It doesn't tell a story.

The video presents an image, which may be perceived differently by many people.

Likewise, a professor I had in college has made the statement that if you can't answer the question "so what?", then maybe what you're communicating needs to be stronger. I kind of felt that way at the end of the video...

Ok, here's my opinion (since it was asked for...I mean no offense to the maker of the video or to you, micah):

I say that, to me, the video is 100% advertising/marketing. As Robert says, there was no story involved...nothing communicated. I think the first red flag to me was the music/picture style of the piece. Normally, when something is just images laid over music, it's almost always advertising. It's an attempt to get people to feel an affinity with the 'product', to create a false sense of reality (ie. the feeling that the video gives doesn't actually exist if you were to show up to those events).

The other sign of advertising is the visual 'list of features'. One after another the features of the product were listed on the screen and then shown to be 'life changing'...this gives the impression of "come to the church, get these features, be happy". As we all know, that's not reality either.

This video advertises the church. It stars and ends with a (really cool looking) church title card. The "product shot". So, I ask: "Why advertise the church?" Would the person making (or commissioning) it be just as happy if the viewer discovered Jesus at the church down the road? The video makes me think not. I guess the fact that the emphasis is put on the church and all of it provides betrays the true intent: Getting more people to that particular church.

Finally, it makes me ask: "What's Christian/Jesus/Church specific about this video?" Could we insert a different, non-Christian organization into the title cards and basically have the same result? I'm not sure, but maybe.

This is great to post this and ask the question, Micah. It truly makes me rethink church video. It makes me ask "how would I have done it different?". I'm not sure of that answer...and now I'll be rethinking that.

Hi gang,
I see the video as a "what our church has to offer" piece. True, it is not a message of salvation and doesn't show the story of Jesus, but does everything have to? Now, I'm not saying that the church is to be put *instead* of Jesus, but isn't there an element of having to get people there to get them ministered to?

How do we show people that church doesn't have to be that "sit still and shut up and endure till it's over" thing that so many of us attended as children? Is it wrong to show the excitement and life of a church?

How do we differentiate between a "list of features" and "reasons to come"? Of course THE reason to come is Christ but how do we communicate that to a world that's hurting and has rejected Jesus for years?

I think one thing on the table here is the intended audience. If the video was shot to show to Christians then I'd agree it's 100% advertisement meant to contribute to transferred growth and borders on attempted sheep stealing (no offense intended). If it is to be shown during "The Man Show" on Spike at 10pm on the local cable channel then I'd say it is an attempt to be exciting to a person who thinks church is anything but exciting to entice them to attend.

One final question that the context has come up several times this week alone... How do we show the people that an abundant life is available without going too far and saying "Give your life to Christ and all your troubles will be gone." which we all know is a lie. We have troubles but they have been dealt with. Too often we Christians want to be overcomers but not have anything to overcome. God left inhabitants in the promised land so the children of Israel would remember how to fight.

BTW, I think we could substitute the local civic organization of choice and it would still work. So how do we make it better? (Even if this is a done deal then I'd love to hear the ideas for future pieces all of us may have a hand in next time.)

Please don't take offense to this. You asked so here are my thoughts.

This is stream of thought....

The first thing that hit me was who the target audience was. The target audience is existing Christians. This is not intended for non-Christians. It's targeted at people who regularly or have regularly attended a church. No one else.

Then I realized what the video was about. As Rob said, it really shows off a list of features of the church. The way they were portrayed reminded me of a school advertising itself or a club (country club style church is what came to mind). It was kind of like a product add.

Some of this even reminded me of a rock concert or other high energy entertainment venue. The video definitely plays to our desire for that to make the place look appetizing.

I noticed that everything was inward focused. It was about stuff that the church does for the members to enjoy. I didn't see any outreach, serving, or that other good stuff.

The video looks like it's advertising the church to Christians.

@JimSewell you asked

How do we show people that church doesn't have to be that "sit still and shut up and endure till it's over" thing that so many of us attended as children? Is it wrong to show the excitement and life of a church?

How do we differentiate between a "list of features" and "reasons to come"? Of course THE reason to come is Christ but how do we communicate that to a world that's hurting and has rejected Jesus for years?

I don't think it's wrong to show excitement in church. But, what is living and not just enduring? I don't think it's rocking out in worship services. Is that how Jesus lived until he had to die for us? Nope. He went out, served people, taught the message of his father, loved others. That's what he taught his disciples to do. And they did it with honest joy.

A great way to show the life of the church is to live everyday with the joy that God gives in a way that pours over everything we are and do. When we are cleaning out the gutters of an old lady who can't do it for herself and having a good time doing it.

A good question to ask is what are reasons someone would want to go to church. Especially someone who isn't Christian. A concert stile rock event isn't it. They can get that by going to a concert and many concerts serve beer, too. What was in that video wouldn't get any of the non-Christians I know to take an interest in the people that video is trying to share.

The video seems to be targeted directly at the Christians living in the local community who don't attend that church. I wonder if it's this type video that contributes to 97% of church growth being Christians shifting from one church to another.

@micah - Sorry for the harsh review. I love ya man.

Agreed, it's not just 'rocking out in worship services,' but is there anything wrong with doing that if it fits the character of your church? Granted, to be like the world to attract the world is wrong, but I personally don't see a rock beat with a Christian message as bad either. I guess it's about intent... to be like the world or to use something God created for His message. Too bad the Bible doesn't mention tempo. :)
The whole video wasn't about rocking out, but the music reinforced that part of it.

I like your example of cleaning gutters too... the true service type images are powerful and (hopefully) true representations of the church.

Here's another question - "Would you feel any differently if it were a mellow music track instead of the pounding rock track?"

Unfortunately, it is easier to 'target' Christians in other churches than the lost so many have a tendency to go for that 'low hanging fruit' rather than being overall Kingdom growth minded. (Not implying this church is doing that.) Of course Adam & Eve didn't have much success with low hanging fruit did they? :)

I love you guys - you won't let me go a single day without challenging my thinking and reinforcing my beliefs - changing them if necessary.

Is it bad to target Christians in other churches? Now that I'm thinking about that exact question I'm going to say yes it is. I'm not saying that your church growing because people came from another church is bad. But, targeting them is. The mission of the church is not to grow your local church but to make more disciples. If we are using resources to bring disciples from other churches we are using resources in a way that Christ never called us to. Right?

Imagine if interviews were done with people on the street about a topic to be used in a sermon. For example, if the resources put into the video were used to do a video that explored the hurting people in the community around them. Then the sermon was on that. They don't just get to hear about serving others but get to see and hear those people in need in a video. That's a great way to use this type of tech.

Indeed, people deciding to come to your church or are led there or whatever is one thing, but if you go out and try to convince them to switch then you are the thief that goes over the wall... otherwise you'd go to their pastor with your case to present them your church. Example, the church next door has several Spanish speaking people and you have Spanish services and they don't even have a translator. You may think they need to be in your church but before you start asking them to visit you should go to their pastor and tell him that you think they may get more out of a sermon preached in Spanish and see what he says. No need to try to catch them in the parking lot!

It saddens me the tragically small amount of church growth that is not transferred growth. We are failing in that regard. Then again, to not make disciples of those that attend is an equal failure. We should all be focusing on training and equipping and growing the saints so that the work of the Kingdom will be done in the playgrounds, workplaces, stores, etc. and then the work of bringing in new converts will take care of itself.

I was just struck with an idea after re-reading MF's last post. What he describes about videos of people in need being served reminds me of the last time a missionary friend of my church came to visit. He didn't have pictures of the people (Guatemala) in church, although he has plenty of pics of that. He showed photos of the kids in the surrounding villages getting shoes and a haircut and food. That was an excellent demonstration of the will and hand of God in action through His believers. We would probably do much better in our information if we were more service-to-others oriented instead of "church service" oriented.

By the way, if I blather on too much feel free to tell me to shaddup. :) Sometimes I type what I think and while it's good to be transparent to brethren it can, at times, be annoying babble too.

First of all, there's no offense taken. If I thought there would be, I wouldn't have posed the question in the first place. Instead, by posting this, especially on the heels of the last podcast episode, it was almost a challenge to "tell me what you don't like about this."

Secondly, all of you nailed me with the same question - what's the context for this video. Knowing that may have altered your perception of the reviews, so I'm glad I neglected to mention it.

Obviously it's on our website, but that is not the original context. This video was originally generated to show to the audience at the end of our biggest annual evangelistic outreach program. Yes, some of those people are coming from another church to see a show, but the target audience are unchurched people from the community who have already stepped into the church for a specific event, sat through a drama, heard the Gospel message explained, been invited to accept Jesus' salvation, and are now being invited to consider Cornerstone as a home church to begin their Christian walk. Your comments tell me that the video is far less relevant on the website, and perhaps it should be changed.

