Tag-Archive for » live streaming «
Eeny, meeny, miny, moe
Face-To-Face or Virtual Go
My mother told me
To pick the very best one
And you are [not] it.
Often when meeting professionals consider whether to offer a face-to-face or virtual event, they feel as if the choice is best made by using a children’s counting rhyme.
You know…
Pizza, pizza, pizza pie
Offering virtual will cause our face-to-face to die
Or perhaps this is the rhyme you use. Get your fists ready.
One potato, two potato
Face-to-face galore
Hybrid or virtual
Which offers more?
Face-to-Face? Virtual? Hybrid? Which should I offer? The choice can seem daunting.
And understanding all of the dynamics involved with hybrid (offering both a face-to-face and virtual elements) or virtual events can be overwhelming. Heck, finding a common vernacular for virtual events is a maze itself.
Why? Virtual is a catchall phrase that encompasses a broad variety of terms. To the purists it only means 3D immersive environments like Eve Online, EverQuest, SecondLife, Virtual U or World of Warcraft. To others it means a high tech component that has a steep learning curve and unique software that must be downloaded–something most don’t want to do. Still to others it means something as simple as an online gathering of people.
Kelly A Graham, a Cisco System’s Virtual Events Strategist, says “A virtual event is a gathering of people who meet in online environment at a set time to acquire info, share, network and engage.” Using Kelly’s definition, a virtual event can include 2D and 3D environments, hybrid events, livestreaming, online chats, teleconferencing, telepresence, video conferencing, Webinars or Web streaming. In short, virtual is an umbrella term for any type of an event that is not face-to-face in person.
So figuring out the right mix for your audience can be overwhelming.
But won’t a virtual event cannibalize the face-to-face attendance? That’s the first reaction and fear of many.
And, it was the reaction of Mike Ray, Intel Americas’ North America Channel Sales Manager. Ray spoke recently on the Virtual Edge Summit 2010 panel: Learn How Oracle, Intel and SAP Extend Reach And Build Community With Hybrid Events.
In 2009, Ray decided to offer a hybrid event with both face-to-face and virtual live streaming components to his customers. His number one concern was if he did, would it cannibalize the face-to-face registration, costing more and reducing revenue. He and his team were concerned that the virtual element would deprive the company of vital elements, resources, and funding as less people opted to attend the face-to-face experience.
Ray said he now likens the decision to attend a face-to-face or virtual event similar to attending a baseball game. The choice: to watch a baseball game in person in the stadium or watch it at home on his large screen high definition TV.
His answer: “Depends.”
It “depends” on:
- Who’s playing
- How important the game is
- Where his seats are in the stadium
- How much his tickets would cost
- Who’s going with him
- Where the game is held
- How much is it going to cost to get there
- What the travel time would be
- What the weather is like
- What his schedule is like
Ray’s analogy has rich meaning for understanding how people decide to attend a face-to-face or virtual event. His baseball analogy identifies the criteria many use, often intuitively, when deciding to attend.
The attendee’s registration, whether face-to-face or virtual, “depends” on:
- Who will be at the event in person (both speakers and attendees)
- How important this event is professionally and personally to them as well as how unique the content and experience is
- Where the attendee will sit…is it a large event with more than 10,000 people so good seats are premium and they are going to watch the image magnification anyway or a smaller intimate experience
- How much the registration fee is
- Who in the attendee’s professional and social network is attending too
- Where is the face-to-face event being held…location, location, location…can the attendee do additional business in that location, can they bring the family and make it a mini-vacation, are there other things to do in the conference city, is it easy and quick to travel to
- How much is it going to cost to get there
- How long will it take to get there…especially in this day of long security lines, increased airport delays and constant flight cancellations
- Will weather impact travel, don’t forget 2010’s snowmageddon
- Can the attendee take the time off from work to attend the event
And did Ray’s concern about cannibalization of the face-to-face event ever materialize? No, just the opposite happened. Intel now has more people registered for the 2010 face-to-face event and for the virtual event than in 2009.
Engine, engine number nine,
Going down Chicago line,
Virtual, hybrid, face-to-face,
Which will win the meetings race?
What other criteria do you think people use when deciding to attend a face-to-face or virtual event? What is your experience with hybrid events? Share your thoughts.
