Last year I heard Bob Greenberg, founder and CEO of R/GA, give a speech on ‘the next big thing’ in digital.  Among several (since proven accurate) predictions, he suggested that video conferencing would become big in 2010.

He cited spiraling fuel (and so travel) costs and an ever-growing desire for meeting convenience within businesses as the driving factors.

Advances in online communication technologies and ever-increasing network speeds globally would soon result in a virtual experience that would satisfy what you need to get out of a meeting.

For some time now, chatting to someone face to face over a telephone line has been rife with issues. Whether it was the sheer cost to set up video-conferencing facilities within an office (not to mention the price of a call), or the freeze-frame, echo-ridden  online experience caused by insufficient connection speeds, joining people via video was has not become accepted the norm.

However (as Bob rightly stated) ADSL2 is becoming the ‘standard’ across most of the globe and the proliferation of applications such as Skype, Google chat and MSN messenger is widespread (not to mention advances in mobile handsets).

Add to this the common integration of decent web cams in most personal computing screens (try and find a laptop without and in-built camera and microphone) and we’re on the verge of the death of international business travel right?

I’m not so sure I agree.

You see the thing that’s missing in this tech-driven solution is the human experience. We’ve virtualised your face, and your voice, but what about the rest of you?

Now there’s been a lot written about the importance of body-language in the face to face conversation. Being able to see how a person is reacting to what you are saying (and not saying) is a vital part of effective communication, and one that isn’t as fully captured by a person in a frame.

For instance, one of the most accepted body language concepts is ‘mirroring’ – the unconscious assumption of similar body poses. When your conversation flows with someone, your gestures will mimic. This results in a simpatico with your conversation partner, and unconscious signaling that you’re in sync.

Try doing that with someone you’re Skyping. Apart from barely being able to see their gestures clearly, as well as the minute – but significant – lag time, you can only see 50% of their body. And if you don’t think that your feet and legs are communicating right along with your mouth, then go and watch a couple on a first date.

The point is, physical presence – while sometimes inconvenient – allows for the comfort factor of “chatting”. A successful meeting will often be successful, because you’ve achieved that comfortable presence.

And then we come to the point of spontaneity. I have long found that popping over to someone’s desk for a chat (and vice-versa) will often produce more useful results  than the scheduled meeting.

Sure, the same argument can be made about email today, but the point is that the virtual will create a better excuse for the remote workplace.

Imagine a world where a hologramatic version of you could talk directly to a close friend overseas after appearing on their couch in their living room. Then consider how you would interact with each other if you were face to face. Being with them has a certain magic, doesn’t it? That magic is your brain rewarding you for remembering that you’re a part of a community. That you’re loved, and valued.

While you may not be in that same intimate relationship with your work colleagues, its crucial to remember that businesses are built on that sense of community. The chemistry that results from people working in synch, in proximity.

And that’s the unimagined downside of virtual conferencing.

So while I agree with Bob that virtualising the face to face conversation is the future, I don’t agree that we should rush headlong to embrace that bit of the future.

There’s more to cracking virtual meetings than getting a face up on a screen, however clear the picture.