I do almost all my interviews by phone and I do some by email. I land most of my corporate gigs using email and the phone. Occasionally, however, I conduct interviews in person (especially when writing profiles and sometimes case studies) or meet with corporate clients before landing gigs. I am based in Toronto and if I have to profile a person outside of commuting distance, or if a client outside commuting distance (I have clients across Canada, in the US and even in Belgium) wants to meet, travelling to and from the interview or meeting would take more time and money than the gig is worth.

Video conference, long the exclusive domain of large enterprises, is bridging the distance gap - and the time and cost associated with that gap. But the cost of video conferencing over a dedicated IP (Internet Protocol) network still remains beyond what an independent journalist or freelance business writer can afford.

Enter webcams and the Web…

If both parties that want to meet face-to-face have webcams and broadband access to the Internet, they they can use the Web to bridge that long distance feeling. People who have Skype, MSN Messenger or several other IM (Instant Messaging) applications can text chat, voice chat (IP Telephony) and even video conference with each other. Of course both parties require the same application - Skype, MSN Messenger, and so on. However, a standard Web browser can now be used for video conferencing. For instance, if you go to Vbuzzer.com, you can video conference with up to three other people - at no charge.

On the Vbuzzer video conferencing page, you can easily set up a video conference. Enter your name, email address and the conference date and time in the Vbuzzer video conferencing form, then enter up to three other email addresses and a short note, and click send. A unique video conferencing URL (Website address) is sent to all participants with the date and time of the conference. Log-in at the specified time, and you can see each other and talk to each other - and even text chat. This, of course, requires that all participants have a webcam, microphone (my webcam has a built in mic) and speakers or headsets. However, if a participant lacks a webcam, he or she can still talk to the others in the conference.

I tried Vbuzzer Video Conferencing several times before writing this post. Overall, I was quite impressed with the voice and video quality. Of course, both depend - in part - on your connection speed. In addition, the video quality depends in part on the quality of your webcam and the lighting in your room or office.

One person was hard to see because he had a widow behind him, which meant there was a shadow on his face. He closed the window blind, turned on a light in front of him, and looked far more colourful, so to speak. On one call, the latency (delay) between my speaking and the other person hearing me was 5 or more seconds, and even I could hear what I said shortly after I spoke it, which was rather disconcerting. However, the person I was video conferencing with was on a wireless network, which seemed to be the cause of the problem. With others, there were occasional delays between the time a person spoke and the time the voice was received, but nothing too onerous. (The Web-based service is free, but if more reliable video conferencing is required, Vbuzzer can work with you to set up a video conferencing system that runs on your servers.)

Would I use Web-based video conferencing for critical discussions? It isn’t quite ready for prime time. However, I plan on asking clients that I’ve never met if they have webcams. If they do, it would be good to video chat at least once so we can see each other - and get a feel for the nuances of how we communicate. I also plan on asking interviewees the same thing - if I am profiling someone for an article. I might not conduct the entire interview by video conference, but I know it would help me craft a more intimate profile if I could see the person that I am interviewing.

I am not talking about using video conferencing every day. In other words, the phone and email will still be my primary means of communications. In fact, up to 90 per cent of communication is routine – regular and casual – and can be conducted effectively by email, says Ron McMillan, vice president of VitalSmarts LLC, a training company located in Provo, Utah, and co-author of Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High. However, when separated by cables and airwaves, people tend to miss important non-verbal messages, such as eye contact, voice inflection and body language. These non-verbal cues help people relay and interpret messages, avoid misunderstandings and defuse potentially volatile situations.

“When casual turns crucial, as it does in 10 per cent of business communication, people need to meet face to face,” says McMillan who holds advanced degrees in sociology and organizational behaviour. “Using e-mail to convey information in crucial situations is a recipe for disaster.” However, with companies conducting business around the world, and with the need for some decisions to be made on a just-in-time basis, there are times when there is no time to meet or when travelling is not a cost-effective option. While the phone is better than email, it still does not convey body language.

Video conferencing is becoming more affordable and more reliable and I suspect it will become an alternative to face-to-face meetings when the stakes are high but there is no time or budget for a meeting.

So if you have a webcam, mic and headphones (and know someone else who has all that), you can experience video conferencing on the Web. Go to Vbuzzer, click on Video Conferencing and invite someone to join you. Or if you just want to send a video email message to a friend, click on Video Mail and you can send a five-minute video message. The broadcast does not travel via email (which would clog the receiver’s email system). Instead, the recipient receives an email note and is directed to a specific Website address where he or she can play your video message.

Paul Lima