Posted by admin in Clover Sites provides flash template templates for churches and ministries. They currently have a dozen to chose from. The web-based CMS is entirely managed through flash and lets users create and use many of their features, such as online calendar, sermon module, the ability to create Up to 8 Main Pages and sub pages under these.
Web Standards: NO (Learn why all flash sites are bad.)
SEO Friendly URLS: NO (Because the sites are entirely flash, links are not used.)
Syndication: NO
Unique Design: NO
Web Based: YES
(Learn about these at Church CMS Ranking)
I’m really bothered by the rediculous statement, “…all Flash sites are bad”. When I click your link, it brings up a site that hasn’t been updated since 2002. Website design and technology (by your site’s title, it seems you consider yourself an expert on) has grown by leaps and bounds since then. If a Flash site is designed properly, the client will enjoy all the benifits of a static HTML site and more, including search engine indexing.
I am a Flash developer, so statements like that drive me crazy. Using very common techniques, I can design a site so that all the content from the site can be accessed by regular web browsers, search engines and even mobile devices (ex. http://www.creativechurchconference.com). So, almost all visitors will get the information they need (users who disable javascript lose out on Flash sites AND “Web 2.0″ sites).
Making irresponsible statements like yours just makes it harder on a lot of designers, and scares uninformed clents away from some of the wonderful things only Flash can provide. Please join the 21st century and get over your fear of Flash.
Boots - Although there are great improvements coming from Adobe on Flash, we still adamantly stand by our position that all Flash sites are a terrible decision for churches. We love flash and when used properly believe it is a wonderful and powerful way to make sites beautiful and rich in their presentation.
On this post we used Clover sites which use this type of poor all-Flash presentation which does not allow people to dig deep into their site and share this with others, people cannot save links, these sites will be very difficult to be discovered by search engines and so (as they are marketed to many church plants on a budget) will cost people visitors who will never see these sites.
Certainly the investment you make to overcome the challenges help, but there are still too many limitations in an all flash site for a church for us to recommend.
Whether or not Flash is inaccessible should not be the only concern. While many users are blessed with high speed internet, just as many are not, which is the case with my church. Since going to Clover Sites and their Flash based CMS, the page takes several minutes to load on dial-up, compared to the 20 seconds or so with our old, static HTML design. Granted, the Flash looks pretty, but it’s ridiculous how long you have to wait.
@ admin
Disclaimer… I work at Clover and ran across this post. I agree that Flash inherently creates issues that the average web guy cannot work around when it comes to creating content that a search engine sees, but then again, we’re not average web guys here at Clover. Our system uses Flash as the interface, but you’ll see that any page someone creates is actually viewable by search engines. For example, Google “link:www.cloversites.com”. You’ll get a list of churches that link back to our site. Next, grab an address and Google “site:www.NameOfACloverSiteHere.com”. You’ll instantly see all the pages of the site… basically everything that Google sees including the text that a user enters. Search engines don’t even see a Flash site. Cool huh?
Flash gets a hard time when it comes to SEO, but Clover just breaks the rules… actually, we’ve rewritten the rules.
@ Cody
If you’re complaining that Flash is terrible on dial-up… um, you shouldn’t be online. If you’re driving a Pinto you should stay off the Autobahn.
Clover’s got a neat little basic cms, but here’s what you need to keep in mind:
1. You need to be savvy to use it. This isn’t for the church receptionist. It’s easy enough for an interested teen.
2. Unfortunately, this is the definition of “cookie cutter”. Very few templates with very rigid customization limitations. This is why one can change between a few colors and layouts easily. And, given the few designs, the odds are you might have the same Clover site as the guy down the street or in the next town.
3. The clover site itself looks like the image here if you don’t have flash 9, which my ff didn’t have. So, worst case, you have to install software, if you hang around.
4. Very limited features, though I’m sure they’ll be working on it over the next few years.
5. No mobile version.
6. Not translatable to other languages.
7. Not accessible.
8. Limited pages, again due to the cookie cutter nature of the product.
9. The initial impression is good as far as the flash interface, but users coming back want content, and the flash is a bit cumbersome with all of its transitions. It’s actually annoyingly slow to go from page to page, and hopefully you don’t need to search for anything. Sitemap?
10. No stats.
11. No ecommerce or online giving.
12. No blogs.
13. Only 13 cookie cutter designs right now.
14. For cookie cutter, $1000 is very expensive.
[...] AdvancedMinistry Church Community Builder ChurchSites Church Web Works Clover Sites CMS [...]
Good point, iPhone and other mobile phones do Not Support Adobe Flash. I believe Mobile browsing will only grow in importance.
Hey there-
Normally I don’t really post on blogs, but we had a customer call today asking if some of the points made on this post were true… I’m one of the creators of Clover, so I thought it would be good for you to hear the truth about Clover straight from the horses mouth (not that I’m calling myself a horse). So I’ll address each of the concerns/issues:
1. All Flash Sites Suck- This might have been true 8 years ago, but times have changed: http://www.speakingofclover.com/2008/07/the-lowdown-on-flash/ (not to mention there are some pretty horrendous HTML sites out there too… Especially in the church world).
2. Need to Be Savvy to Use It- We have never had someone call asking how to use our interface, and we don’t have an instruction manual. If that’s not easy to use, I’m not sure what is.
3. Sucks for SEO- Not anymore. We changed the game: http://www.speakingofclover.com/2008/06/search-engine-optimization-in-flash-really/ (by the way, iPhones and mobile devices see this version, too!)
4. No Stats: Normally flash sites don’t handle stats well, but again, we’ve changed everything: http://www.speakingofclover.com/2008/12/get-statistics-on-your-site/
5. No Blogs or e-commerce: People like Word Press and Blogger have spent millions of dollars and man hours creating a great blogging platform, and we really believe in using each tool for what it was created for. Just link your blog to your church site (not to mention it’s better for search engines). We might eventually create a “tithing module” and shopping cart, but there are great tools out there. On http://www.cloversites.com we have a huge list of resources to help you out with these kind of features.
6. Different external links (www.yourchurch.com/page1)- You’re right. That feature will be coming in the next round of updates to the greenhouse (along with a TON of other features).
7. Slow/Cumbersome- Our average site size is about 100K (which loads in under a second on a typical internet connection). If you notice, we actually don’t even have loading bars on our sites! On a normal modem connection, it should take between 10-15 seconds, which is faster than Yahoo.com. Cody unfortunately has an extreme issue, and we’ve tried our best to help him.
8. $1000 is expensive- The reason we got into this business was to equip churches. It would be stupid to create something that meets their needs that they couldn’t afford. We ran a custom website company before Clover, and had some pretty big clients. If we were to create any of our pre-designed sites for them from scratch, we would have easily charged somewhere around $20-$25K. Allowing churches to share the same framework drops the cost to 1/25th the price. So whether that’s expensive to you, I’m not going to be the judge… But the question is value.
Bottom line: You should use the right tools for the right things. If you are a blogging church, get a Word Press blog. If you want social networking, create a group for your church on Facebook. But if you are looking for a great looking website, that anyone in your church can manage, Clover is for you.
@Jim
That was really imformative, I personally thing that the Clover sites are the most amazing thing since slice bread, and if i had the money I would be using it to create a website for my design and creative work.
I have told my church, and i’m hoping they’ll get involve, only it more expensive in AUD$
is there anything else the same??
Thanks Mel
As a pastor in a church of about 500, we do not have all the resources available. Staff is one that we need more of. I do student ministries, video, audio, graphics, programming and web design for our church. Clover has allowed me to hand off the website to a volunteer to update at home. Instead of needing to be fluent in HTML, or own additional software, my volunteers are able to update what they need and in all actuality not screw anything up (too bad). Clover is an amazing resource for the church and it is only going to get better and easier. $1,000 is a small price to pay to get a lot off my plate and allow a non tech savy stay at home mom serve her church.
Sorry admin but you’re wrong about clover.
TechPastor - I agree that Clover has a product that is great for many churches. We’ll take a look at it again but the previous understanding was that a lot of it was ‘hard coded’ with top level navigation limits, page limits, etc. Certainly non-technical people will easily use this product but I imagine many churches will have needs that go beyond the capabilities and limitations of Clover. Again, Clover is a product with pros & cons just like every other product on the market. So people need to evaluate what they are getting, their current needs and their future needs when they decide to commit to a CMS.
Thanks, I hope people read all these posts and upon review select Clover if it’s the right fit for them. We are all on the same team so may God get the glory and the Kingdom expand!!!
Hey Guys,
I bought a site form Clover in December for my investment company. I suck at web interfaces and had little time to devote to the site, and wow! Praise God and Christ above! I have had nothing but a great experince with it, for me and my clients. I am extremely impressed with the quality and dedication of this company. Thanks CLOVER!
I think they charge $1000 to tie you in for a couple years, because you, most likely, will outgrow what they offer sooner than 2 years. Clover sites, being so limited in what they offer might serve as a limited brochure-type site, or might serve as a short-term event site, if you have the bucks. Given their limited functionality, they advise creating a mashed-up offering as the best way to go, which it’s not if you’re concerned about branding. Also, their sites don’t translate to mobile. You might be presented with text that you have to zoom in on and scroll horizontally back and forth to read it all. And, if it’s SEO friendly, I’m not sure why they don’t show up higher in search results. While flash-based front-ends are not new, their flash CMS is slick…but your website visitors aren’t using the cms; they’re viewing your content. When you’re trying to view content, all the flash-based transitions and such just get in the way. That my 2 cents. Have a good one.
I wanted to add that I posted the above on a couple blog’s clover discussions to add what I consider a very valid critique to the hype about flash-based website products.
Someone said I’m grinding an axe, but no. Really. I posted that blurb as a very valid critique of some aspects of their solution, and certainaly the claim that $1000 is priced for ministries. None of what I said is invalid? You can test the product and load it onto a mobile browser yourself to see this and really think about owning the same flash site a year down the road. Besides, for your church, there are plenty of solutions starting at a cost of free that offer more long-term benefit that are non-flash. I used to build business sites, and I know how site owners can be initially googly-eyed for animation…before realizing more serious needs. So, while I agree that this solution may work for some, my experience says it’s not a long-term solution. That’s a brotherly perspective as something to consider. That’s all. I’d really like to see them beef the product up and offer a non-flash site option (maybe toggleable) and lower the price. That’d be cool…and appropriate for the mobile web. In Brotherly Love.
I am currently looking for a solution to our website
A concern for me is that most of the critique on clover is based on non current information, Ie long loading times and non seo compliant issues. which If you read jims response has been addressed.
No one gives any examples of solutions starting with a cost of free that offer more or the same as clover.
Many arguments about owning a clover flash site are the same for any HTML site that isnt managed or updated regularly.
Im looking for a solution but I cant see that anyone can offer anything better than clover in ease of setup, maitenance and ongoing upgrading and increasing their features and at the same or less cost for someone who would have to get someone else to build it whereas I could easily manage a clover site without buying new software or buying updates or the like.
Kind regards
David
Let me whole-heartedly vouch for Clover as a great solution for your church. The techy ignorance espoused by some in this discussion is frustrating. Clover actually understands ministry. If a church can afford to spend $10k on a website and has the staff to maintain it, then obviously they won’t be looking for a solution like this. But for EVERYONE else, there are two key factors in a church website. It needs to look good, and it needs to be easy to update often and quickly. Everything else is secondary for ministry. Clover solves both of these problems beautifully. Their design ensures it will look good if you have any graphic art skills at all (a requirement for any site). And it’s easy for anyone to be trained to update the text and calendar. Yes there are some limitations right now, most notably that you can’t link to pages within your site. This will be solved soon, but for most churches this limitations is a small price to pay for what they’re getting. It’s not worth it for a church to spend $100 on a template somewhere that doesn’t really look that great and is hard for them to maintain, just so they can link to pages and customize other aspects (which they don’t have the technical know-how to do). No, get Clover now and have a very good website while you are small. You can always pay and get more later. Clover is rescuing a lot of churches from mediocrity.
A few comments to things said above: 1) It’s a big world, and HIGHLY unlikely any church near you will have a site that looks like yours. 2) Our site comes up #1 on a search for our name. Just saying. 3) $1,000 is so cheap for something that looks good. 4) It’s a web 2.0 world, and those who care about the website have computers and connections that can handle it. Our website isn’t for old people, and they don’t expect it to be. 5) Finally, upcoming updates will make everything even better, solving the issue of linking within pages.
Jump into Clover feet first, churches! You won’t regret it - we sure haven’t.
Does it strike anyone else that clover sites work similarly to a powerpoint presentation? Just hit me after looking at two of their sites that had the same template. Click on a link, the background photo changed, maybe some scrolling text. It seriously could’ve been a powerpoint presentation. There wasn’t much I could do except scroll through text on each page or look at a different photo. Just my 2 cents.
I guess this is the place to be to discuss clover.
Some of the zealous comments here strike me as either being by Clover staff or Clover “friends” or faces of Clover or Clover flip phone winners. It’s no biggie guys. Let people air their thoughts, bro’s. :) Interestingly, the angriest (and/or youngest) of you seem to be the clover fan-people.
Nate, what church are you from, so we can test a search?
- Many providers out there can and do build sites that look good and DO NOT require “graphic arts skills”. The reason Clover sites DO require art skills is because the photos (or “slides”, Dan, I agree) are the only graphic elements in most of their templates and need to skill to be sized, cropped and positioned properly to look good and had better be GREAT photos since the “look” depends on them. That’s fine if you have the skill. Set aside a few hundred $$$ budget for good stock photos.
- Nate, While branding is important, and “looking good” is ONE PART of that, you may be missing the time-tested point that CONTENT IS KING. Not even you, Nate, if you’re a casual user, have any great reason to return to a clover site, unless you’re the one making the updates. If anyone goes to a Clover site for a visit, is there a compelling reason to return to it? I haven’t found an example of that. I truly think such a site would be short-lived. If you go to http://www.fueleveryday.com/, tell me why I’d ever revisit it after that. Probably not for the calendar. MAYBE for a sermon. So then, the point becomes, is this basically an online brochure for visitors? Sorry if anyone else said that already.
- It may be a web 2.0 world, but clover sites are NOT web 2.0 sites by a long shot. I don’t know of any web 2.0 aspect that is included in the clover product. In fact, their long sheet of recommended partners that offer the more critical web functions you’re going to need (email, blogs, social networking, store, giving, etc) speaks to that fact. It’s fine if they don’t want to include those things in their product for sake of simplicity, but it sure isn’t web 2.0.
- Not for “old people”? I take it you’re young. That’s fine. What should we provide to the “old people”? :)
- Try e-zekiel or churchmedia.cc or discoversky.com if you want to save some money and get good design.
Regard,
Lewies
Unrelated Signature Quote:
Let’s get people in the church and TEACH them about Christ, not make them entertained zombies.
I just purchased a clover site and I love it. They do have a mobile which is cool and for our church this was a great investment. I don’t work for clover or anything like that but I will say. I stand by their sites and am very impressed by the fact that they are developing new features that they offer you freely, which the last company did not. Flash or not I fully endorse clover.
Hi,
I stumbled across this blog on google. I personally, having read the comments checked out a site that some friends of mine bought from Clover, its a Christian Summer Camp in South Carolina. I typed in what most people would search for in google i.e. Summer Camps South Carolina. And it was on the first page and in the top 10! I’m sorry but i think your idea of knocking Flash is ridiculous. I think your forgetting that a lot of churches got have a huge budget for a flashy looking website. Flash can and is searchable if your clever with it, in the programming. I am not a website designer so i know i’m out of my depth here. But i am the viewer and i look at church sites. A website says a GREAT DEAL about at church and people who are moving to a new church almost always look around on the internet for perspective churches. You cant deny that if you stumbled across a church using Cloversites you would be impressed and at $1000 its brilliant. I think you are being too hard on Clover. Also you got to remember its about GOD and Clover are doing just that. I say there should be more sites like Clover, mots people cant use dreamweaver or doing HTML or JAVA scripting so Clover is perfect for them.
I hope i haven’t upset anyone with me opinion that wasn’t my intention. I i feel quite strongly about this. Don’t put people down (inc there work), encourage more professionalism in the creative media with Churches!
It just struck me as I was doing research, that some trends do not bode well for Flash at all. I wish a good Christian company the best, but as for my church, I now have some new concerns.
One thing to be concerned about with all-Flash sites and the Clover product, now obvious after the introduction of the iPad, is that Apple does not like Flash or Adobe for reasons of business model and will be seriously pushing HTML 5 over Flash. Apple believes Flash will die within years. So, I’m not sure where that will leave the Clover product. It may well have to revert to the same html-based solution other, more mature CMS products offer. Or, they may have to stick with the much-lesser mobile version for iphone’s, ipads, and any other future Apple products, possibly soon including Mac desktops…and PC’s if Microsoft goes the same way.
Here’s what Steve Jobs says about Flash:
“Apple does not support Flash because it is so buggy, he says. Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it’s because of Flash. No one will be using Flash, he says. The world is moving to HTML5.”
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/01/29/behind-the-adobe-apple-cold-war/
http://webtrends.about.com/b/2010/01/29/why-does-apple-hate-flash.htm
http://bx.businessweek.com/adobe-systems/why-does-apple-hate-adobe/15595089364765778010-20c867a820a4b1cefa01d8945f896586/
Google and Microsoft pushing HTML 5 too:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10355860-265.html
Youtube and Vimeo experimenting with HTML 5 to replace Flash player:
http://www.funkyspacemonkey.com/youtube-beta-html5-replace-current-flash-player
http://www.trulyfe.com/forum/technology/79166-web-html5-replace-flash-future.html
Just something to think about.
I meant to ask, any expert thoughts on the Apple/Adobe war?