Why Maritz and Cornell Missed the Point on Virtual’s Role in Face-to-Face Meetings
What are these organizations thinking? Maritz and Cornell published ‘The Future of Meetings: The Case for Face-to-Face’ in which they pitted virtual against face-to-face. OK at least Cornell’s Center for Hospitality Research was likely paid to participate in this study but Maritz really? (Update: VEI will be talking to Maritz's Chris Gaia VP of Marketing soon so follow the thread!)
Granted the study was released back in September of 2010 but publications are still reporting on it today, most recently BtoB Magazine. I had been meaning to write something about the study when it was first published but never got around to it but like gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe, it just won’t go away.
My biggest problem is the whole approach of pitting virtual events and meetings against physical meetings. Digital event solutions are simply tools that event and meeting producers can use to extend, expand, enhance and yes in some situations replace face-to-face. There are very real business drivers that underlie people’s use of online meeting solutions and the answer is not going to be just go ahead and do more face-to-face. Publishing a study that attempts to marginalize the effectiveness of virtual experiences just makes matters worse.
By trying to eliminate digital meeting solutions you are reducing the value of the face-to-face program and encouraging people to look for new ways to achieve their business objective of that activity. Executives understand the value of extending the reach of an event—more people get the message. They understand the value of allowing people who can’t attend because of budget, natural disasters, revolutions, terrorism or simple lack of time to participate online. These add value to the physical meeting and help justify its existence.
I think Maritz…although a leader in the incentive and corporate travel and meeting industry has done a disservice to the industry with this approach. Had they taken the approach of looking at the reality their clients are facing with tighter budgets for travel, events and meetings and greater workloads impacting people’s ability to travel, they could have looked at positive aspects of face-to-face and the greatly enhanced value that combining virtual can add to those programs.
Some of the areas they mention in the article and the study are debatable especially when used to address meetings and events universally. For example, face-to-face is better for capturing people’s attention. For starters, although I’m sure there are Maritz speakers at all sorts of face-to-face events talking about this study, I’ve only encountered the content online (as I’m sure the vast majority of people have as well). Most of us will never be exposed to this content face-to-face.
They point out that people multitask while online and this is not effective. I hate to break it to you but people multitask at physical events too. They tweet, Facebook, email, text, sleep, read, and yes, even leave. Audiences have been known to boo speakers that have asked people to turn off their mobile devices. But sitting in front of a computer is certainly much more of a focus challenge. Yet, with the right motivation, it happens. For example, I read this story online and read all the comments and then I switched over to the Virtual Edge group on LinkedIn (online) to see what had been said there (more than 20 comments, most quite educational) and it did the ultimate in engagement, got me inspired to take an action by writing this post, tweeting and texting people who I think would be interested telling them to take a look at the discussion. That’s ONLINE ENGAGEMENT! The fact that I had a computer in front of me helped--not hindered my experience.
There is a line in the B2B article that says something like--face-to-face in general makes people open to new thinking, new relationships and new ways of doing things. They didn’t really explain how but I have to say for me, I have learned far more new things online than at face-to-face events. That’s not to say I wouldn’t enjoy and benefit from similar face-to-face learning opportunities but most of us can only attend a few events a year because of the travel time and expenses.
But a study by the US Department of Education found that kids (in K-12) learned better online than they did in a traditional face-to-face environment. Educational use of virtual environments is exploding with growth because they are having tremendous success. So again, universal statements are hard to support.
The article noted that the study indicated that it was easier to build relationships in person than digitally and although I would agree that it is often easier to advance relationships in person, starting relationships online is much more efficient. And Skype calls with or without video are tremendous relationship builders and totally virtual. But a normal phone call works too.
Finally, I absolutely agree with the article’s ‘Lessons Learned’ where they talked about the need for measurement in proving the value of events. Whether its face -to-face or virtual, this has got to be a part of any program where there is a significant amount of people’s time and money invested. Digital has the upper hand here as there are already tremendous analytics available to event and meeting producers to measure what happened during an online program but relating that back to business value still needs to take place.