I’m tired of well-intentioned adults slamming adults, teens and kids that text. Especially those that text each other while in the same room.
Is texting leading to the decline of relationships?
I’m sick of association and organization leaders knocking online communities, social networks and live chats as inferior to face-to-face experiences.
I’m also fed-up with event producers and face-to-face conference organizers bashing virtual experiences.
You know, you’ve heard and read these comments too. Here are a few examples.
- “I can’t believe my teen was texting his friend who was sitting next to him. Couldn’t they just talk to each other?” (Fess up if you’ve said that about your kids or grandkids!)
- “All this texting and online communication is leading to the decline of real human relationships.”
- “There is more power in live face-to-face events than in virtual experiences.”
- “Online and virtual experiences lead to isolation and people who engage in online experiences don’t know how to communicate in person.”
Why the harsh judgment against people who prefer to do something different from you? I don’t get it. It comes across as condescending, bullying and you just look like an outdated, moth-eaten, dust-covered prom dress stuck in the back of your closet. You show yourself as a crusty curmudgeon unwilling to face, or perhaps scared of, change and the unknown.
Then there’s corporate event producer Shelia Stack who has written three posts denouncing virtual meetings and experiences.
- Can Live Meetings Really Be Replaced By Virtual Meetings
- Virtual Vs. Live Meetings A Tale Of Two Trainings Part I
- Virtual Vs. Live Meetings A Tale Of Two Trainings Part II
Well, of course she disapproves of virtual experiences. She makes her money from producing face-to-face experiences. So, she’s denouncing her own competition.
And in case you think I’m picking on Ms. Stack and she’s a colleague of yours, then substitute the name of any event producer for her name. Or substitute the name of your boss, your parents, your grandparents or any person that denounces internet and mobile interactions. It’s not about Ms. Stack. It’s about the ubiquitous beliefs that she and others possess that online and mobile communications are leading to the decline of society. Ms. Stack is just willing to share them publicly on her blog.
Traditional Teens Texting Each Other Story As Reason Virtual Experiences Flawed
Stack shares the traditional story of two teens texting each other while sitting next to each other in the same room. And of course, adults were present to scream foul at this absurd habit. (Perhaps, just perhaps, these teens were texting each other about the adults present!)
Regarding the two teens texting, she says:
“…As you ponder the question this presents, the concerns it raises about our decreasing ability to relate to each other face-to-face, the increasing predominance of technology into every facet of our lives…also ponder this: Are you considering holding your next corporate meeting in virtual space?”
Whoa, that’s death by association if you’ve ever seen it. Death to the corporate virtual experience because of our increased use of technology and decreased ability to relate in face-to-face.
I posted a comment on her blog but she never approved it. Guess it was too biting for her.
Haven’t we heard these stories before, like those from the music, newspaper and media industries? Sounds familiar, right? Perhaps Ms. Stack should look at the facts and think about restructuring her business to include and embrace virtual experiences as part of the face-to-face experience. (For the record, I’m not an “either, or” kind of guy. I’m a “both, and” person and I believe both virtual and face-to-face experiences have a place! I say, long live the hybrid meeting! I also am a firm believer in using the best strategy and tools to reach your goals.)
Technology Use Does Not Lead To Isolation Or Poor Relationships
People said the same thing about other disruptive innovations such as CBs, the phone, television and email as they say today about mobile devices, social networks and texting. People cried foul that it was the end of live experiences, real communication and relationships. These new tools would end life, as we know it. However…
According to a new, November 2009 study from Pew Internet and American Life Project, technology does not lead to social isolation. Researchers found that online participation and mobile phone leads to larger and more diverse discussion networks. (Did you get that naysayers?)
“And, when we examine people’s full personal network – their strong and weak ties – internet use in general and use of social networking services such as Facebook in particular are associated with more diverse social networks,” the report overview says.
That’s right, mobile phones and online communities led to more diverse networks. Not a decline of relationships.
Regarding Face-To-Face Meetings Being Better Than Virtual
Ms. Stack chose some interesting words to describe face-to-face meetings versus virtual. She says, “Without live interactions the relationship goes cold.”
