Share what you know with millions of people
Focus is the best place to turn what you know into remarkable content
0
Who is using desktop video conferencing?
A recent poll suggests than less than 10% of businesses utilize video conferencing each month. With the expanded field of computer based services starting under $50/month, I am puzzled why the take rate isn't faster. Have any of you tried computer video conferencing, and what was your experience? Who did you use and was it a good experience or bad?
Events
- Lead Nurturing 202: The Next Generation May 31 @ 11 am PT
- The Tricks to Paid Media June 6 @ 11 am PT
- Display Advertising for Brand Awareness June 20 @ 11 am PT
Related Activity
4 Answers
I concur with Tim and Anne. Having been a CTO over a hosted platform for webcasting at Vcall, delivering a one way broadcast medium (but still in the same vein as video conferencing) I found that most clients did not need video to disseminate the message, usually voice and visual aids (slides) sufficed. The video could at times be considered distracting, and the associated planning (forget the cost) also steered clients away. Those events that did use video were well planned and well executed, something that doesn’t often happen in an impromptu meeting.
At the desktop level, the video usually does not add anything to the voice and collaborative tools, so again, it seems unnecessary.
However, I have used it successfully and repeatedly to talk to friends and also to family when travelling - I do find that to be a compelling reason to continue to use video services. It doesn't mean I don't *want* to see my coworkers, just that I don't *need* to see them to have a productive meeting.
I think some businesses are not utilizing video conferencing becuase of issues that may have been encountered in the past (many of which have been corrected in the last decade), the assumption that costs are still very high (not the case anymore), and some are not sure how video conferencing should fit within their organization.
We have been looking at the offerings from LifeSize for several reasons. First, LifeSize offers high-definition video conferencing at reasonable prices. The product is fairly easy to use. Moreover, LifeSize can easily be incorporated into other solutions that the business already has in place. For example, we are in the process of implementing Microsoft Office Communications Server and utilizing Office Communicator on employee workstations. LifeSize integrates easily with OCS with the LifeSize installations showing up in the Communicator "buddy list". This makes it easy for employees to include the LifeSize equipment in a virtual meeting handled by OCS.
LifeSize also offers portable solutions with monitors, camera, associated computer equipment and cables, all on a rolling cart that can easily be moved into an existing conference room, transforming the existing room into a video conferencing center.
When looking at video conferencing solutions, you will want to compare features and price. But, don't discount other aspects such as ease of use, portability (if required), and integration with the rest of your environment as part of an overall unified communications strategy.
I agree with you Erik about evaluating all aspects of a videoconferencing solution. It's important to distinguish between room conferencing and desktop conferencing as well.
To the rate of adoption, room conferencing has an entry price and a sometimes significant TCO including the equipment, the space (for the equipment and/or a dedicated video room), network infrastructure, scheduling and equipment management, maintenance, upgrades, training - the list goes on. This is one of the limiting factors on widespread adoption. These costs need to be weighed against productivity improvements and travel cost reductions to determine if the investment creates a positive ROI over a given timeframe.
For desktop conferencing (which falls under the monthly cost mentioned), the adoption cost is much lower, but still requires some additional hardware (a camera if one isn't installed) and network traffic considerations. Entry and ongoing costs to this realm are much lower than for room video. The adoption rate may be slowed, however, more by cultural and psychological issues. Not everyone wants to be on camera, for example. That, coupled with the fact that while two-way video is cool sometimes, it may not be a contributor to productivity.
Many organizations have adopted videoconferencing (with the associated costs) when they don't really need it, or don't need as much of it as they bought. Many collaborative tasks can be conducted effectively using audio-only web conferencing, where screen or application sharing plus audioconferencing at the desktop - or the meeting room - would more than suffice. Talking head video is often just superfluous.
There are applications where two-way video is appropriately useful - such as in legal interviews where body language is important, or physical therapy training where therapeutic exercises or manipulations benefit from real time interactive demonstration. But others such as technical document review or application training can be done more cost effectively without the expense of a two-way videoconference environment.
I agree with Tim. Many years ago I worked on various desktop conferencing solutions (including SunForum, HPVC, MeetingPlace, MeetMe) and made a lot of use of them too. The most useful features in terms of productivity tended to be the desktop sharing and shared presentation features. Video was nice, but it wasn't quite as useful.
Having said that, desktop sharing has hardly become ubiquitous, and that is very useful indeed (it saved me several trans-atlantic trips a year). 6 or 7 years ago, the problem was lack of bandwidth (no longer an issue) and lack of network stability (also not an issue). Nowadays I think it must be usability. Skype had a nice tie-in with Unyte for a while, which really make web conferencing much easier but, again, it didn't take off.
Answer This Question