Third, I think some of Rob's concerns have been addressed. The video was modified this year to include a voice-over, and I think that version goes a lot farther towards telling a story.

I can honestly say that everyone involved in making that video would be equally happy if the viewer chose to attend a different church. I have to agree that the video doesn't necessarily portray that.

I would also say that the intent of putting this video on the website is to provide a picture of the church to those who may be interested in attending. (I think that's a reasonable decision, since they would presumably be exploring the website in order to find the video in the first place.) Instead, the responses have tended towards skepticism and indifference.

In some ways that's perfectly fine, because it may merely be an indicator that this isn't your kind of church, and the video effectively communicated that to you. If I were using the web to find a new church, or a church to visit while out of town, I'd want the video to tell me that rather than go somewhere and be disappointed.

But it also makes me wonder if it conveys the message that is supposed to be in there, or if we can't see its shortcomings because we're already too familiar with the images it contains. I realize as I watch this again that a lot of its meaning is derived from my knowing the people pictured and the understanding the context of the images shown. It's kind of unsettling to realize I can't even imagine what it looks like to people who don't know those things. Even the visitors in the (original) audience would have a little bit of connection with the video, because they had seen the building and would have recognized some of the people from the cast of the play they had just seen. A visitor on the web gets none of that.

I'm not turning around and bashing it, and I don't think that makes this a horrible video, but I do see it in a different light now. Aside from anything else, it brings up a good point that we need to be selective about the way certain videos get used, because they don't always translate from one context to another as seamlessly as we might think.

@MattFarina regarding the man on the street interviews, I've seen sermons done that way in "seeker friendly" churches to set up a message that preaches the Gospel. I love the concept of using it in a discipleship message where the point is "these are the people you need to go reach during the week." That's awesome.

Thanks for your honest reviews, guys. They weren't nearly as brutal as you may think they were.

Micah

So, for the first time in at least 6 months, I have the task of editing a video for church in the next couple days. Thanks to this thread, I'm slamming my head against my keyboard asking the big question: "Marketing or Communication??!?"

:)

Just a couple of followup comments. First, it is the kind of church I'd attend so all my comments are in that context. The other thing your last comment made me think of is that you are asking church geeks about the video but it is aimed at not-necessarily-churched folk. Our perceptions probably won't be the same as theirs would be.

@Rob, maybe it's providence that we discuss this with you so you'll do a "more excellent" job on your video. :)

@micah - I didn't see that original context coming. It puts the video in a different light.

I really think that context is everything with the information we present. A video may work well in one context and not another.

I've started to notice just how hard it is to see what others see. In that video you see a lot of history and other information. Someone who doesn't know those faces sees the video in a different way.

Do you know how many people who can to your outreach event were non-Christian and how many were Christians checking out your church? That ratio would really interest me. Do you try to measure that?

I wish more average christian churches did the man on the street interviews. It's so easy for Christians to just live our lives oblivious to what's going on in the world around us. Sometimes it's nice to be reminded of that.

Also, according to Willow Creek and the people who started the 'seeker service' style where they do worship evangelism say it doesn't work. Check out an interesting post at http://joeburnham.com/church/2007/08/30/worship-ev....

@Matt,

At the risk of drifting off into a topic about metrics, we do try to capture some information during our bigger outreach events. Each performance has a grand prize drawing as an incentive to fill out a visitor card, and the card includes check boxes for "I prayed to receive Christ" and for rededications. Our attendance for this year was over 6000 at the six performances, and we had over 400 people indicate a salvation response. I don't think I heard numbers on rededications for this year. Some of those people are from other churches and come to be entertained, but some of those try to bring their non-Christian friends and relatives, too.

If the responders provided an email address, they're contacted and asked to fill out a short survey online as a way to get more feedback about the effectiveness of the presentation and how people respond to it.

In a similar fashion, we try to collect info from both first- and second-time visitors to our regularly scheduled Sunday and Wednesday services.

We also have a salvation call at the end of almost every service. If anyone comes forward to pray with our pastor, they are handed off to our Barnabas ministry who puts some information about the Gospel in their hands (including Bibles, I think) and offers an aftercare program to come along side them to help them get started in a healthy Christian walk.

It is a little ironic that we have a "contemporary" worship style (I hate that word, can we find a new one?) yet our biggest outreach of the year is set in the 1800's. That's another reason for the video, probably. Visitors to A Christmas Tale don't see much of what our church is like the other 51 weeks of the year except through the video.

