Does every church need two websites?

[David Gillaspey]

Hi all,

One of the issues that gets overlooked with regard to church websites is the question, Who is the target audience? I myself firmly believe that church websites should be evangelistic -- they should be focused on meeting the needs of unchurched people. I believe that excellence in graphic design is an important part of that. Other people, equally firm in their convictions, focus on church websites as a tool for discipling members, building Christian community, etc.

Is it possible for one church website to meet the needs of both unchurched people and churched members? I note that Saddleback Church doesn't attempt it: Saddleback has one website for unchurched people, www.saddleback.org (http://www.saddleback.org), and a second website for members, www.saddlebackfamily.com (http://www.saddlebackfamily.com).

One church website that appears to be trying to reach people at all stages of their spiritual journey with one website is Grace Community Church (http://www.gracecommunity.info) of New Canaan, CT. Note how the navigation links are divided into four categories: Explore, Connect, Listen, Grow.

Anyone know of other examples?

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[JackWolfgang]

One of the issues that gets overlooked with regard to church websites is the question, Who is the target audience? I myself firmly believe that church websites should be evangelistic -- they should be focused on meeting the needs of unchurched people. I believe that excellence in graphic design is an important part of that. Other people, equally firm in their convictions, focus on church websites as a tool for discipling members, building Christian community, etc.

That's a really good question.

Is it possible for one church website to meet the needs of both unchurched people and churched members? I note that Saddleback Church doesn't attempt it: Saddleback has one website for unchurched people, <a href = "http://www.saddleback.org" target = "_blank">www.saddleback.org</a>, and a second website for members, <a href = "http://www.saddlebackfamily.com" target = "_blank">www.saddlebackfamily.com</a>.

Saddleback has the resources to deal with two websites. Dare I say, that a lot of churches don't have the resources to deal with one let alone two web sites. Right now, I am at a small church in Southwest Georgia, and I am working on our website (not ready for public consumption). As far as I know, I am the only person in our church that has the passion (read that desire) and abilities (computer skills) to do a church website (that sounds really boastful, and I don't intend it to be. It's the demographic. Our church is in a small town in Southwest Georgia.).

One church website that appears to be trying to reach people at all stages of their spiritual journey with one website is <a href = "http://www.gracecommunity.info/" target = "_blank">Grace Community Church</a> of New Canaan, CT. Note how the navigation links are divided into four categories: Explore, Connect, Listen, Grow.

This looks very good. To me the idea of one site on one domain with multiple sections makes more sense to me unless the member site is going to allow interaction and participation. But the Saddleback site appears to do that through the My Saddleback link on SaddlebackFamily.com.

[crowsfan85]

Heal Your Church Website had a similar discussion recently.

Check it out: http://www.healyourchurchwebsite.com/archives/001345.shtml.

[JackWolfgang]

Heal Your Church Website had a similar discussion recently.

Check it out: http://www.healyourchurchwebsite.com/archives/001345.shtml.

Nick--

That site comes back 404 for me.

[crowsfan85]

Whoops my bad. Looks like phpBB added the period to the end of the link. I fixed it above and here it is again. Sorry about that.

http://www.healyourchurchwebsite.com/archives/001345.shtml

[djchuang]

Should have checked here before I blogged my wandering thoughts (http://www.forministry.com/equip/blog.dsp) about this important subject -- who is the customer, aka target audience, of a church website. :)

For churches that have the manpower to pull off 2 completely separate websites (Saddleback was cited as an example), that's a good way to do it. But for most churches, I'd venture to say it'd be a good thing to keep in mind both audiences -- those who are "outsiders" (potential visitors, those outside of the church's local community, even people in the church's locality but not attenders of the church) and those who are "insiders" (attenders and members of the church).

On the handful of church websites I've worked on or with (or have access to statistics log to review), much of the website traffic went to the "about us" and "contact us" page. This suggests to me that people go to a church website to get information, and to find a person to talk with or correspond with.

Secondarily, the church websites traffic (those I have had access to) went to [1] calendar of events and/or programs/ministries, [2] and then to sermon text/audio (depending on the popularity of the preacher/teacher).

Lagging behind that, trafficwise, would be online conversations like message boards.

This suggests that more people want to get information to events and messages than having online conversations or being a part of "e-ministry".

dj

[David Gillaspey]

I came across another church with two websites today: Beaverton Christian Church in Beaverton, Oregon.

Website for visitors: http://www.bcc.org

Website for members: http://www.bccfamily.org

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[JackWolfgang]

As I think about this more, my concern is that it makes the church look like an exclusive club rather than a place that welcomes people with open arms.

However, I can see the reasoning behind doing it, but the question is should the member site be less public than the public site?

[David Gillaspey]

I've only seen a few examples of churches that maintain different sites for visitors and members. I don't think the member sites are any less accessible, or even meant to be any less accessible (no logging in is required for the most part), than the visitors sites. It's just a matter of allowing the church to devote appropriate content to each site.

