lay leadership who are involved in ministry.

We started with a static content site and I redesigned that once, in 2000 - some of the content is stale (not my responsibility). TO THIS DAY I still struggle to get current content for this site.

In 2002, I started using community portal tools (xoops) and I started deploying a portal for each ministry that wanted a web presence. This has proven effective for 1 reason - no launch until the ministry leaders drop the content in. After the first 2 successful launches ministry leaders have live experience with the approach.

My conversations with ministry leaders go like this. “I have 5 hours a week to give to this ministry. I can have a site deployed for you to test and add content to within a week of our agreement on the initial content scope. When the site launches is completely up to you and when you have time to add the initial content. I will train you to use the tools. Keeping currnet information on the site is completely your responsiblity.”

I have had several ministries start the conversation, and once they realized the investment of time they had to make, they bailed on the process before launch. I have had ministry leaders start and launch and go gangbusters for 30 or 4 months, then slowly lose interest and let the site go fallow.

There have been many times that I felt that if I were charging for my services that they would be valued more by those I serve, but that is not the truth. This is my ministry, and those I serve need to BE INVESTED in order to form a partnership. Without that investment, it is like pushing a rope. Like any other service ministry, those served need to feel the value of the service.

While it is frustrating to do work as a volunteer and have it lie unrealized, One must trust God for the outcome. It is no different that the project at work that get’s canceled halfway through because the customer changed direction.

If you say that the difference is that at work you got paid, I would reply that your service is not for man or for the church, but your service is to and your reward is from God, and it is His will and purpose that is served.

In Christ,

Rich
Kaala on June 18, 2005

I like Rich’s response (June 7). Whatever efforts I volunteer to the “church” I give to God. If you don’t mind volunteering your website skills and knowledge then go ahead and do it. If you have a problem and this is not your “ministry” but your job, then do that to. How many musicians have felt unappreciated because the “staff” didn’t recognize their sacrifices and skills? How many setup/breakdown crews? If you’re doing ministry then you will ARE compensated in a different bank account.

Don’t get me wrong…I’ve charged churches for services rendered - primarily for business development/customer service training. But I’ve also served countless hours in my home church volunteering.

Part of the frustration that seems to be repeated by many in this discussion is the lack of value ascribed to the site by church staff who don’t understand the time/effort/resources required to build that site that they just changed again for the upteenth time. From a staff perspective (http://www.manaolana.org) the steps described for the successful project management of the site construction are sound. In fact, paid or volunteered, a solid project scope and procedures is just plain good sense.

The tone of this discussion is what prompts my response. Again, if this is your “ministry” (e.g. ushering, children’s church, music team, small group leader) then serve as though serving the Lord- as a volunteer. If this is your “job”, then serve as though serving the Lord - for a fee. It’s all good. Some of you just need to figure out which one it is. I agree with the original post - whatever you do, if it’s from God- do it GUILT free. You will be able to do that when you know WHY you’re doing it. Aloha from Hawaii.

Kaala
Rodney on June 22, 2005

I truly agree with Kaala’s comment but wonder if it is missing something crucial. I too have volunteered and been paid for both website and sound (overall technical related STUFF) and have tried to do both as unto the Lord (Col 3:23).

Here is what is missing, however. The point of both the boyink post and the lonetomato’s sound post is that it is the church that suffers when little value is placed on that which is done for free. A website should be rich with both information on the church and resources that help people draw closer to God. FEW church websites achieve this goal. Some place too much emphasis on how COOL it looks while others don’t think of it at all as long as the voluteer slot is FILLED. In the end, a man struggling in his marriage hurting at work looking to his church for encouragement during his long and painful day has nothing because of a missed opportunity by a church that overlooks a great resource.

The point isn’t frustration over volunteering. The point is that the church tends to miss opportunities because it doesn’t take its own mission seriously. The same goes for sound. How many people have missed the Word of God because the sound irritated them that week.