You and I have touched on the topic of worship styles before. For now I'm just going to say I believe is just like the technology we're discussing. The choice of musical style is a lot less important than what's behind it. Is music in a church service heartfelt worship, selling something, or an obligation to be endured? I've been to enough churches to have experienced all three. I may have more to say about that, but I think it'll fit better back on the podcast discussion, and I need to get some sleep yet tonight.

Micah

On that side note, I find enduring church to be a really interesting topic. Go to the 8:15am service on Sunday morning and you'll find people really worshiping. They sing, the pay attention, it's fantastic. Go to the 10:45am service, which is the same style, and you find people enduring. They don't sing or sing very quietly. People get up to answer cell phone calls. You can just see a difference.

Other times I've endured because the service was tough to worship in.

I really think enduring vs actually worshiping involves what happens there and the state of the people there.

When it comes to making a video to tell people about your church I have 2 things popping up in my mind.

First, how can we more easily tell what will get the message across? I would start by having someone outside the church review it or even make it. All those notions that members have won't be in the makeup of this other person. They can give some good feedback and help us see past our own noses.

Second, does a video like this portray the kinds of things we hold central or should hold central. If a video like this is supposed to portray who we are... do we like the things it's showing? If we were going to make a list of the important things to our churches and then make a list of what people see in the videos would they align?

OK, I watched it, and the first half looks like a rock concert. It looked like entertainment. But that's also showing my bias--I like some kind of liturgical form, but that's my personal preference and shouldn't reflect on impressions of the video.

Is that image of the girl in the 3rd world country looking @ the camera a stock photo? It looks really familiar. If it is, I'd say don't use stock photos. If not, good.

Seeing the word "Salvation" over a clip of a kid jumping through tires struck me as odd. Maybe that's abundant life, but I would've thrown a picture of Jesus or the cross in there somewhere.

As noted, context is key. If you've presented the Gospel message already, then I can understand this as "Here's what you can expect to find here," which is really just being honest, so if your services are like a rock concert, then it's 100% appropriate to have that as a major part of the video.

If you had a voiceover, that would make a huge difference, and on a website, I'm thinking a voiceover would be helpful, since the video lacks its original context.

On a related topic (not intending to hijack the thread--just expanding on it):

One of the local churches here does a daily devotional on the local (secular) radio station. It uses cute little parables with a Gospel message and closes with, "Brought to you by Our Savior Lutheran Church." I really like the emphasis on the message, not the location.

So here's my idea for a video, and this is just off the top of my head, so I know even the idea needs some work--maybe it'll give you some ideas, Rob.
The following people are sinners: (photos of people from the church, ending with "YOU"), but (Image of Christ, the cross) God loves and came to save (Same photo series & YOU). (photo of congregation) The forgiven sinners at Super Awesome Church want you to know that you're not alone.

The idea needs some serious work, but you get the gist.

@Pastor Dale,

Thanks for your comments. That is not a stock photo - it was taken on one of the mission trips to the people living in the garbage dumps of Mexico City. I would have to agree that the clip and the word salvation don't match up at all.

@All,

I think I'm coming to the conclusion that if you're trying to create an informational piece to (ahem) communicate what people can expect at your church, it's going to be marketing. The best hope at that point is that it has been created for those who are looking for info, not to bombard those who don't really want to know. (Which is what business marketing and advertising are all about.)

So, again it's a matter of context. Let me ask this question: so what if a video on a church website has a commercial feel to it? It's not going to lure someone away from the church down the street if they never come visit your website to find out more about your church. If they've come looking for information, they're already discontent, and yep, some of those people will still be malcontents when they come to the next church, because people enter one church the same way they leave the previous one.

I think I'll settle for considering it bad marketing to be going headhunting, but there's nothing wrong with presenting a church in the best (and by best, I mean honest) possible light when someone comes looking.

That being said, I've learned a lot from this thread about context and not expecting a piece of media to be universally suitable. In fact, I'm thinking that the video we're discussing should be moved under "About Us" and the maybe the "Media" section should contain videos that teach and uplift, which would match better with the Podcast section, and the content of our TV and radio broadcasts. That's a whole new direction to ponder.

Micah

hey all...
I thought I'd throw out another example to get some reaction. I wrote this script and shot it before we started having this conversation (and I didn't change anything in editing). So, it's not at all tainted by the comments here. Since we've learned that context is so important, this will be shown at all of our church's Christmas Eve services (live) and never used anywhere else (website, etc). The reason it's being shown is because Christmas Eve has the highest number of visitors out of any day of the year, so it's intended to be 100% visitor focused.

