In the domain of church audio, we face many decisions. Sometimes we must decide which is preferable among numerous options, and sometimes it’s a simple binary notion of deciding between only two options. We employ numerous mechanisms to help us navigate to the correct choice — among other things, we seek sage advice from trusted experts, we sit down and create matrices to quantify features vs pricing, and we deploy the classic technique of creating a list of pros and cons. Sometimes the correct course of action is clearly and unambiguously revealed with very little effort, and other times we can’t quite get there without rending of garments and gnashing of teeth. Deciding whether to purchase or rent equipment can be one of these trickier propositions, but if it’s approached with logic, facts, and honesty, the right course of action can be teased out.
Just Justify!
Why should we even consider renting gear? First, every expenditure of any kind must be legitimately justified. We can’t just frivolously waste resources that we’re entrusted to carefully steward. Not to dwell on this topic, but in far too many cases in far too many churches, a person or persons with access to the purse strings sometimes autonomously decides that the church should have some widget, and then finds ways to justify the expenditure, legitimately or otherwise. For better or worse, rental offers instant gratification and can seem less expensive (whether it really is or not). If careful budgeting and frugal saving can be circumvented to acquire some coveted Bright Shiny Object immediately, it can be tempting to choose rental when a later purchase is actually the correct choice. By the same token, a brief rental (one that doesn’t require a lengthy contract) may reveal whether the Bright Shiny Object was actually necessary or just a passing fad. But it seems to me that it’s preferable to only acquire technology that’s actually necessary for operations, whether via purchase or rental. Even if renting gear that proves unnecessary is a less costly mistake, it’s still more costly than simply eschewing the acquisition altogether.
Presuming that we’ve carefully assessed our inventory, measured it against current and future needs, and concluded that equipment acquisitions must be made, then our next question is indeed whether rental or purchase is preferable. I would submit that there are two major considerations. First, with what frequency will we use the equipment we’re proposing to acquire? As churches, we’re all aware that there are a number of annual events outside of our normal weekly services that may require additional technology above and beyond the stuff we use week-to-week. For instance, there’s a fair-to-middling chance we’ll have an outdoor service for Easter. In a substantial number of cases, moving the main P.A. system from the sanctuary to a city park is simply impossible — the only plausible solution is a portable system, and if we don’t own one, rental becomes a necessity.
One might argue that it makes more sense to purchase and own a portable system, but if it ends up gathering dust in storage for most of the year, it could be said that we’re not stewarding the resources effectively. On the other end of this same spectrum, let’s say we are in a portable church situation, in which the P.A. is used literally every weekend, even though it’s not permanently installed. In this scenario, it would appear that a permanent purchase is in order. It emerges pretty clearly that the issue at hand is the frequency of usage, and the rule of thumb is that rental is more attractive in the case of technology that is not intended for frequent use. This is particularly true for specialty gear that serves a less-common purpose on occasion, but is not necessary for typical week-to-week operations.
The second major consideration ought to be pretty obvious — the actual cost comparison. It can be tricky, because it involves prediction and speculation on things like lifecycle, depreciation, and pricing fluctuations, but we must still do our best to try to accurately (and honestly) assess the true costs of ownership versus the costs of rental. Theoretically, renting equipment gives us the peace of mind that the gear will be functional and absolves us from spending money (and time) on repair and maintenance — if we rent stuff, it’s just supposed to work, and if it doesn’t, it’s not our responsibility to fix it. Alternatively, if we purchase something outright, it becomes our responsibility to keep it functional, and that increases the true cost of ownership. The result is that the sticker price for purchase understates the actual cost. It can be very tricky to try to predict how much repair and maintenance will cost over the life of the product. If the manufacturer has a great reputation for solid gear that just keeps on working, that cost will probably be lower than a product from a company with a lesser reputation (and usually that means that the more solid gear will bear a higher price tag).
Buy Nice
And then there’s the similarly tricky notion of predicting how long the gear will last. Unfortunately, there are outliers in this scenario: sometimes great gear can still fail sooner than expected, and sometimes even cheaper gear can surprise us with a long life of service. The general rule of thumb is that the cheaper stuff is statistically more likely to break sooner. As a result of this phenomenon, a maxim has emerged in our world: “buy nice — don’t buy twice.” Let’s say there’s a device we need, and the high-quality version of it costs $2,000, but there’s a cheaper one that’s only $1,500. If it turns out that the cheaper one doesn’t quite go the distance and we need to buy another, we’re now in for $3,000, and there’s a reasonable expectation that the $2,000 unit would have gotten the job done for the expected period of time. That additional $1,000 of expenditure is not good stewardship.
Over the years, newer, better technology seems to come down the pike more quickly than ever. It seems like the advancement from version 1.0 to version 2.0 happened over the course of a year, but the advance from version 2.0 to version 3.0 happened in only six months (and the leap to version 4.0 may happen in only four months, or so it seems). If we choose to deem staying on top of new technology an important goal, and the technology is advancing at a breakneck pace, renting becomes a bit more attractive. If we are quite certain that this year’s widget will be quickly outdated, it may make more sense to rent, since we know we’ll want to pounce on the next version. This is obviously not true for all technology. There are parts of our system that may last years, maybe even decades (handheld dynamic microphones, for instance — some of them seemingly last forever!) But in the case of bleeding-edge gear that results from the latest high-tech research, this year’s purchase might be completely outdated next year — maybe even obsolete. One major consideration here is compatibility. I’m sure we’ve all seen situations in which the acquisition of one device requires us to update other related devices (and/or software) to keep it all running. These are cases for which rental can be more attractive.
The Bottom Line
It probably makes more sense to rent gear that would likely languish on a shelf in a closet most of the time. Outright purchase is probably the better option in the case of equipment that is to be semi-permanently installed and used with high frequency. Some of our technology seems to have become somewhat “disposable,” requiring replacement on an increasingly frequent timeframe. This technology is also a more likely candidate for rental. Do your homework, carefully (and honestly) assess the value proposition over time, and you can make better decisions going forward.
John McJunkin is the chief engineer and staff producer in the studio at Grand Canyon University.
