Why Video Conferencing Needs a Better Story

By now we know a lot of details about why HD voice calls are better than conventional phone calls. We've heard how the PSTN cuts off much of the audio range human conversation usually employs, making it hard to distinguish between fricatives such as s and f, and to understand people with different accents. We know that straining to fill in the words and phrases we can't understand produces listener fatigue and makes conference calls an ordeal.

All this information is evidence that the HD voice promoters have done a good job of getting the word out about their favored technology. But we don't have the same kind of information about why video calling is better than voice calling. The general assumption seems to be that everyone understands the benefit of video communication intuitively. In reality, understanding is limited, because detailed information is in short supply.

A recent survey put out by Global IP Solutions (GIPS) made a start towards rectifying that shortfall. The survey, conducted by Research Now, polled 1,200 business professionals in the U.S. and Asia. It asked whether they had used Web or desktop video chat or conferencing, and what types of video solutions they used. It also asked them how they considered video communication to be helpful, as well as about problems and concerns with the technology.

The survey revealed substantial cultural differences among the countries involved, which were the China, Japan, South Korea and the U.S. More important, though, it went beyond the standard pitch for video conferencing, which is that it produces big savings on travel costs during the recession. That's a savvy pitch, because it's easy for purchasing decision-makers to comprehend. But if it's the only pitch, it misses many factors that could make the video communication story more compelling.

Where the survey does mention reduced travel, it does so from the user's point of view. Specifically, it focuses not on cost savings, but on time savings. That's not to say that saving time doesn't save money, it's just harder to measure such savings than, say, those resulting from eliminating air fares and hotel bills. Either way, the value of spending less time traveling is obvious to overworked employees. In particular, the survey found it was the most important benefit of video communication to users in South Korea, where traffic jams make getting around even within cities an ordeal. But users in all the surveyed markets considered reduced travel time one of the most helpful results of communicating by video.

At the same time, users in all the markets found three factors involving inter-personal relationships to be collectively more important than travel as reasons to use video. The factors were: clear communication and understanding, understanding subtle cues, and building relationships. These are of course just the kind of reasons that bottom-line-oriented executives love to shoot down. But that might be less likely to happen if the executives had been hearing messages as precisely targeted as those promoting HD voice.

Some insights from Scott Wharton, CEO of video conferencing provider VidTel, may point the way to developing such messages. Wharton recently described some specific ways in which his company has found video makes communication more effective. One is that it helps get emotional content across more clearly, which is especially useful when giving employees either positive or negative feedback, i.e. praise or constructive criticism. It is also, Wharton added, a good way to get someone's undivided attention: Multitasking, by chatting, emailing or accessing Web sites during a call, is difficult while one is visible to the other callers. Video conferencing may in fact conceivably shorten meetings by forcing everyone to concentrate. And there are undoubtedly plenty of other such specific benefits waiting to be identified.

An increased emphasis on such benefits could make the case for video communication stronger than it has been to date, showing that the technology has actual worth, even if it's not necessarily easy to measure. After all, just because it might take a complex consultant study rather than a simple spread-sheet calculation to pin down the dollar value of improved inter-personal communication doesn't meant that the value isn't real.

Comments

[Larry Lisser]

Robert: Excellent post and very valid points raised, particularly about placing value outside of hard numbers (ie. travel costs). While managing emotion-driven discussions are best done when one can watch body language, it is so true that the bean counter will lose interest in this quickly.

It may be that not until we see re-worked packaging/messaging (from the video conferencing leaders) that clearly focus on non-travel business processes, will we this change. Or until we see third party companies evolving that sell - for instance - 'selling' or 'hiring' software that happens to be powered by video.

We are seeing this shift in voice. Where once buyers were sold minutes of voice communications (and bought it on savings only), now buyers are increasingly offered packaged services that address business processes (ie. Ifbyphone for automating Marketing; or SayHired for automating phone screening). The buyer is no longer buying minutes, but improved business processes that in some way save or make them money - that are powered by voice.

I expect this similar evolution in video, although not soon. For the moment (and rightfully so) the sellers are focused on travel savings because it works. And we'll need companies like VidTel to expose interoperability to allow for true user-to-any-user video.

Thanks for the post.

[Tsahi Levent-Levi]

While I do see where you're going with it, and even share your view (I am using such systems myself, coming from a company that develops video conferencing infrastructure and endpoints) - I don't like that last one - the lack of multitasking that comes with video conferencing.
That said, I don't really see that much, as I tend to decide on each interaction if it is going to be a video call, a voice call, an instant message or a simple email.

Tsahi

[Bryan Johnson]

Great points and I agree that video offers substantial benefits for some meeting situations. With that being said you must understand your client on the other end of the line (as said in the comment above). If the relationship warrants, there is no substitute for an in-person meeting. Most times a call will suffice.