I think this one is interesting to me in relation to this discussion because the blatant purpose is to advertise the new upcoming sermon series. So, advertising is the point. But personally, I don't think it feels like advertising, although I'm biased since I created it. I'll be interested to hear what you all think about it and how it relates to the above discussion. Does how something "feels", whether it's advertising or not, make a difference? Let's hear what you think....

Feature Central looks all warm and cozy. Our fireplace is nice, but the way it is set up just doesn't quite set the same mood.

Christmas Eve is a great time to throw something like this out there. Most of your visitors don't have a home church, so you're hitting a great target audience. Those that do are visiting with family, so you're not likely to be "stealing" them away from other churches.

I like the editing. The close-up and the pause work. You know what's coming before he says it, and you get that same feeling when the phone rings and you just know before you pick it up that something's not right. You're fooling yourself as you reach to answer it, but somehow you just know.

It's pretty somber for a Christmas Eve service. If it disrupts the mood of the rest of the service, it might not work out so well. That would really be my only concern about it. If placed properly in the flow, capturing people while they're already in a contemplative mode, it could be incredibly effective.

It's not offering anything that can't be delivered. Christmas is a time when people reflect on what's really important in their lives. It's also a time when more people commit suicide than any other time of the year. The current state of the economy, especially in Michigan, has people more rattled than usual. This promo offers a message of hope that comes not from this world, but from the only source of true hope. It opens up an opportunity for lives to be changed.

This whole discussion of church marketing has been challenging, but as you can see from my last comment, I've landed in favor of it, provided that the motives are correct, that it's honest, and it's backed up with a genuine and realistic presentation of God's message. If you want to catch more fish, you've got to throw your net in the water.

Micah

Thanks for the comments micah, I'm glad you think it will be effective for the intended audience. As far as mood, this is almost totally the mood of our Christmas Eve services. Evening services (dark outside), candle lit, super mellow and warm. We did this style so it would fit right in with the rest of the service (us Lutheran's don't get too crazy on Christmas Eve :) )

As much as I appreciate the critique (especially since it's positive), you didn't really answer the question I was asking (and maybe you didn't really have an answer other than "it's fine!"): Even though this piece has the purpose of advertising, what separates this from a TV commercial? What makes this "communication" vs. flat out "marketing"? (maybe your answer is 'nothing, it's the same thing') That's really what I'm interested in...trying to flesh out this difference between the whiz-bang and Christian communication.

Thanks again....

Hey Rob. I really like the video - well done. One suggestion is lighting - the shadow of Pastor Rob's glasses on the side of his face is distracting but it's a small thing. The scripting and shooting is very nice.

Your question about what makes it communication vs marketing is one of semantics I think. I can say I'm just communicating Jesus and you can say I'm marketing Him. Some people worry and others say they are 'concerned'. It's the same thing. :)

communication - the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs.

I think when we say marketing we really mean advertising in this context. Here's the definition.

advertising - the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., esp. by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc.

What is the technical, literal difference? One is an exchange of thoughts (2-way) and the other is bringing attention to something I have that you want or need (1-way).

Here's my counter question - "Why is it wrong to advertise Christ or His church?" An advertisement for Coca Cola lets me know which store has it and how much it is. An advertisement for the church lets me know where the answers to my life problems are and how I can get it. There's no cost, of course, but it's a similar thing.

Instead of asking what is the difference between communication and marketing/advertisement I think we need to focus on what we are promoting with the various methods. On the one hand we are promoting Christ and the answer to "How can I deal with curveballs?" and on the other hand we may be promoting "Our church is more cool than that other one because we rock out!" (No, I'm not talking about Micah's video! Just one that we don't to emulate.) What about the intent of the piece? Is it to get the lost saved and to show the uncertain they can rely on a power mightier than they are or is it to get more people with no regard to how we get them? I think with very subtle changes you could turn the curveball ad from sincere Kingdom building into a church-growth-at-any-cost piece. That is the difference as I see it... not just style.

By the way, to reiterate, why can't we advertise Christ? Surely when Jesus told the healed guy to go tell the priests about the miracle it was a form of advertising - getting the word out. There were other times when Jesus said don't tell anyone about it and I'm sure there was a situational reason for that. Of course, Jesus had insight we don't necessarily have but still - everything has a time and place and IMO, there is rarely a bad time to tell people about Christ.