Archive for the ‘Face-to-Face Communications’ Category

People Crave Human Interaction

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

Going to a trade show is expensive! Airfare, hotel, cabs, meals, martinis, massages, it all adds up. And it’s time-consuming too. All that hurry-up-and-waiting when you’re traveling. Standing in lines, sitting in cabs and buses, waiting for room service, etc. But can’t I accomplish the same thing sitting at my own desk “attending” a virtual trade show? They’re great! I can get the info I want and not have to leave my office. So why go to Orlando? (Or as we call it in the trade show industry: Central-Florida-Not-Set-Up-For-Business-Airport-Too-Far-Away-Screaming-Kids-Tourist-Prices).

But we humans are pack animals, well, except for C++ programmers. We like to be around people. We like to get out and mingle and trade ideas with our colleagues. But is it worth the $600 airfare and all hassle of traveling? Can you get the same quality of information and interaction when your interacting face-to-face as you can half-listening to one of the virtual trade show sponsors wrapping a self-serving infomercial around some Wikipedia data? What? Biased? Me?

But virtual events and webinars allow the attendees to multi-task, or as we call it, “half-paying-attention.” And they also have that level of personal contact that you can only get from a disembodied voice. And studies have shown that you’re only missing out on 55% of the potential communication when you’re not face-to-face, that’s not too bad.

With everything that’s available to you on your computer, you really never have to leave it. All the information you need is just a search away. But you know what? People are starting to crave human interaction. Yes they are. They won’t put it into those words, but their desire to go to Orlando (ugh!), Las Vegas (ouch!) or Chicago in February (brrr!) is rooted in basic human needs: We like and need human interaction. We understand the value of it even though we can’t adequately communicate it to the bean counters when we’re trying to justify attending a conference or trade show. We know we need to have face-to-face conversations to test our ideas, to evaluate other’s ideas and to foment human relationships.

We like the spontaneity of real-time conversations. Texting or emailing just doesn’t do it. We like the witty banter and quick exchange of conversational tidbits that are impossible over the tubes of this Internet thing. We crave human interaction. And events and trade shows are focused on enabling human interaction.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Face-to-Face Communications, Trade Shows | No Comments »

Handling the Emotional Unintelligent: The Dominator

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

Emotional Intelligence as defined by Daniel Goleman has five domains:
1. Knowing your emotions.
2. Managing your own emotions.
3. Motivating yourself.
4. Recognizing and understanding other people’s emotions.
5. Managing relationships, ie., managing the emotions of others.

Live events, parties, family gatherings, actually anywhere there are other people around offers opportunities to have a number of conversations. So let’s say you’re at a live event at the traditional first-evening networking social event. You end up next to someone in the bar line and begin chatting. And after you both get your drinks the conversation continues.

At least you thought this was going to be a conversation. But it’s turned into a monologue. They’re doing all of the talking and apparently without needing to take a breath. And you’re being nice; making eye contact, periodically nodding your head, etc. But you can’t get a word in. And what they’re talking about was marginally interesting for a minute or two, but not for five or ten or more. But they think you’re fascinated. They think you’re on your toes with anticipation of what they might say next. This is the first sign that this person in Emotional Unintelligent. This type of Emotionally Unintelligent conversationalist is known as The Dominator.

But you so desperately want to leave this conversation. So you step it up on notch non-verbally. You break direct eye contact and move your eyes to each side hoping to catch the eye of someone you know who might come and rescue you. And breaking eye contact should non-verbally communicate to this person that they don’t have your complete attention. But it doesn’t work. They’re oblivious. So you begin to tilt your head to one side instead of nodding as you try to communicate that you don’t understand or don’t agree with what they’re saying. Nothing. They are still somehow talking non-stop with no breathing breaks.

You next try the tried-and-true techniques of glancing at your watch. Nope. They keep talking. You then move next to the newer-generation technique of glancing at your cell phone (maybe that’s your watch too). But they still don’t get it. They forge ahead with their self-focused monologue. Yes, this person is definitely lacking some in the empathy and reading body language department. They are Dominating.

So you become even more bold. You deliberately interrupt them to offer some feedback or you interrupt them to change the subject. Now they’re shocked. They are taken aback by your interruption. They seem upset that you would dare try to participate. After all they are so self-absorbed that they can’t imagine any other topic to be of more interest to you. So they quickly answer your question or make a quick comment on your suggested topic but then they pick up their monologue right where they left off and you’re stuck again being dominated.

For this poor, dominated attendee, they think this will be their entire evening. And they see no way out. They don’t know what to do. If they’re polite, they really don’t want to just turn and walk away. And if they pride yourself on telling the truth, they don’t want to stoop to saying something like, “You’ll have to excuse me, I’ve got some powerful abdominal cramps right now and need to use the rest room.” That will work, but most people won’t try it (chickens!).

My advice: don’t try to change this person. Don’t try to point out that a conversation is an exchange of ideas, sentiments, observations, or opinions and not a monologue. This is not your job and chances are this person is doing the best they can being as emotionally unintelligent as they appear to be.

