There’s a good reason football teams review game film—it’s not just about chasing perfection. It’s about learning, making adjustments, and constantly improving. The same principle applies to church services. Without a structured review process, you risk repeating mistakes and missing opportunities to refine the experience for both the in-room congregation and online viewers. The old adage, “What gets measured gets done,” definitely applies here.
If your church doesn’t have a service evaluation process, I’d encourage you to consider implementing one. And if you already do but find it cumbersome or ineffective, you’re not alone. I’ve spent years in the church production world, witnessing both the best and the worst of evaluation processes. Recently, I connected with church leaders from all types of ministries—large churches, small ones, multi-campus operations, and those with or without online content. So while it’s impossible to hand out a universal method, there are a few good practices that can be adapted to fit almost any church context.
Understanding What the Target Is
Before your team can evaluate a service, they need to know what success looks like. Otherwise, you’ll end up with a room full of opinions and no direction.
I’m a big believer in mission clarity. In a previous article, I talked about having a “Mix Philosophy” for the audio team, where goals are clearly articulated. Just like the church has a mission statement, each production team—whether it’s worship, audio, video, or lighting—should have its own guiding philosophy that feeds into the larger mission.
One of my old friends likes to say, “If we don’t have a target, we’ll miss it every time.” And trust me, he’s right. Without a defined target, service reviews risk devolving into “I didn’t like that song” debates instead of productive conversations. Ask yourself: “Does this align with our core values as a church?” and “Are we doing this because it’s effective or just because every other church is doing it?”
Who Makes Up the Evaluation Team?
In my experience—and from recent conversations with church leaders—the consensus is clear: keep it small. Even in large churches, the most effective service reviews don’t happen in a room filled with people eager to dissect every detail. A friend of mine, who runs a successful church consulting firm, says it best: “Never have a meeting with more people than you can share a pizza with.” Now, maybe that means one pizza or maybe you need two—depending on the appetites involved—but the point is, limit the crowd.
This doesn’t mean you exclude key voices, but you want department heads or team leaders who can take feedback and pass it on to their respective teams. This way, you get the necessary information without drowning in opinions that don’t push the needle forward. Keep it lean, keep it productive, and don’t let it turn into an open mic night.
Take a church I’ve worked with—four campuses, two Creative Directors on staff, and an army of volunteers. Their review process happens every Monday, where they evaluate video captures of services from each campus. The Directors rotate weekly, being on-site at different locations to stay aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their teams. This kind of structure ensures that the evaluation is more than just critiquing what went wrong. It’s focused on coaching, improvement, and strategic feedback. Yes, they could probably use more hands on deck (what church wouldn’t?), but they make it work by trusting team leads to distill and implement feedback without getting bogged down in endless back-and-forth.
A key takeaway? For small churches that think they lack the resources to implement a review process, consider this: a multi-site church with four campuses successfully evaluates their services every week with just two Creative Directors. It’s proof that you don’t need a massive team to make meaningful improvements—you just need the right structure and a focused approach.
I spoke with a medium-sized church recently that takes a smart, well-balanced approach to service evaluations. Their core team consists of four production and worship leaders, but they routinely invite a non-production staff member who attended Sunday’s service—okay, time to add some cheesy bread to these meetings. What’s the point of this 5th wheel? The core team members are experts in their roles, but their perspectives can be too narrow. The “outsider” brings a fresh, unbiased view—similar to how the average congregant might experience the service.
In the Auditorium vs. Online
Here’s a crucial point: the only way to review a service is typically through a video playback—often from the live stream or archived footage. And that’s exactly where things can get tricky. When you’re constantly evaluating services through the lens of the online stream, you risk making judgments that ignore the in-room experience altogether. I see this happen all the time.
Most churches lean heavily on their stream reviews simply because they’re convenient. It’s easy to pull up YouTube or dig into the video archive and analyze every awkward transition, vocal imbalance, or shaky camera shot. But the problem is, you can’t rewind how the experience felt in the room. There’s no playback feature for the energy during worship or how smoothly the service flowed for those in the seats.
This is where having someone who was physically present in the auditorium becomes essential. They offer insight into the experience you can’t get from a screen. For example, something that seems awkward online—like an extended moment of silence during communion—might have been a deeply moving experience in the room. Online, it might look like “nothing’s happening,” but for those present, that “nothing” could have carried profound weight. Without this input, you run the risk of hyper-focusing on aspects that don’t actually affect the people you’re serving in the room.
The balance comes from evaluating services through two distinct lenses:
1) The in-room experience. Ask questions like: Could the congregation hear everything clearly? Were transitions smooth or jarring? Did the visuals or lighting complement or distract from the worship experience? Was the worship set engaging, or did it feel mechanical or rushed?
2) The online stream. Evaluate whether the audio mix was optimized for streaming. Was spoken word content too quiet compared to the music? Was there latency between audio and video? Were the camera shots intentional and engaging, or did they make online viewers feel disconnected from what was happening?
The key is not to let the perception of the online stream overshadow what’s happening in the auditorium. Yes, the online audience is important, but the people physically present—those you can see and hear reacting in real time—are the heart of the service. If you lose sight of them, you’re focusing on the wrong scoreboard.
Balancing Accountability with Respect
Most churches rely on a blend of staff, contractors, and volunteers for worship and production teams. It’s rarely one extreme or the other, and understanding these dynamics is key to running effective evaluations. Accountability is important, but how we approach it depends on the role—paid staff, contractors, or volunteers. Regardless, respect must be at the core of every conversation. Even behind closed doors, team members should be honored. This isn’t a gripe session, and as far as I know, there’s no verse in the Bible that says, “Thou art just venting.”
A healthy evaluation doesn’t always require finding something wrong. Sometimes, it’s about celebrating what went right. The best teams know that striving for excellence means recognizing growth, not nitpicking perfection. And here’s the reality: excellence looks different depending on the level of preparation. A team that holds regular rehearsals will naturally have higher expectations than a team that doesn’t. Your definition of a “win” should be directly proportional to how much time and resources are invested in preparation. Check out my previous article called, “Our Love/Hate Relationship With Rehearsals”
Keep the Best, Throw Out the Rest
Don’t waste time dwelling on one-off mistakes. If your veteran audio engineer misses a cue and the pastor’s mic comes on late, trust me—they don’t need a reminder “not to do that again.” It’s painfully obvious, especially to the person who made the mistake. As long as these blunders aren’t becoming a pattern, have a quick laugh, and move on.
The real value comes from identifying patterns. Is there always a dead zone during transitions? Does the online stream consistently have audio dropouts or awkward camera angles? These are the issues that deserve attention. Recurring problems indicate systemic gaps—maybe a workflow issue, a training gap, or a miscommunication that’s tripping up the team.
Think of these meetings as strategic—not reactive. You’re not there to rehash every small glitch. Instead, you’re zooming out to spot trends and areas for growth. By keeping the focus on what’s fixable and impactful, you can improve processes without creating a culture of fear or defensiveness. Don’t make it about placing blame; make it about moving forward.
Ad Hoc Evaluations
In a previous article (Church Audio, Any Complaints?), I covered how to handle feedback—both constructive and otherwise—from the congregation. If you’ve spent any time in church production, you know complaints come with the job. When I asked a Technical Director friend whether these comments should factor into service evaluations, he said something that stuck with me: “Even if an outside observation doesn’t hit the bullseye, it might still be close.”
In other words, don’t dismiss feedback just because it’s not coming from an “expert.” Sometimes there’s a nugget of truth buried in that opinion, and it’s worth digging for it. That said, I’m always skeptical of sweeping statements like, “Everybody is saying…” Really? Is everybody saying it, or is one person saying it loudly and repeatedly? Evaluate the source, but don’t overlook potentially valuable insights—sometimes, an outsider sees what the insiders miss.
How to Disseminate the Results
Some churches send out weekly post-mortem emails, while others only reach out when something goes wrong. Between the two, I lean toward the weekly email—but if your email is a weekly takedown of everything that went wrong, you’re going to crush morale. Honest feedback is important, but so is encouragement. If every week feels like a crisis recap, you don’t need better emails—you need better systems.
Emails should come from team leaders and avoid vague phrases like, “Leadership would like more…” Instead, make it personal and balanced. Highlight wins like, “Let’s continue to capture those creative camera shots and keep transitions smooth.” Own mistakes when necessary: “Great job, CG team, for keeping up when I skipped the second verse—that’s on me, but you saved the day.”
Whether you’re sending weekly emails or addressing specific issues as they arise, keep communications short, positive, and actionable. If something requires direct feedback for an individual, have that conversation privately. This ensures you build trust, foster growth, and maintain a culture of collaboration—not one of constant correction.
Until Next Week…
One crucial key to a successful meeting is knowing when and how to end it. With that said, I will conclude this article with these thoughts:
Evaluating your church services is a long game—it’s about continuous growth, not perfection. Build a process that fits your team’s structure, keeps conversations productive, and prioritizes solutions over blame. Celebrate progress, listen to outside perspectives, and balance online perception with the in-room experience. When you approach this with humility and clarity, you’ll see results where they matter: better services, stronger teams, and an engaged congregation.
And remember, you don’t have to get everything perfect, but you do have to keep listening.
I’d love to hear how your church approaches service evaluations. What’s working? What isn’t? Shoot me an email—I’m always up for a good discussion. You can reach me at rcochran@worshipfacility.com.
