Much in the way social media has acquired quite the blemished patina from passersby touching it, curiously, like a golden knickknack, the so-called 'virtual alternative' to business travel is a concept everyone has been, quote-unquote, "touching" for some time now. Everyone brings it up in meetings and committees, so I wonder how many are doing it or using it? I also wonder if maybe they shouldn't?
I work on the technology end of the travel biz; naturally, I'm an advocate of hopping planes and meeting folks in the flesh. This inclination, however, puts me at odds with telecom and video gear champions who believe that the gee-whiz glories of audio- and video-type conferencing will replace at least some portion of old-fashioned business travel. Granted, I've also worked in the enterprise telecom space, and pitched my fair share of video conferencing to prospects and existing clients. Given my experience, my take is that yes, there's a time and a place for video and virtual conferencing technology. But methinks it is a narrow time and a small place. Let me explain.
Perhaps my favorite cultural reference to video-conferencing is the oddball prognostication contained in David Foster Wallace's highly recommended postmodern novel "Infinite Jest." Just for fun, what follows is a summary from a literary criticism blog by Scott Esposito of Conversational Reading.
Wallace spends about 10 pages describing the rise and fall of the video-phone industry. Basically it works like this: First consumers flock to the technology. However, they soon notice the drawback — now the person you are talking to on the phone can see you. Consumers realize too late that the phone's best illusion, that the person you are speaking with is paying attention to you, and vice versa, is shattered. Even worse, consumers develop horrible complexes about appearing ugly on their video phones. Soon new technology enables users to "upgrade" their appearance, and this idea runs away until eventually there is an entire industry built around providing fake appearances to hardwire into video-phones. At this point people realize that for all intents and purposes they're right back where they started, voice-only phone communication, and the bottom drops out of the video-phone market.
Of course, what actually transpires in the novel is hilarious — but not altogether impossible — involving a brisk new business on high-priced "masks" used by callers to optimize their video appearance.
Back here in reality, most of us with day jobs have experienced how virtual sessions using WebEx or video conferencing systems from such vendors as Tandberg or Genesys have not done what quite we expected them to do. At the street level, these tools didn't become cheaper alternatives to in-person meetings; instead, they became cumbersome and expensive conferencing sessions. Why? How? Here's how and why; and since I'm on a literary kick, I'll opt for the second person, singular, famously utilized by Jay McInerney in "Bright Lights, Big City":
Now, here's where it gets ugly, and I don't mean ugly like you're tempted to wear a mask for some of your colleagues. Video conferencing gear runs up to $60,000 USD or more per each location (up-front, install, maintenance, upgrades, etc.). Video is bandwidth-intensive, so you're gonna need to up your on-site bandwidth to at least a fractional DS3 if you want to use that stuff convincingly — and when you're not using your video stuff, of course you're still paying for the circuit monthly. Add to that your internal IT infrastructure costs of staffing, training, and so, to operate and maintain this stuff and you'd better take a good hard look at the comparative costs of your managed travel program. You also need to look at the types of work scenarios (like those described above) and their frequency of occurrence to justify this kind of investment.
This is not to say there isn't a place for virtual and video meetings — of course there is. Demonstrating the user interface of a new tool to an existing customer is a great opportunity to use webinar-type sessions, and this happens a lot. In the academic and research space there are many occasions for an important live presenter to reach a broader audience via video and interact with participants who have important and challenging questions. But my claim still stands: this marketplace is smaller than the hype would have you believe. That special space between "not important enough to travel for" and "too important for over the phone" is just not that big, and really not all that special.
Now stop playing with that gold thing. It's actually only brass.
Meaning the closer you get, the worse it looks.
Road Warrior • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on LinkedIn