Whoa. No she didn’t just write that, did she? She is saying that without face-to-face meetings, the relationships go cold.
Is she saying virtual experiences are not live? Is texting not a live human interaction with another human? Are virtual experiences part of non-life, the living dead? (Yes, if you’re a parent of a teen, you think of your texting child as zombie like. They seem to be in the text-zone!) Is she saying that the only type of communication that sustains a relationship is a face-to-face experience?
What about families that communicate virtually with their loved ones in the military across the seas? What about spouses that communicate via text, email and phone during a day? Is she saying those aren’t valid, that they are lifeless and dead?
It’s still live interaction whether it’s face-to-face or virtual. It’s still “in real life.” Stop saying it’s not.
From the Pew Internet & American Life Project, “Our findings also suggest that there is little to the argument that new information and communication technologies decrease participation in traditional, local social settings associated with having a diverse social network.”
Regarding Online Social Networks And Communities
I’ve developed some amazing rich relationships with like-minded professionals though virtual experiences. I actually have a vibrant community of people online in eCommunites, FaceBook, Linked and Twitter that I turn to for real life interaction, advice and insight.
I would have never met these people at a face-to-face event because of sheer limitations of time and space. Now I want to go to face-to-face events to continue those relationships and be within the other’s presence. That’s driving me to attend the face-to-face event more than the content, or the speaker, or the tradeshow. Interesting how virtual is pushing me to face-to-face. These people I’ve met and communicate with online have become my core discussion networks.
According the Pew Internet and American Life Project,
“…Contrary to the considerable concern that people’s use of the internet and cell phones could be tied to the trend towards smaller networks, we find that ownership of a mobile phone and participation in a variety of internet activities are associated with larger and more diverse core discussion networks.”
H-m-m-m, ownership of a mobile phone and participation in internet activies leads to larger and more diverse networks. (If you’re a teen reading this and don’t have a mobile phone, there’s the leverage you need with your parents!)
Regarding Online Learning and Face-To-Face Trainings
By the way, there’s been plenty of research that shows online learning in virtual experience trumps face-to-face learning. Just read here and here and here to see for yourself.
So let’s stop the faulty thinking that virtual does not sustain a relationship or that it is not live interaction with another human. Let’s stop denouncing virtual experiences, admit that it’s here to stay and move to discussing how to integrate them for the best for everyone.
Whether it’s virtual or face-to-face, it’s still valid for today with valid communication models. And both have their place in today’s world.
Are you thinking about adding a virtual experience for your customers or members?
Perhaps you are considering adding a virtual component to your next conference or event?
Ian McGonnigal, Executive Director, Program Strategy at George P Johnson defines a virtual event as “… a gathering of individuals who meet through a computer-generated environment at a prearranged time in order to acquire knowledge, share information, interact with each other and engage in activities of common interest.“
Are you considering intergrating a virtual experience in your current offerings?
So whether you’re looking to create a virtual event or integrate a virtual experience into your current offerings, here are eight types of virtual experiences for your consideration:
1. Hybrid Event
A mix of face-to-face and virtual experiences usually running simultaneously which may include overlapping content and interactive elements to two different audiences, those present within the four walls of the face-to-face event and virtual attendees.
2. Internet Radio Show Or Interview
Also known as web radio, net radio, streaming radio and e-radio, Internet Radio is an audio broadcasting service transmitted via the Internet. Some Internet radios providers like blogtalkradio, offer social media platform integration, free recordings and podcasting applications.
3. Live Streaming
A continuous stream of data, usually video or other media, sent in compressed form over the Internet and displayed by the viewer in real time. The receiver uses a player, which is a special program that uncompresses and sends video data to the display and audio data to the speakers. Many Internet browsers have built in streaming players. Some conference organizers are creating hybrid events and live stream aspects of the face-to-face conference to virtual attendees. Livestream, Qik and UStream are examples of free or low-cost live streaming. There are a wealth of high-end live streaming companies as well (like Midori Connolly’s Pulse Staging & Events or Carrie & Mike McAllen’s Grass Shack Events & Media). Livestream, Ustream and Twebevent integrate live streaming with other social media platforms like Twitter or Facebook for real time chat.
4. Online Conference
An online platform that integrates webinars, streaming video and audio, discussion boards with RSS, file libraries and vendor showrooms. Often the online conference follows a similar format as a face-to-face conference, with attendees participating in real time or on-demand recordings. Some conference organizers are offering an online conference in association with their face-to-face event. Some conference organizers offer online conference social communities as an extension of a face-to-face event that may or may not include some of the online conference features like webinars, streaming video and audio. iCohere is an examples of a platform that provides online conferences. CrowdVine, NFi Studios’ MemberFuse, Omnipress’ Conference 2.0, Pathable, and Social Collective are examples of online conference communities.
5. Podcast
An audio broadcast that has been converted to digital, such as an MP3 file or other audio file format for playback in a digital music player and downloaded from the Internet. For some of the best meetings and event podcasts, check out Mike McAllen’s McCallen’s MeetingsPodcast.
6. Teleconferences
A conference of people who are in different locations that is made possible by the use of telecommunications equipment. It can be supported through telephone, computer, telegraph, radio and closed-circuit television. It is sometimes referred to as audio conferencing, telephone conferencing and phone conferencing.
7. Virtual Meeting
A live event or meeting held using a virtual platform, custom built or hosted in a 3D or 2D virtual world. InExpo, InXpo, On24, SecondLife’s Virtualis Convention Center, and Unisfair are a few of the companies providing real-time virtual events and meetings.
8. Webinars
Short for Web-based seminar, a webinar is a presentation, lecture, workshop or seminar that is transmitted over the Web. The information is streamed, live or on-demand, broadcasting the message usually from one source to multiple users simultaneously. Most Webinars, also called Virtual Seminars, offer interactive features with the ability to give, receive and discuss information. Some differentiate Webcasts from Webinars since Webcasts only offer one way data transmission from the presenter to the attendee.
I know there are others. What other types of virtual experiences would you add to this list?
Hybrid meetings and blended event experiences are the buzz of many organizations this year.
But, are they as important as some say or is it just hype? (Get ready, this is a long post. Stay with me, it’s has some interesting research though!)
Along with the buzz, you’ve probably also heard several reasons not to integrate virtual experiences into your face-to-face meeting. Here are some of the naysayer’s mantras:
- Adding live streaming or virtual attendance will cannibalize our onsite attendance.
- Virtual experiences do not promote networking and learning.
- It costs too much to add a virtual element to our annual conference.
- There are too many distractions for people attending virtual events.
- You can’t control the audience when they attend virtually and therefore the value drops.
- Virtual attendees start chatting with each other and don’t pay attention to the presenter. It’s just like they’re passing notes.
- The back channel is rude and disrespectful, and promoting it is a fail. It can be highjacked by spammers and inappropriate talk.
Whether it’s hype, buzz, concerns or complaints, here are four reasons, from recent studies, that show the positive impact on learning by adding virtual experiences to your face-to-face meeting or events.
Online learning of polylogues creates hyper time and increased learning.
- A 2009 Department of Education study shows that adults in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction. (Holy Kaw Batman. That can’t be true!)
- Giving virtual attendees control of their interactions with each other, the media and the content enhances learning. (That’s right, go ahead and lose control of your attendees. They’ll learn more without you in the way!)
- Online learning is superior to face-to-face instruction. (Wow, the U.S. Department of Education said that!)
- Source: U.S. Department of Education, Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies
- Research published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication shows that online a polylogue (multiple people talking with each other simultaneously) is better than a monologue (speaker presentation) or dialogue (turn-taking interactions).
- In face-to-face presentations, words follow words, paragraphs follow paragraphs, people’s thought patterns follow a single, one-way linear medium—the presenter’s speech–, which discourages flexible, open-ended, multidirectional and multidimensional thought.
- Face-to-face presentations demand that an attendee follow an authoritarian, straight-line, fixed point of view and the medium can become stronger than its content.
- Attendee engagement during a face-to-face presentation demands turn-taking interaction, a dialogue, where the process of taking turns may become more important than the message and comments may be out of snyc as a result of waiting for one’s turn. (We’ve all been there where we’re dying to add a comment, ask a question or ask for clarification. By the time we get called on to speak, we’ve forgotten what we were going to say or it’s no longer relevant to the discussion.)
