In the Church, we’re used to saving every penny.
So why would you ever spend extra money when you didn’t have to?
This might seem like anathema to many church cultures. I don’t think it should be.
Depending on who in your church does computer-intensive work like video, you might have different reasons to choose a more expensive machine.
In volunteer-driven churches, the currency you operate on is time. It really means a lot to people who give their time if the tools they use are bought with their time in mind.
Imagine …
Imagine two churches. Both are identical in every way, but in one church you work with a machine that just barely does the job, sometimes crashing and causing you to lose hours of work. In the other, you have a machine that easily does the job. In the second church, you’re likely done hours before you’d be done in the first. This means you can go home and spend time with your family. It’s a win-win. Your church gets the same video, but you get more time back.
If you’re single and don’t want the time, you still win because you can do those things that you wouldn’t have time to do in the first church. You can do things like color grading and effects that might have been otherwise cut from the project.
In a staff-driven church, the church is paying for the staff member’s time. A better computer, means that the staff member is more efficient. That means less overtime and more flexibility.
From a pastor’s perspective, a better machine might be helpful as well. Let’s say an emergency happens like an accident that takes the life of church member. It would be great to make a video honoring that person before the next Sunday. What if the video team would have had time to complete this emergency video in time with better equipment?
Time is Money
I used to not understand why anyone would ever pay more for equipment than they had to, but in light of what a person’s time costs, it can really make a lot of sense. Let’s say that you’re looking at two computers. Let’s say that one costs $1000 more than the other. We’re not talking about two netbooks here. These are production machines, so that’s not hard.
This might seem like a lot of money, but keep in mind that the person using the machine is being paid probably at least thirty times that much each year. The better machine is paid for by sixty-six hours of increased productivity over its whole life. That’s only five minutes a day over three years. Now, what if the better machine saves more than 5 minutes a day? Each additional minute saved pays for the machine even more.
Remember our volunteer-driven church? How much would it cost to replace the volunteer if he or she left? Let’s say you could get a college student for minimum wage. At $7.25 an hour, the additional $1000 for a computer is paid for in 10 minutes a day or less than an hour a week. If you value your volunteers’ time at more than minimum wage, it’s paid for faster.
A better machine can also save in frustration. I’ve sat in front of a computer wishing I could take it outside and beat it’s capacitors into resistors before. I hate having that feeling.
As a long-time volunteer, I can tell you that when my leaders try and remove barriers and frustration from my life, it’s appreciated. I don’t get paid, but when they try and do things to make it easier for me to server, I feel like they appreciate what I do and don’t take me for granted.
‘More’ Isn’t Always Better
If your church doesn’t have the money for better tools, that’s one thing. If you’re trying to be frugal at the expense of people, that’s something else.
Don’t automatically assume that a better computer (or camera, mixing console, etc.) will solve all your problems. Just consider that something that seems a lot more expensive might actually save enough time to justify it’s expense when spread over its lifetime. Always consult with the people using a machine to make sure they think it will be useful.
Don’t forget “total cost of ownership” either. If a computer can do a job, but isn’t really made for it, you might spend all sorts of time tweaking settings to get the most of it.
This actually happened to me last week. I spent an hour deleting old files so that I could do some video work. If I had a client paying me for that time, that would have been time that was wasted, time that would have been hard to justify since I only needed 100 gb.
I don’t think the expensive route is always the solution. An expert can work wonders with little equipment and a novice can’t fully use professional gear. It’s a waste of resources to not match the tools to the craftsman.
Conclusion
Show your people that they matter. Get the right tools for the right job, not just the cheapest ones.
Have you ever felt like someone was choosing a cheaper tool over your time?
[Image via AMagill]
Peter Schott says
I think the last paragraph before the conclusion is important to keep in mind. It’s one thing if your people are really using their computers – heavy video editing, graphics work, spreadsheets. It’s a totally different thing if they just lookup information, schedule appointments, and so on. Yes, a faster machine might save them a couple of minutes over the span of a week, but would that have made a huge difference otherwise? For people who really use them, get them the better machine, but for your average worker that’s likely going to be overkill and wasted money.
I appreciate the rest of the thoughts and they make sense when you need to do the sorts of tasks that do make a difference. Rendering video regularly definitely is a good reason for a better machine. π
Chandos says
I think it’s important to break that stigma that the church always has junky equipment. But also preventing people from thinking you’re spending too much on technology. At our church, all of the computers are over 5 years old, with continual crashes and downtime. I’m in the process of upgrading them, but it’s a drawn out ordeal.
Spending more money to make the machines last longer is a better ideal to me than buying the cheapest machine to do the job. Even if the people are just looking up info π
Paul Clifford says
It’s a balancing act, but I wanted to write this as a ready answer the next time someone in some business meeting said, “Why should we spend an extra $1000 for that computer when this one will do the job?”
I guess you can think, “Why spend $60,000+ on a pastor who went to seminary and has a lot of experience when a $20,000 college kid will do the job?” Barely doing a job isn’t the same as excelling at it.
Jason Bradley says
I think this post can be summed up to say “Get a Mac” π
Paul Clifford says
Not necessarily. Some people bought netbooks and regretted not buying a $450 computer instead of a $250 one (like my wife did). If you’re trying to edit video with a $300 computer, a $1300 might make things better even if both machines run Windows, Linux, or OS X. If you’re trying to do something that’s taxing for a computer, if you try and do a little more, you’ll run into problems. I guess I was thinking, “Consider your typical use and buy a computer that can easily handle that so that if you do a little more, you’re not going to regret it.”
Jason Bradley says
Agreed, but you any put a price tag on headaches. Going to the Genius Bar at the apple store is a much better experience than going to the geek squad at Best Buy. That’s only if you have any issues with your Mac π