Seth Godin recently posted that as online methods of engaging and interacting improve, the expectations for face-to-face interactions such as sales calls, presentations and conferences will increase:

In other words, “I flew all the way here for this?” is going to be far more common than it used to be.

This got me thinking about whether we will continue to have face-to-face presentations. Does face-to-face presenting have an edge over video-conferencing and other online presentation technology?

I think so. Face-to-face presenting is inherently more persuasive. For many of us this is intuitive. If you want to persuade someone, going to see them is likely to be more effective than the phone, and the phone is likely to be more effective than sending them an e-mail.

Social psychologist Robert Cialdini in his classic work Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion identifies six weapons of influence. Here’s how these factors can be more effective in a face-to-face setting:

1. Reciprocation – we feel some obligation to return favors.

If a person has made the effort to prepare and deliver a face-to-face presentation, we are likely to reciprocate by carefully considering what they say. We owe them that. When I watch a presentation online and the presenter fails to engage me I have no hesitation in clicking away.  I’ve only once left a live presentation – and I felt awful doing it.

2. Commitment and consistency – if people make a commitment, they are likely to follow through on it.

Attending a live presentation and devoting time to it, is a form of commitment. So in order to act consistently with that commitment, audience members may be more likely to take action based on the presentation.

3. Social proof – we look to other people as guidance on how to act.

Being part of an audience is a very different experience to watching a video of the same presentation online by yourself. Could this be because the behaviour of other people helps us form our own response to the presenter.

4. Authority – we tend to obey authority figures.

Are we more likely to judge someone as authoritative when we see them face to face? I think this is likely.

5. Liking – we’re more easily persuaded by people we like.

Deciding whether we like someone we’ve seen or met online, takes time. Meeting people face-to-face, we can make millisecond judgments about whether we like them.

6. Scarcity – believing something is scarce makes us want it.

A live presentation is by definition scarce – being part of it is to feel part of something exclusive and special. When we see something on the internet, in most cases, we know that it’s also available to millions of other people – nothing special or exclusive about that.

You’ve likely visited the TED website. Hundred of good quality videos of fantastic presentations. It’s almost like being there! But it’s not. And despite the fact that I can watch all the presentations online, I would still love to be invited and I would pay to go.

Humans evolved in a face-to-face world.  We are optimised for the face-to-face situation. I believe face-to-face presenting will continue to have a persuasive edge. What do you think?

I wrote all this and then I read Guy Kawasaki’s post about amazing new technology from Cisco and Musion Systems. See it in action here. Three people on stage in Bangalore, India, but only one of them is really there – two of them are “holographic presences” beamed in from San Jose, California. From an audience point of view, there appears to be no distinction between the three men. I believe we would be fooled into reacting as if they were all face-to-face with us.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Discover more from Speaking about Presenting

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading