2025 Rock Integrated Services Survey

Feedback on WiFi Presence (Front Porch) highlights appreciation for the concept and potential of the tool—particularly its promise for tracking attendance and engagement through WiFi integration—but also reflects recurring challenges with reliability and implementation. Users note that technical issues often stem from hardware compatibility and frequent updates by device manufacturers, which can disrupt functionality. While the pricing is considered reasonable and the support team is well-regarded, inconsistent performance, evolving device privacy restrictions (especially from Apple), and a diminishing use case have led some churches to question the long-term value of maintaining their subscription. Overall, WiFi Presence is seen as a promising but currently under-optimized solution.

Feedback on Church Online Platform (ChOP) reflects strong overall satisfaction, particularly with its reliability, ease of use, and value as a dedicated platform for online church services. Users praise its intuitive interface, interactive features like chat and prayer buttons, and consistent performance, especially for churches with robust digital teams. While many churches have used it since the early 2010s and describe it as a top choice for online ministry, others noted occasional scalability issues during peak times and expressed a desire for deeper integration with Rock RMS. Some have shifted to platforms like YouTube or use ChOP more sparingly, citing underwhelming Rock integration, redundancy in logins, or evolving digital strategies. Nonetheless, most consider it a valuable, dependable tool for streaming and community engagement.

Feedback on Missional Marketing is highly positive, with users praising the team's helpfulness, expertise, and willingness to go the extra mile—especially in areas where internal technical skills may be lacking. Churches have found them particularly valuable for training staff in church-specific communication strategies and for running effective digital campaigns, such as Easter ads. While some noted that Missional Marketing could improve their familiarity with Rock RMS, their support in SEO, website optimization, and overall partnership has been consistently well-regarded.

Feedback on Subsplash is mixed, with many users recognizing it as a solid solution—especially for smaller churches—offering user-friendly mobile app capabilities, media tools, and basic website features. Churches appreciate its ease of setup, reliable support, and recent progress in improving Rock RMS integration. However, limitations around flexibility, customization, and data syncing have led several organizations to outgrow the platform or begin transitioning to Rock Mobile for more advanced functionality and tighter integration. Some users expressed frustration with account transitions, plugin shortcomings (particularly for financial features), and a perceived shift in focus toward monetization. While still seen as a viable plug-and-play option, particularly for churches with limited tech resources, many users now view Subsplash as a temporary or stepping-stone solution rather than a long-term fit within the Rock ecosystem.

Feedback on Differential (Apollos) reveals a mix of strong appreciation for their innovative approach and partnership, alongside significant concerns about technical and data issues. Users value the team’s forward-thinking mindset, solid customer service, and the features offered by the platform. However, several respondents expressed dissatisfaction with high costs, limited customization, and problematic app behavior—including data integrity issues like duplicate records and incorrect birthdates. Some also noted a lack of seamless integration with Rock RMS and difficulty in resolving issues, which led at least one organization to transition to the Rock-native app. Overall, while Differential is seen as a capable and visionary partner, experiences with reliability and integration have been inconsistent.

Feedback on Studio C is largely critical, with users expressing concerns about its high cost, limited value add, and reliance on full access to the Rock RMS database—raising security and operational concerns. While some appreciated the aesthetics of Studio C's templates, many felt the functionality it offers can already be achieved within Rock itself, given the right internal resources. Users also noted a lack of deep understanding of Rock's capabilities by the Studio C team and questioned the return on investment, citing minimal differentiation and a significant incident where their Rock instance was accidentally taken offline.