There is no sympathy for the whiny volunteer that wants more recognition for his “important” skill and role in the church. This person should probably step down and seek discipleship from a mature Christian. The point and heart is that the church can do better and if they won’t value work without pay, then they should pay. The better solution, however, is for the church to work harder at seeing the value in supporting these ministries and respond accordingly.
Lil Earl on June 27, 2005

Charge the church that you attend for building a web site? Dude step away from the drugs that you are doing!
If you really and truely love the church that you are attending, you wouldn’t charge them. A good church website is never done, as it is something that is constantly changing, for no changes to a website is a dead website. So you are saying that each and every time that the website needs a change that the church should be paying for it? I would be to ashamed to show my face in church if I was charging for the work that I do. Regardless of if I was being paid or not, the site would look just the same.
My payment is looking at the stats for the site and seeing that we have had visitors from every contenent in the world except for one, and that being Antartica, and that is over a one month period of time. My payment is when people from other congregations of my denomination tell me that I have put together a site that is far better than what the Diocese paid for.
Just because I don’t get paid for working on the website doesn’t mean that I don’t take pride in my work and wouldn’t give it anything less than the best that I can do.
Sure they have no menaing, but the site had been given awards for it’s looks, feels, etc., and we haven’t tried for any but they keep coming. I get emails from businesses that beg to put ads on the site and willing to pay really good money to do so, but I turn them down. I’ve had job offers to do web work because of the churches site, in fact I’ve had five offers over the last two weeks for web site companies because they were impressed with the web site.
I will continue to work on the church’s site for free until I either leave the church, or I tire of working on it, or someone comes along and feels that they can do the job better than me and are willing to do the work for free.
I may not put a lot of money into the offerring plate, but my web work on the church’s site is just as important. When a visitor says that they found our church because of the website, their isn’t enough money that can make up for that feeling that I get.
Rich Stone on June 27, 2005

Brothers,

Over the weekend I had a conversation with my pastor. He had attended a presentation by our Church Office Software vendor about how they can help us create an interactive website. He was considering paying a $150 monthly fee for web features that we already have on our site.

During our conversation, he said exactly what many of you in this thread have been saying all along. It is hard to get staff and ministry leaders to pay attention to something that cost you nothing. Even in the body of Christ, we have a consumerist mindset - no cost = no worth.

My comment to him was, ” Perhaps I should bill the Church a market rate for my work, and donate the money back.”

Jesus cannot be pleased with this approach. My heart is not rejoicing!
philippe on June 27, 2005

I recently helped design and start a blog for the church where my wife works as an adminsitrator and communication person.
(Emmaneul Church on Mercer Island, WA).
I advised them to take a typepad subscription ($15 per month) and I billed them $190, much less than the number of hours spent but that was intended as a contribution.
The truth is that the blog format makes it much easier for non-technical people to have a significant presence on line. There is a learning curve but it is nothing compared to having to master html.
That does not solve the need for adequate writing skills, the need for regular input, the need for digital pictures (if wanted), etc…
Maybe the development of the blogosphere will change the way people in general and parishioners in particular relate to the web and to church websites.
I do think it is good to put a price tag on the work done so that people have an idea of what is involved.
As for building the content it depends of what the goals are and if you can find people with the adequate skills to provide the content.
Updating minimally a blog with basic announcements is not a huge burden but it does take some time.
Giving detailed news about what each active group is doing within the parish can be a heavy load if the parish is very active.
My hunch is that each group should be put in charge of sharing the relevant info: as indycrhistian mentioned, posting into a blog is as simple as sending an email.
Even allowing for some tuning and training most parishes should find enough volunteers bloggers to do the job.
If not, the person in charge of updating the content should record the hours spent doing it.
philippe on June 27, 2005

here is the url in case you want to visit the blog:
http://emmanuelmi.typepad.com/emmanuelmi/
Jeremy on July 12, 2005

I’ve really battled with this same issue for some time. I have a big vision for my congregation’s website, but I feel that no one would keep the data up-to-date. We have a lot of small groups which could use a Yahoo! Groups-like groupware (calendar, message board, picture album) with the added feature that some of the content from each of the small groups would be featured on the front page of the site. Events, for example, would be put on the front page.

You could even use the details from each group to dynamically generate a PDF for the weekly paper newsletter or bulletin. Does anyone do anything like this?

I think we (Christian techs) need a forum setup to discuss some of these issues, rather than in a blog comment section. Would anyone want to join in?
Michael Boyink (Author) on July 12, 2005

FWIW Jeremy - I’ve been on and around some “Christian Webmaster” type forums and email lists and didn’t find them that helpful.

If you wanted to debate tables vs. css the discussion would rage on.

If you start asking the bigger—and more church-specific questions - like

“What should church websites do?” “How do you measure the success of a church website?”

“What content are your members actively looking for?”

“How do you help the church catch the vision for the internet?”

“How do you get the church to see the value in a website?”

—Those types of questions seemed to go unanswered, or not get any real discussion going.

And it’s a shame.

I can get technical help from the commerical world - a CSS file doesn’t car what kind of content it’s formatting.