Anyway, there are many many examples of church websites (with content for everyone) that have some content that requires a member to log in to access. That does have a "club-y" feel to me.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[HansR]

It's just a matter of allowing the church to devote appropriate content to each site.
I volunteered under a pastor who's mantra was to "Do few things and do them well." Nowhere does this appear more ignored than on the web. Saddleback has the resources to pull off two sites, many churches do not. Having a second site is fine, but in most cases time would probably be better spent optimizing the site they already have.

[mk_elliott]

Rather than have two web sites, it seems to me one can create an access point (read that: ?Home page?) that is evangelistic, with a link to the Members portion of the website.

[David Gillaspey]

Rather than have two web sites, it seems to me one can create an access point (read that: ?Home page?) that is evangelistic, with a link to the Members portion of the website.I agree. In fact, there are quite a few church websites that have member logons, which presumably get you into the "members only" portion of the site. (That does seem a little like an exclusive club, as Jack pointed out.) However, I certainly wouldn't say that, generally speaking, on church websites with member logons, the rest of the site is necessarily truly evangelistic in nature.

There's a certain parallel here with the so-called "worship wars" of the late 20th century. Some voices maintained you could do a "blended" service that pleased everyone: both those who like traditional worship as well as those who like contemporary worship. Other voices said you would just end up making no one happy. Therefore it was better to have two distinct services, one traditional, one contemporary.

As I've point out (by listing examples), a few churches appear to have made the decision that a "blended" (so to speak) website isn't effective. These churches appear to have made the decision that they need to have two websites with separate audiences. Churches like Saddleback have the resources to do that, however. Most churches are fortunate to be able to field one quality website.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[David Gillaspey]

Rather than have two web sites, it seems to me one can create an access point (read that: ?Home page?) that is evangelistic, with a link to the Members portion of the website.Good idea.

Here's a website design company that's starting a new division it calls "Church 24/7": Mustard Seed Studio (http://www.mustardseedstudio.com/247/247.html). I mention it here because the company makes the following claim:

"... We also offer two websites in one! We divide your site in two sections: First Time Guests and Members. This makes it easy for the first-timer to get right to the information they are looking for without wading through mounds of pot-luck suppers and other areas that aren't meaningful to the first-timer."

Great idea, I think.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[zzyxxe]

My church is tiny, so I have always had the opinion that my target audience members are members of my immediate community. Sure, someone in my community could visit and read a fancy website in another state, but no matter how wizbang that website is, that website will not nurture that person's relationship with Christ. Therefore, it has always been my opinion that the most important function of a church website is to present a face in the community that will bring locals in. The members of the body of Christ will help guide a person's walk with the Lord, not the website itself :)

-Zzyxxe!

[flutem3]

<The members of the body of Christ will help guide a person's walk with the Lord, not the website itself.>

But if that website could pull just one person in and expose him/or to the Glory of God, what a joyous thing that would be!

The church is the people. The website is the outstretched arms of those people saying to everyone, "Join us in the house of the Lord. You are welcome wherever you are from, whatever your background, whatever you have done it the past. Come with us, meet Jesus, and learn to know Him."

If each website could accomplish that one time, what a glorious thing it would be!!

That is what I think about...I do not claim to know the answer, however. But the question is always present in my mind. How do we do just that?

[David Gillaspey]

My church is tiny, so I have always had the opinion that my target audience members are members of my immediate community. Hi zzyxxe,

Most church websites are indeed focused on their immediate community, but "immediate community" includes believers and unbelievers. So, is your church's website focused on the unbelievers in your immediate community, or believers/members?

Is it possible for one church website to do both? Some churches, it appears, have made the decision that the answer is no.

Now, while I've agreed with you that church websites usually focus on their immediate community, at the same time, it's important to remember that websites can be viewed by people from another city, another state, or another country. The same can't be said of a yellow pages ad for your church, for example.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[flutem3]

David wrote:

<Now, while I've agreed with you that church websites usually focus on their immediate community, at the same time, it's important to remember that websites can be viewed by people from another city, another state, or another country.>

I agree. And it is fascinating how many countries end up on our website for whatever reason. In the last year, we have had visitors from Spain, Australia, Italy, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Norway, Canada, Brazil, South Korea, Singapore, and the greatest number is from the Philippines for some reason that I cannot fathom.

However, the joyous part is that I heard from a pastor in the Philippines who is trying to get a website going for a church which doesn't yet have electricity! This is one very optomistic man. He says it will come, and when it does, the website will be ready.

No matter how "local" we think our community is, the truth of the matter is that "local" in this day and age means global. Our websites traverse the universe.

[Bob96]

I don't believe that Jesus really segregated the crowds for his public discourses into two groups, the "unknowing" and the "knowing" or those who are in the "family" and those who are to be considered "outsiders". He shares a very revealing parable regarding this matter in his teaching on the "four soils" in Luke 8:4-18.