- Virtual experiences where attendees can control their conversations and participate in polylogues of words and images increase learning and retention. (Ok, here’s the proof that chats, like Twitter chats are better than monologues or dialogues.)
- Source: Comparing How Students Collaborate to Learn About the Self and Relationships in a Real-Time Non-Turn-Taking Online and Turn-Taking Face-to-Face Environment
- Supersynchrony, as Dr. Davis Fougler calls it, allows attendees to control of level of synchrony with parallel interactions, which magnifies learning opportunities and retention.
- In face-to-face presentations, the majority of the interactions are between the presenters and the attendees, basically one-way and expert centric. Sometimes, presenters involve audience engagement yet conversations are still one-way dialogues between two people.
- Virtual experiences promote supersynchrony that creates hypertime, bending time so to speak, by allowing for additional data flow to the attendee and increased productivity. (There’s your new word for the week, supersynchrony.)
- Virtual or online presentations give attendees the ability to break and restore communication linearity. Participants can scroll back from the moment the statements was posted, while interacting presently in the here-and-now, resulting in several conversations happening all at the same time (which are archived for later use). (I know, go ahead and say that’s too much noise for you and you need to focus on one thing at a time. There’s a time and a place for that too.)
- Such hyper synchronous, multi-layered online interaction not only connects each participant in a web of discussion, it affords each participant time to respond during the online synchronous discussion and time to reflect and digest what was said in the archives. This increases interactivity, learning, retention and is a better than face-to-face learning. (For all those naysayers about Twitter chats, here’s the research to back it. Just because YOU don’t like it doesn’t mean that it’s that everyone doesn’t like it. Get out of the way and let your attendees interact with the content and each other.)
- Sources: Building Time Machines: Thinking about the future of interpersonal communication and International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Volume 6, Number 2.
- Hybrid events, blending virtual and face-to-face actually drive face-to-face event attendance and purchases.
- In 2009, Cisco Live, Cisco’s annual customer conference, had 10,000 people at their face-to-face event and another 4,400 with virtual experiences.
- Along with traditional back channel chats during presentations, Cisco provided live group video chats after keynotes specifically for virtual attendees to ask experts, Cisco executives, and speakers questions and to provide more in-depth discussions. These tools also allowed smaller groups of virtual attendees to break off into private chats and return to the larger chat as needed.
- 80% of the virtual attendees said they are likely to purchase a product from Cisco.
- 34% said they were likely to attend the face-to-face event because of attending the virtual experience. (Who wouldn’t like a 34% increase in face-to-face registration!)
- They had 21,000 virtual sessions views, 74 blog posts written and 4,000 virtual booth visits.
- Source: Once You Go Hybrid You’ll Never Go Back
My takeaways from these studies:
- Allow attendees to pick their learning preferences. It’s fine if someone wants to use a computer during an event, follow the back channel or just passively listen. Respect all.
- Event organizers must begin to create more networked learning and less monologues in conferences. Start thinking about adding “social” elements to the face-to-face experience.
- Event organizers should see events within the larger context of a community ecosystem including virtual and face-to-face experiences.
- You can’t control learning whether at your face-to-face or virtual event and you never did.
- Adding a virtual element to your face-to-face event, can have a positive impact on attendance at the next event. See virtual experiences as marketing for future registration, not something that discounts the face-to-face experience.
So what say you? If you’re still with me and read all of this!
Put this #eventprofs Twitter chat on your calendar, Thursday, August 20, 12 pm ET, 9 am PT. And set a reminder too. 
We’re going to discuss virtual events or virtual experiences as Paul Salinger likes to call them.
Here are some of the experts ungurus that are planning to attend so we can pick their brains on virtual events/experiences.
Midori Connolly, Owner of Pulse Staging & Productions
Michael Doyle, GM & Director of Virtual Edge Community
Brian Jeremy Kupetz, (Brian Jeremy), Director of Technology at JUXT Interactive, a George P Johnson Company
Cece Salomon-Lee, Director of Marketing, InXpo, Principal, PR Meets Marketing
I’ll be there as moderator. Will you be there?
Hope to see or tweet you there too!
Update: #Eventprofs Expert Paul Salinger will be there too! Yahoo.
Recent Comments