And my favorite line in the story “marketers must remember that the full impact of face-to-face events isn't necessarily created in a single meeting. We have to think about the regular rhythm of bringing people together because these benefits are all built over time.” Can you see how virtual events and virtual environments could be used to bring people together and build those relationships that already began at a physical event? Imagine how much more productive relationship building would be if it augmented continuously with digital extensions of the event.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this either by leaving a comment here or joining the active conversation on the Virtual Edge group on LinkedIn.
Comment
-
Comment by Sue Brightman on April 20, 2011 at 5:48pm -
As an OD practitioner who conducts both face-to-face and virtual events, I cannot imagine not using both. I recently completed a hybrid rollout of communication workshops for 1200+ people across 40 countries who work for one of the world's largest companies. 66% of the participants attended face-to-face sessions; the remaining 33% attended a virtual format that I designed to deliver the same quality and experience. To include that 33%, it was imperative to offer a virtual experience of the same caliber, since travel to such remote locations with small numbers of employees was financially impossible. As with any effective virtual event, the content flow, choice of technology, meeting protocols, and facilitation needed to be skillfully planned and executed. Unfortunately, many people who conduct virtual events are still learning best practices since this is still a relatively new field and, consequently, participants report less than satisfying results. In our case the feedback was resoundingly positive from BOTH groups of people, and those in the virtual sessions did not feel they had a "less than" experience. Each format clearly offered distinct benefits.
My experience indicates that virtual events, training, and even large group meetings (such as the well known World Cafe process) can be conducted in a manner where participants leave feeling truly connected, inspired, and moved to action. However, there are also times where face-to-face events create shared experiences, spontaneous moments, and an organizational buzz that cannot happen in the virtual space. The reality is, we need both; the trick is learning how to capitalize on the unique qualities of each.
I have great respect for the Maritz Institute and the integrity of their work in the field of neuroscience. Much appreciation for their thoughtful presentation on this topic and the dialogue it has sparked.
-
Comment by Chris Meyer on April 8, 2011 at 9:14am
-
Michael, appreciate your opinion re this, a view that I 100% share. I am a graduate of the Cornell Hotel School, most of my career has been spent in hospitality or event marketing and I am now with the leading virtual event platform, INXPO. When I originally read the white paper referenced here, I felt a call-to-action which I did not execute upon - reading your post has re-energized me on this subject. The World is now Hybrid and if investors, educators, owners, managers, agencies in the hospitality and meetings industry do not fully embrace and plan for this (in regards to staffing, capital, process, facilities, partnerships, training, marketing, etc.) they will eventually lose any competitive advantage. The players that understand and embrace this will win in the long term. I would welcome the opportunity to participate in the next white paper on this subject so that my experience and passion in the hospitality, meetings and technology industries can help the entire ecosystem prepare for what many see as the future and I see as the now. Thanks
-
Comment by Tom Wieser on March 31, 2011 at 6:46am -
Well said Michael
-
Comment by Mary Beth McEuen on March 30, 2011 at 5:30pm -
Michael,
I appreciate your willingness to read the report again. I am the co-author of The Future of Meetings: The Case for Face to Face published through Cornell. As Chris already noted, we see the need for face-to-face and virtual mediums of communication. Pitting the two against each other was not our goal. Rather, we see a need for better decision criteria on when face-to-face is the most effective approach because it requires the greatest investment. We pursued this challenge by diving into scientific studies and also by reviewing research we have conducted with participants after they have attended a face-to-face and/or virtual meeting. From this analysis, we formed the three premises relative to capturing attention, creating positive emotional climate, and developing a network of relationships. Cornell was not paid to participate in this study.