Note what he says in verse 8:

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Although he had to later explain the meaning of this parable to his disciples, who were apparently slightly dense (note that the core group of them were fishermen, not farmers), the parable was told to the entire crowd.

I believe that a church's messages on its website are best shared with the whole world. Non-belivers may be blessed by the evangelist statements, come to a saving faith in Jesus, and note what the congregation and the people are doing and chose to get involved; and the believers and active members can be constantly reminded and taught by the basic messages of "good news" that should be the foundation for all they are doing in their various services and programs. Too many active church members don't even know the basic steps of conversion and salvation or what to briefly say to anyone who is interested in a personal relationship with Jesus.

Note also what Jesus said in Luke 8:19-21. He didn't give members of his family any status of preference regarding who would get an audience with him.

This is what I am trying to do in our church's website at http://creekwoodbc.org.

Sincerely,
Bob96

[generalhavok]

Our church site recieved visitors from over 50 countries in 2004...whether we like it or not, we have a responsibility to provide resources to those visitors. Having lived in a town of 2600 people, I understand the idea that your church reaches only a small geographic area...but when you put up a website, you INSTANTLY change everything. I'm working furiously on our site to provide helpful information and tools to EVERYONE who visits, regardless of geography.

No offense to anyone, of course...but wasn't the Great Commission about bumping into people first and then making them disciples? If someone called a small Idaho church (like my former church) and asked how to become a Christian, I strongly suggest that someone there would be happy to tell them. Why do we struggle with the same thing online?

[zzyxxe]

Are the "50 visitors from other countries" actual confirmed visitors? Most of the hits my website gets from other countries are from webbots.

--Zzyxxe!

[zzyxxe]

Now, while I've agreed with you that church websites usually focus on their immediate community, at the same time, it's important to remember that websites can be viewed by people from another city, another state, or another country. The same can't be said of a yellow pages ad for your church, for example.

Thanks for your insight! I have a "This week" simple calendar on our main homepage that once listed the names of events using the "in-the-know" names that members of our church used. I've now changed them to more generic terms for non-members... e.g. "Youth Sunday School" instead of "BUZZ group".

--Zzyxxe!

[generalhavok]

Yes, they are...my stats package makes a distinction between automated visitors and regular visitors. I find it fascinating that the content of our websites can be, and is, read around the world. What better investment can we make with spare time and almost no money in reaching these people for Christ?

[flutem3]

At least some of my visitors are from the countries I named because I know who they are. And I also have site statistics which weed out the "botted" responses. I agree about the outreach. Whether we want it or not, as long as we have a website, we have outreach. I guess the only way not to have that happen would be on an office network or something of that nature.

[David Gillaspey]

I have a "This week" simple calendar on our main homepage that once listed the names of events using the "in-the-know" names that members of our church used. I've now changed them to more generic terms for non-members... e.g. "Youth Sunday School" instead of "BUZZ group".You raise a really good point. In my research of church websites, I've often come across websites that list ministries by "insider" terms. As you point out, it's better to use more generic terms that are understandable by visitors.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[cwgraves]

I agree 100% that there are at least 2 distinct target audiences. What most church webmasters do is put Christian terminology on the home page of their site and any non-christians don't stick around to read pages designed just for them!

I think we need to rethink the designs of our sites. You have 3-5 seconds to grab someones attention. If they don't already attend your church, they won't stick around to see the fancy flash animation or the 2GB of useless graphics.

What if we make the home page a fast and basic as possible, while still looking professional? Welcome the unchurched crowd and point them in the directions they should go. The church members who use the site will be told where to go, or there could be a "members" link somewhere on the menu or header area.

Now, for search engine positioning, it is better to have more than one domain with links pointing to the other domains. It just helps give you a higher rank.

If you do it correctly, having 2 sites is no more difficult than having a single site. The complexity is uploading the code to the correct place. Once the design and content is done initially, it doesn't take too much time to maintain them.

If you are spending a lot of time maintaining your site and think having 2 sites is too resource intensive, then you need to talk to someone about redesigning your site with a database backend. All of my church websites are database driven and take only a couple of hours a week to maintain content.

[lbradley]

After doing a lot of research about reaching out to the community with our website and hearing all the ideas that our church ministry leaders had for our website, I decided that having two websites was essential. I get lost when church websites are too busy. I am from a church of 1000 people with hundreds of ministries/activities happening all the time. There is no way I could synthesize the two goals of the website and provide links to all from one Home Page.

My question is... when creating two websites, should you have a launch page that allows people to choose which direction they want to go, such as: http://www.northpoint.org/. Or since "Splash Pages" are so frowned upon, should I just have our home page be the visitor site, with a link to the "church family" site on the home page.

Lisa

[David Gillaspey]

... should I just have our home page be the visitor site, with a link to the "church family" site on the home page.That would be my advice. Follow the leader: http://www.saddleback.org!

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites