Recently I was asked, by the Wall Street Journal,  about the growth of corporate events in Second Life, the 3D virtual world.

Specifically, the wrote to me: "You have probably seen that companies such as IBM, Cisco, Northrop Grumman, CIGNA, etc. are all moving to virtual events as a way to save costs and foster collaboration among far-flung employees."

He further asked: "But one imagines there might be intangible costs associated with virtual meetings, trade shows and other events, such as the loss of eye contact, facial nuances, hand gestures, or group dynamics that are important, if immeasurable, elements of human interaction. I am interested in hearing you thought on virtual events. Do you think they add value? Are they here to stay, if for no other reason than economics so dictate?"

What I also wrote is worthwhile for discussion:

"I have conducted training in in Virtualis, an 'island' in 2nd life that was built specifically for meetings, trade shows, training, etc.  In fact, Dan Parks, the creator of Virtualis even created a learning and community center for me -- with lots of the creativity I'd like to see at f2f meetings.

More, in the mid-'80s, when satellite broadcasts were first catching on, there was a cry that we'd never meet f2f again.  We did.  After 9.11.01, there was a belief that we'd no meet f2f and companies like Hilton put much money and energy into systems that are like the one that Starwood and Marriott have recently built.  Alas, Hilton, way ahead of the curve in 1996, stopped using their's -- no one was interested.

I think that much of what is being done today is both useful and an overreaction and quite a bit of being enamored of new technology -- the cool stuff for the cool 'kids'!

I do think virtual meetings add value - before, during and after f2f meetings v. instead of them.  There are those who believe they are as good as f2f -- I'm not one of them. As a trainer and facilitator, I am well aware of the value of collaboration and have used and do use technology to do so.  I also am a firm believer that (to date) there are things that cannot be done virtually: w/o seeing each other and observing the reactions of others, it is tough to gauge what needs to be done.  As a participant in a meeting that is virtual -- even a conf. call -- I am frustrated w/ the inability to pick up on the cues others give when they are in the same room.

It is also difficult to engage people. For anyone who has participated in a webinar, no matter how cool and good the technology and the facilitator/trainer (and I'm pretty darn good!), people just don't engage in the discussion -- even when offering prizes (which I do - books for participation to ensure people continue to learn) it's like pulling teeth to get people to ask questions.  In some webinars, there is more interaction -- did one ABOUT conf. centers that had many questions.

The implications are tremendous for the economy and for the environment if f2f meetings disappear entirely: no tax revenue from hotel rooms occupied, meals eaten, transportation taken, etc., which hurts cities horribly; buildings (hotels, conv. centers, restaurants, etc.) empty -- unless they are all turned into homes for we aging Boomers!; jobs lost -- huge numbers of jobs lost.

Companies that are moving to virtual meetings need to think through why they are doing so. "Saving money" can't be the only reason to do so. It may save money in the short term; it does not in the long and it certainly hurts communities AND employee morale.  It is good to get away from one's office and see others -- see customers -- interact in social ways.

And about Cisco's cool telepresence systems:   They are VERY cool! To be able to 'be' there w/o being there is amazing.   And it's expensive .. very! .. on both ends.   So it may save some money in the end but not yet.  To use these systems for a co. that is not the inventor is not realistic.

What do you think? Might we have a conversation here about virtual and f2f v. virtual v. f2f?