But that strategic-type input and discussion is impossible to find anywhere but in blogs, at least for me. I’m still a bit surprised at the amount of traffic this post has, but then again not surprised when the follow up post about succession planning for church webmasters only generated a handful of comments.
Jeremy on July 12, 2005

Yes, the bigger questions, involving technology and Christianity and how to deal with the integration of technology (not necessairly only web-related) in our outreach, our worship, our classes, and our buildings. The web is a big part of it, yes, but there are other parts as well.

So maybe not “Christian Webmasters” but “Christian Techs”? (or dare I say “Christian Geeks”?) :)
IndyChristian on July 13, 2005

Michael…

Those who have commented here apparently love the big questions you’ve mentioned. [And here in Greater Indianapolis, we’re collecting similar types of big-question folks at our site as well. There’s too little time in life for the tedium, to tell you the truth. So thanks for keeping this focused.]

Since commenting above re the Church changing its thinking from web-SITE to web-STRATEGY (ie, tapestry network of sites), I’ve built a sample church-blog for our own local church in suburban Indy, and tried to demonstrate how it might fit into the overall web STRATEGY of the (Big-C) Church here among the driven Christians in the Racing Capital of the World.

If interested in the concept, visit http://ROCCblog.blogspot.com .

And plan on being at GodBlogCon 2005 in October.
Michael Boyink (Author) on July 13, 2005

Was it the big question? Or was it the mention of $$ ? ;)

Your blogging network concept is a good one…it’s not altogether too much different than what I developed for RPCC.

The challenge I had there, and the one I forsee for you as well, is finding people within the church who…

...have something to say.

...are willing to take the risk to say it.

...are willing to spend the time to say it (no matter how quickly a blog can be updated, the perception is still that this can be a time-sink, or other deeper fears about revealing themselves online will get voiced as simply “not having the time”.)

I think for a traditional church, blogging might be a tough sell b/c it allows “church” to happen away from the building. Cynical, but true - I’ve been in conversations with pastors who didnt’ want to put the audio or video of a sermon online for fear it would prevent people from showing up.

I hope you find people who catch the vision though, as it’s a great one.

GodBlogCon eh? Hadn’t heard of it. Never sure how to view conferences put on to talk about a technology that facilitates conversation…;)

I found the website…heh…it could use some “healing” itself. I didn’t know where Biola University is, and the site doesn’t say.

Being in California…it’s going to be too expensive for me to attend.

I’m hoping that the event will be well-blogged (*please* tell me the facility has wi-fi..)

And should I be weirded out seeing mentions of “great flurries in the Christian blogosphere” that I never heard a thing about?

Here I thought I was part of that blogosphere….;)
Jeremy on July 13, 2005

Biola is in La Mirada, CA, near the Imperial Hwy. It’s not too far from Brea, Fullerton, Anaheim, Norwalk, etc in Orange County.
Michael Boyink (Author) on July 13, 2005

Yep - got that off the college website, but thanks. Too far for me being in W. MI.

I’ve actually got this bug in my craw now to see what it would take to organize a similar conference here in the midwest.

We definitely have enough audience locally, as well as possible sponsors like Hope and Calvin College, Western Seminary, and Zondervan Publishing.
Frank Johnson on July 14, 2005

Mike:

Regarding this part of your comment above: “I’ve been in conversations with pastors who didnt’ want to put the audio or video of a sermon online for fear it would prevent people from showing up.”

I have a friend/acquaintance who specifically told me once that he loved the church he was a part of specifically for this reason - that if he woke up one Sunday morning and didn’t feel like driving 30 miles to the church he had chosen to be a part of (in another city, apparently because it was more exciting than any church in our town), he and his family could site in their bedroom in their pajamas and _watch_ the live video feed of the Sunday morning service.

The problem I have with this is that it reduces the gathering of the saints to something to be watched rather than a gathering to be experienced.

In my opinion, anything we do on the web which has the potential to discourage face-to-face gatherings should be considered very carefully. I’m not saying that putting up video of services is wrong in itself - only that we should ask ourselves some pointed questions before doing so. What is our motivation for doing that - just because it’s the cutting-edge thing to do or because we see some value for discipleship. And if the latter is our reason, have we carefully asked ourselves whether putting up video on our websites is the best way of accomplishing this?

I’m not totally against the idea - I just think that most churches who do this probably haven’t thought it out very carefully.

Frank
IndyChristian on July 14, 2005

Michael…

Loved your idea of bringing together a blog gathering here in the Midwest.

Suggest you put in a bid for GodBlogCon for next year, and get started planning it now. Some good partners are getting easier to find by the day… like CityReaching.com folks, CCDA.org folks, Christian Emergency Network (.org) etc. Giving enough time to synch some calendars… is the trick. In fact, synching up with one of THEIR events could be even better yet.

