Boyink! - Spring Forward on the Web

I read about another church website launching this week.  When I read these announcements I’m always a bit uncertain if I should go look at the new site.  I’ve been extremely critical about church sites in the past, and swore off of commenting on them—choosing instead to try to lead by example and create a site that demonstrated what I felt was lacking in many church sites.

But today I clicked before thinking, went to the new church site, and immediately found myself groaning and shaking my head.  Why are we - as the “online church” still making the same mistakes that we were making 6, 7 or 8 years ago when building the very first websites for churches?

That mistake?  Making the most prominent element on the page a picture of the church building.  I just don’t get it.  Do we think people choose a church by architectural style?  By quality of paint job?  By the color of it’s shingles?  The fact that it has a star on top of it’s steeple?

I’d bet you a fiver if I went to that specific church, walked in the door and asked the pastor, a staff member, or any 5 year old in a Sunday School class to “tell me what the church is” they would say with reverence - “Oh, the church is really the people.  The people make it what it is.  Without the people it’s just a building.” 

So where does that thinking go when it comes to designing what - arguably - represents the “most public face” of the church?  Why do we suddenly choose pictures of the building as our first impression?  It makes me wonder if we truly believe what we say about what the church is.

Your visitors may wonder the same thing….

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

1. Peaceendeavor on March 03, 2007

   You couldn’t be more correct in that the answer you would receive from anyone you asked in the church would be “it’s the people”.  Thank you for the link to your example and provoking thought - I have a need to re-think future additions/enhancements/direction on the church site I developed.

2. Nathan Smith on March 03, 2007

   A few years ago, I did a church site and the people insisted that it prominently feature a picture of their building. Much to my chagrin, and despite my protest, that’s how the site went live.

   I can think of one instance in which it would be good to have a picture of the building itself: on a contact page, which is typically coupled with driving directions. In that one situation, it would be good for visitors to know what the destination looks like, to ensure that they have followed the directions correctly. Other than that, I agree that the building is irrelevant for church sites.

3. Boyink (Author) on March 03, 2007

   Yes - certainly there is a place for building photos and floorplans - moreso the larger the church is.  I’ve had thoughts in the past of photographing the parking lot, the main entrance, the kids-check in, etc—all as a way of helping a newcomer feel comfortable on their first visit.

   The building just shouldn’t be home page, above-the-fold, main-image for the whole site kind of thing.

4. Felipe on March 03, 2007

   Mike,

   post today strikes a loud chord; Visitor FAQ re directions - image of church from stoplight, visual cue of when to hit turn signal w/ seasonal images (snow piles hide a white church!).  Key is visual clues to relax newcomers about coming to a new church - then making sure they are greeted immediately.

   Felipe

5. Jeff Wilkinson on April 03, 2007

   So, what photos *would* you suggest on the homepage?

   Some churches use overly (IMO) -friendly looking photos of people that seem fake or like stock photos.  Frankly that’s not attractive to me at all, and is less useful than a building photo.  I can see that getting just the right photo of actual members can be pretty tough too though, from getting the shot, to convincing those in it to be willing to let you use it on the homepage.

   To turn your argument around, do we think people choose a church by the faces they see on the homepage? 

   Even if so, that could work for *or* against you, depending on subtle factors of the photo used, and whether those people look like someone the visitor wants to meet or not.

   I’m not being argumentative here, I’d just like to hear some good discussion on what type of photo *should* be on a church homepage, not just the common complaint that it shouldn’t be a building.  (bonus points for good examples, and discussion of photo vs message)

   disclaimer: yes, our site has a building photo, though it is small… and yes, we need a design update too.

6. Crissa on April 03, 2007

   IMHO - and I know this isn’t going to be everyone’s opinion - I’d rather see not-quite-perfectly-framed, maybe just a smidge out of focus, not going-to-win-third-place-at-the-fair-photos of real people, real events, real “scenes” from within the church any day over “happy people” (my phrase for stock photos) or building photos.

   http://www.christmemorial.org/ gets it right, I think (the header photos change as you move through the site).

   I don’t think someone will choose to visit a church based solely on the picture of one person, but I think if the photos plus the rest of the site experience exude a sense of honestly, openness, and friendliness then yes - that will motivate a visit.

   And if not - then it wasn’t meant to be.

7. Boyink (Author) on April 03, 2007

   And yes - that was my comment…;)

8. Jeff Wilkinson on April 03, 2007

   So, without getting down the path into the argument of real members vs stock (that I just read over on Mike’s other earlier post), what photos do we think are best? 

   Just real people doing things around the church as in Crissa’s reply?
   Something else?

   I guess this also gets into discussion of what message we want to send, but a short form would probably be to showing that “this is a good community of people, and you should consider coming here.”

9. Jeff Wilkinson on April 03, 2007

   btw, I love the mud-splattered group on the christmemorial.org site. 
   Great photo! ;-)

10. Boyink (Author) on April 03, 2007

    Actually Crissa was me (the downside of a family extranet requiring a log-in with a “remember me” setting…:).

    In the past I developed a church website that featured a large area in the header for photos - much like the ChristMemorial site but larger.  I had, IIRC, ~60 images in that space.  They didn’t all show people head-on, but most of them did.  All of them members, all of them shot with a 2MP camera, just me roaming the halls/rooms at different events.  If the photo didn’t feature a person I tried to at least have parts of people (a guitar players hand etc) or implied people (shadows against a wall).

    I would also use photos that showed, in some way, God’s presence—flames from a stage-prop fire, a pig being roasted for a volunteer dinner (with all the color of apples and other fruit being roasted with it - definitely a “feast at the Lords table”. 

    My only requirement was that all the photos had to be taken on the grounds, with real people, and not “staged”.

    The hope was that the randomized header images, as you moved through the site, would give you a slide-show glimpse of things that really happened at the church.  Some were more conceptual than others, but taken in batches I think gave several different angles/glimpes of the church life.

11. Jeff Wilkinson on April 03, 2007

    hmm, neat idea.  I like that. 

    I’ve been working to incorporate photos more, which mainly means me taking them in many cases since I’ve had limited luck getting others to contribute… ;-(  I’ve been going more with having separate galleries though at this point. 

    That said, since we’re overdue for a visual redesign anyway, I’ll definitely keep the varying header images or rotating header images idea in mind. 

    Actually some of our neatest photos were from one week.  We were doing a slideshow the next week honoring/appreciating the many volunteers around the church, so we had 4-5 of us running around the church with digital cameras.  Got a whole batch of great photos.

Back to Article