countdown videos: a critique

I was at at 13:3 youth event last week. It was excellent. I’m so glad we took our youth group, even if the turnout wasn’t excellent (the starting time was a little prohibitive – we had to leave at 6:15 and we usually start at 7:30pm).

I’m super impressed by how Voice of the Martyrs has launched this initiative. It is engaging, well designed, has a solid presence on social media on Facebook (not so much Twitter – but how many 15-year-olds do you know who care about Twitter?) – well, ok, fine. I love the design. It gives me so much joy to see a group that knows that design will make a difference to communicating the message to their demographic. Which in this case, is about the persecuted church, and telling it to teenagers.

The event we went to was SO enthusiastically hosted by MBM youth and the band was great (if loud – yes, I’m old). The video spots were well produced, the speaker was inspiring and understandable.

And there was a countdown video just as it started.

It worked, ok? It got everyone involved in counting down the seconds till the event started, and they all yelled and applauded and it created atmosphere and unity and a sense of being part of something big. And I couldn’t help but think, if I was a visitor, or a year 7 kid, would I be worried at all of the people yelling around me, or excited? Would this be helpful, or just weird?

One of my concerns was we watched a video, sang two songs, and then the youth pastor got up to say welcome, and prayed “to kick us off”. But, what had we been doing up to that point?

Almost every youth event you go to will make use of a countdown video. There are whole categories and stacks of resources – some of them free – available. WorshipHouse Media suggests the purpose of a countdown video is:

“Countdowns are a great way to get your congregation to their seats on time, as well as build excitement as the service nears. Countdowns are a great service starter for “Big Church” as well as your Children’s and Youth services…”

Countdowns are about excitement, expectation and atmosphere. But countdowns are also about entertainment, performance and efficiency. Does this make church more like a concert or an experience than about God’s people meeting together?

Interestingly, it seems no one is talking about this critically. It doesn’t seem like people consider whether or not a countdown video is achieving what they should want it to. (On further research, the people talking about it are the ones selling ‘Church Media’).

Does it get the youth (or congregation) excited? Yes. Does it mean we start on time? Yes. Then do it. Really?

I enjoy a good countdown video. I’ve even made them myself (for other youth groups). But do they encourage community? Do they get people  to talk to each other? Do they encourage reflection on why we come to church, what we are there to do, focus us more on God?

[I’m not a gigantic fan of hillsong, but at least their video and intro sequences are all about the experience and are not messageless voids of ever decreasing numbers. I realise this is a conference intro, not a countdown video. And I think people are not concerned enough about how both work together.]

Or perhaps more critically, does it build on the idea that we must be constantly entertained? Does it contribute to the endless screen media we see, for no purpose than to fill the space? Does it remove space for awkwardness and humanness and transparency in our services? Does it create endless work in coming up with something new and engaging and fresh? Worse, is it becoming a church cliche (does your work meeting have a countdown video? What about your uni lecture? Ok, so fair enough – U2 have one…)

Have we appropriated this trend without due consideration?

clipart culprits: KYCK!

KYCK! The coolest youth conference around. Rockin tunes, sweet video intros, hipster hosts and 5000 teenagers…

Sweet design, new every year using this funky lil’ shape they’ve got. Video promos for next year’s conference. Hoodies. Flyers. Downloadable promo material for your youth group…

…and clipart.

Yep.

Just in case that’s a little bit small for your eyes, I found the actual image. It’s not even offered by Word in their 2010 Office Suite.

Its a Screen Bean. (Which apparently is a registered trademark).

This is a youth conference. The pinnacle of design possibility. The most receptive audience for things that are out there and at the edge of culture. So much potential for creativity! New ideas!

And nobody thought to vet the speaker’s slides.

Is your church prone to the ‘visiting speaker’s slides’ blindness for design kitsch?

the perils of literature reviews

According to my university, when undertaking research, I MUST:

Complete a proper literature review, where appropriate, to enhance the validity of the research; (UTS 2010, para 4)

To enhance the validity of the research. Interesting. I thought it was to poke me in the eye, and say “HAH HAH! Turns out your research subject isn’t as original as you thought it was!” then push you over so you trip and all the papers you carefully photocopied at the library scatter all over the dark, wet pavement, and you feel the hard grit in your knees.

On my research subject, much of my literature review fits into the following categories:

• thesis and other academic research documents, which are quite dry;
• trade journals on the topic of particular projects or trends;
• general marketing or other discussions which use church or religion as a side example; and
• news articles that write from a human interest point of view.

The peril of literature reviews is finding more information than you possibly could need; wanting to read it all and yet not having the time to absorb and reflect on the information. Without reflection, literature reviews are just a human Google search and index, with the most relevant first and pages and pages of more on the reference list.

One of the few theses that are actually interesting to read is original research into Visual Electronic Media Use & Worship Satisfaction. It suggests that while the rate of adoption of this technology (PowerPoint, video projection and so on) has been rapid across America (and I would suggest, Australia), there has been little systematic effort by researchers to document the growth of this technology and its effects – namely, whether or not the use of such media affects worshipers’ satisfaction with worship (Gilbert 2010, p. 16).

As useful as it might be for a research project to measure and record via a survey, how satisfied worshipers are with the worship experience afforded by visual media, I cannot get past the idea that in fact, it is built on a slightly, if not completely, flawed premise: That worship is about us, and our satisfaction.

Surely, if worship (in the olde English, worth-ship) is about ascribing value and honour to something, then despite the trappings that it finds in the modern church, it cannot be about us, except as we respond to God, and give him ‘worth’ and glory and praise. As someone said to me tonight at church, the question we should be asking is, is God satisfied with our worship? Does using visual electronic media help us to worship him better, or does it bring more focus onto ourselves and less on thinking of the Creator of the universe?

What’s your opinion?

Gilbert, R. 2010, ‘From icons to iPods: Visual electronic media use and worship satisfaction’, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses;  ProQuest