January 25, 2009 - 4:33pm
Twitter and the like are web
Twitter and the like are web 2.0/social networking services.
The thing is people are there. And you're never sure who is where. But one thing is that just as in real life, the likelihood of "outsiders" hanging out at your church building is slim, same goes for your own church website. It's really the ability to move your church beyond it's walls. And yes, your own website is still your own - behind a "wall" in a way
So, using Twitter and YouTube and the like is crucial because you meet people where they are with your message. How else would they come to know what or who your church is?
January 26, 2009 - 1:30am
January 28, 2009 - 12:21pm
Blogs seem best on a
Blogs seem best on a congregation's website, but the more I think about it, Flickr seems to be the place to go for photos hosting.
Problem, though: I like the idea of YouTube for video, but then at the end, it offers suggestions for related videos. You may not want those suggestions. And GodTube defeats the purpose. Is there a video hosting site that doesn't show links at the end of the clip?
January 28, 2009 - 12:39pm
January 28, 2009 - 2:22pm
So, I got to thinking the other day...
I am a big believer of "in house" content. Basically, if you have the ability, host your church blogs on your own domain... do it. If you have the ability to host your photo galleries on your own site... do it. Keep stuff in house. It helps drive traffic to your site.
However, there are some services that can not be hosted in house for many... such as live streaming of video, twitter, ect... And, it's also good to go out and share with those who might not be in the church "loop".
So, my question is, what is your churches web presence off your own site?
As for us, we have an in house photo gallery, but I mirror to a Flickr account. We have the ability to host our own videos, be we also mirror them on YouTube (short videos) or Stickam (sermons). We also have accounts with GodTube, UStream, and Twitter.