Count us in, if you decide to campaign for it in ‘06.

[We’ll have several of these networks represented this November at CCDA’s convention here in Indy—come on down and partipate in the Bloggers Corner during the convention. And we can coordinate some more then.]

YBIC,
Neil
IndyChristian.com
Jared Leach on August 19, 2005

We left a Church (possibly temp), I used to help out with the website for free. Now, however, the Pastor want to pay me, if I decide to, what shoudl I charge a little ‘ol Church who wants a (not so smart) flash intro? I already have a non-profit copy of Studio MX 2004 pro for the Ministry God has given me…
Boyink on August 19, 2005

Poll your area to find out what the going rate is. Around here in W. MI $75 - $85 an hour is median.
MrPhilTX on October 11, 2005

Regarding Web Masters are electricians or nursery workers with respect to pay: webmasters are more like electricians in that there is a much greater skill set required to do the job, and that skill set is held by a much smaller group of people than those that can take care of children. Most adults can at least keep kids from destroying a room or each other for an hour or so. Most adults couldn’t program a decent website.

As far as charging a church for work done, Lil Earl, I see your point, but does that mean my pastor shouldn’t charge for his services either? If he is really a part of the church and loves it, would he be wrong to ask to be paid?

Good discussion.
Jeff Wilkinson on March 16, 2006

I have to say, I’d be uncomfortable with asking my church to pay me for my webministry work, which I do a as a volunteer. As others have mentioned, why would webwork deserve payment when other volunteers don’t? We have a great many faithful volunteers around our church who do all sorts of jobs, according to our skills, time, interests and the needs, and I don’t see how mine ‘deserves’
payment.

I *like* having a skill that I can use to uniquely present a gift of my efforts to God and my church community. As Lil Earl points out, doing a church site well isn’t usually a one-time design job, but is mainly an ongoing week-to-week thing. I like that.

If the job grows the to point where I was unable to do it as a volunteer, I’d look to building a better volunteer team to divide up the work or consider approaching the church to make it a regular part/full-time job. That seems inline with most areas of church tasks. If the need grows beyond what volunteers can do effectively, then it has to become a paid position. (can-of-worms now open ;-)

And does my ego need that kind of tangible sign of appreciation? For me, no, though my church is generally very appreciative (verbally) of my work and of that of other volunteers.

I’d have to agree with many of Lil Earl’s comments (Jun 27, 2:31am)
He has the attitude right (IMO).

... continued in next entry…
Jeff Wilkinson on March 16, 2006

... continued from previous entry, yeah, I’m wordy… ;-)

That said, I *do* realize the point of the article *wasn’t* that we need to charge because we want the tangible appreciation, or that we deserve it, but to make the church (staff?) appreciate the value of the task and of the resulting site, thus being willing to take it seriously and contribute their own efforts when needed.

That might or might not work. I certainly have paid (non-church) clients who’ve been all hot to do sites or redesigns, but it’s been a multi-year tooth-pulling process to drag the necessary content out of them.

In some cases, particularly when doing a site for a church or ministry not-my-own, I’d certainly consider going ‘paid’ from the start. For my own church, or anywhere I’m doing this as my ministry, I’d prefer to find other ways to involve others as needed, generally by building the personal relationships to support the tasks.

Frankly, with the experiences I’ve had over the years trying to do our church site, I don’t think I’d ever want to take on long-term design and maintenance of a site for a church that I was not a member of. There are so many advantages to being part of it to being able to do the site well, and conversely so many frustrations with communication that it’s hard to imagine doing it if I weren’t closely connected with the church community. (So I seriously salute you all who are willing to take that on!)

One other thought: Probably some of the differences in views here are because this conversation seems to be covering both working on your own church’s site and working (as a job) for some other church’s site. Approaches would probably differ between the two.

Lastly, Jeremy wrote: “I think we (Christian techs) need a forum setup to discuss some of these issues, rather than in a blog comment section.”

How about over here: http://www.webservant.us/

(FYI, Dean’s blog entry on this topic has more good discussion on this)
http://healyourchurchwebsite.com/2005/06/07/mike-boyink-on-the-problem-with-free-ice-cream/

Jeff Wilkinson
webmaster for [url=http://www.centralpc.org]http://www.centralpc.org[/url]
http://www.centralpc.org/admin/webminfaq.htm

Back to Article

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Boyink! - Spring Forward on the Web

Write

Church Webmasters - Stop Working for Free