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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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/

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.

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. 

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:

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

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 - 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.

“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

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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…

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…

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?

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.

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. )

Five pages done right, yep that’s what I think.