Michael, I think we are in agreement on key points including -- business leaders need to be more discerning due to limited budgets, therefore, they should optimize through both face-to-face and virtual mediums; there is a need for measurement in proving the value of events. The challenge with measurements is that we often do not understand the intangible value being created. The three premises we developed now need to be translated into measurement which is the next phase of our research. Our aim is to better equip business leaders to make more discerning decisions on when to use face-to-face, virtual, or a hybrid of the two.
-
Comment by Michael Doyle on March 30, 2011 at 3:48pm -
Hi Chris, I look forward to our chat. Thank you for posting here and I will also add to our Virtual Edge LinkedIn group which last count had over 70 comments. I had read the report when it first came out and will review again before we talk.
-
Comment by Chris Gaia on March 30, 2011 at 1:51pm -
Hi Michael, I look forward to speaking with you more on this subject, but I did want to take this opportunity to clarify the white paper. We wrote the Cornell Center for Hospitality Research whitepaper “The Future of Meetings: The Case for Face-to-Face” during a time when the entire travel industry was under attack and people were completely cancelling their meetings, events and incentive travel programs. However, to assert that the paper “pits virtual meetings against face to face” is simply not accurate. The whitepaper clearly states in the Executive Summary: “Meetings can be completely virtual, completely face-to-face, or a hybrid of the two. Leading companies are using all three formats,” “This paper examines those science-based decision criteria to help executives determine when face-to-face is the most effective approach to large-group meetings or events,” and “Face-to-face is most likely to be the best approach in the following three business situations…”
In the end, our focus is on helping clients create better business results through well designed, executed and measured meetings, events and incentives. People like you and me can add the most value by helping clients connect their business objectives to their unique audiences and meeting types, and improving the meeting experience through better meeting design. In this way we can help businesses achieve success by promoting and enhancing attendee engagement, whether that be face to face or in combination with a virtual experience.
Looking forward to a live conversation.
-
Comment by Michael Doyle on March 30, 2011 at 12:12pm
-
I did want to say that I'm a fan of Maritz and they have some very good people that understand the virtual and hybrid space and have actually made significant contribution to educating people on these and other digital solutions. I will be reaching out to them to discuss further and hopefully have another post on the subject.
-
Comment by Aditya on March 28, 2011 at 12:37pm -
Very high costs, limited audience reach, low flexibility, and unpredictable outcomes are some of the challenges associated with physical events.
We can no longer believe that all attendees will travel from around the globe for an event. Attendees will want to participate how and when they choose because technology offers them more options. Some will prefer to join an event remotely.
Adding a virtual component to your event offers you a great opportunity to cast a wider net and attract more attendees with smaller travel budgets or from across the globe.
One of the rewards of a virtual event is that individuals can still take part after the event is over. The benefit of reporting capabilities goes way beyond determining who deserved credit hours. You can see everything your attendees do, literally. These capabilities can provide proof of lead generation, as well. And the online segment can still generate new leads after an event.
-
Comment by James Parker on March 28, 2011 at 11:08am
-
Michael
I can feel your frustrations and we aren't even face to face. I first want to thank you for being bold enough to speak your mind, as this is an online tendency that we have learned through experiencing online activity of how people act online, rather than in person, where many do NOT speak their thoughts and we all go home rather disappointed that the live event lacked emotion.
Second, I must say that I have not read the report but much of what you have outlined is an obvious lack of the writers not having any online or virtual experience, because you are completely right with all of your information and data. There is so much data that shows people who learn online are more focused, have higher retention rates and engage more with others than a live event and I must say, that coming from 30 years in the conference business, the fact that people say they attend conferences to network, the reality is that most go home without any additional networking. Why, because overall many Americans have difficulty engaging with others face to face, unless you are a Type A personality. Where as, what we have experienced at the events that we have managed, online users are much more likely to engage with other users, including asking questions. It flattens the playing field.
Keep up the great work and thanks for your insightful comments.
© 2013 Created by Michael Doyle.
You need to be a member of The Virtual Edge Community to add comments!
Join The Virtual Edge Community