So what do you do? Be direct. Be honest. And take control away from this Dominator. Here’s what I do and it works. Because it’s so obvious that one of the goals of a networking event is to network, to mingle, to mix, it’s okay if you do that. I simply interrupt both non-verbally and verbally. I hold up my hand like a stop sign and then quickly drop it to shake their end, which is a universally accepted way of ending a conversation. Then I simultaneously say, “I want to go mingle around some more now, it’s been great listening to you (rather than “great talking with you”, it’s a little dig – I can’t help myself), enjoy the rest of the event.” Then I turn and leave.

Or I say this, it is a variation what I suggested earlier, “I need to interrupt you as I have to use the restroom.” If they follow you to the restroom (I’ve seen it happen), I hope you are of different genders. And I hope they don’t wait for you at the entrance to the restroom. If they do, use this tactic: “I am meeting my friend right now over there, it’s been great listening to you, enjoy the rest of the event.”

If you both go into the same restroom, only stay in the stall for a count of five. Then leave and move far away from your original conversation spot, head to another rest room, and/or get into another conversation ASAP.

The Emotionally Unintelligent Dominator cannot be dominated. Don’t try. But you can leave at any time. Do it non-verbally, verbally, and then walk somewhere else. It works.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Face-to-Face Communications, Trade Shows | No Comments »

Some research about face-to-face communication at live events

Thursday, April 8th, 2010

Some research about face-to-face communication at live events
Why is that magical things happen at trade shows? Or at conferences, user group meetings, and live corporate events? Is it just passé that we who are older than 40 still like to see and talk to people in person? Are we just refusing to admit the inevitable; that some combination of email, webinars, texting, conference calls, video conferencing, and twitter are all we really need to do to meet people, establish relationships and do some business?

I don’t think we’re kidding ourselves about the value of looking someone in the eye when they’re standing three feet away from you, and talking with them. We in the face-to-face marketing and sales business may not be able to quantify it, but we intuitively know that face-to-to face interaction and communication is better. We may not be able to tell you exactly why this is the case, but there is some research to support our own feelings.

The following is from an article in the NY Times on April 5th, 2010 by Benedict Carey (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/health/06mind.html?ref=science): In a series of studies, psychologists have found that social bonding between conversation partners is highly dependent on a rhythmic and usually subconscious give and take of gestures and expressions that creates a kind of shared good will. “Part of that could be the buying in on the interaction itself,” Dr. Chartrand said.
And I have often cited the research done by Professor Albert Mehrabian at UCLA regarding how much is communicated face-to-face, with just your voice, and with just your words. Here’s what Professor Mehrabian found:
7% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is in the words that are spoken.
38% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is paralinguistic (the way that the words are said).
55% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is in facial expression.

And simplified:
7% of meaning in the words that are spoken.
38% of meaning is paralinguistic (the way that the words are said).
55% of meaning is in facial expression.

So this means that when you’re talking with someone live, face-to-face, you’ve got all the potential communication working for you. And 55% of what’s being communicated is non-verbal. This means trust, rapport, and getting to know the other person happens faster and actually happens at all.

If you’re on the phone you drop down to less than half of the potential communication: 45%. This means you have to be a lot more precise with what you say, as the person you’re talking to can’t see your facial expressions and body language.

And if you only have email or texting, only words, you’ve got about 7% working for you. Maybe 9% with some emoticons :) . Precision is really key when it’s only words that are being communicated as some words have slightly different meanings to different people. And you sometimes have no idea what kind of mood or state-of-mind the other party is in and misinterpretations a lot more likely.

That’s why live events work. If you want people to have meaningful, human experiences, live events are it all happens in business. People still do business with people.

If you’re in a commodity business, where price and delivery are really the key differentiators, then personal relationships between the supplier and the buyer probably don’t matter much, if there’s a relationship at all. I don’t think anybody at OfficeMax knows me because I order office supplies through their website.

But if, like me, you’re in a business that requires some marketing and selling, then establishing relationships, rapport, and trust still count. In fact, they are required. No one is going to do business with a training company like mine without at least talking to someone over the phone. Or at least they shouldn’t. When your product is a service, it’s harder to sell and how well the service fits the client and well the service is delivered makes a huge difference.

The research backs up what most of us have already known: even though all the information about your company and its products and services are on your website, it’s just different when you’re standing face-to-face with someone saying the same thing. It’s personal and most people still like to do business with other people, not just with websites.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Face-to-Face Communications, Trade Shows | No Comments »

Webinars and Effectiveness

Friday, February 19th, 2010

I was thinking of tuning up my tennis game. My net game could use a little help. So naturally I looked for a Webinar. Why not? It would be more convenient and probably cheaper. And I could check my email at the same time! Multitasking be praised!

On second thought, maybe a Webinar-based tennis lesson wouldn’t work so well. Who would ever think that you can multi-task while trying to take a tennis lesson? It would be a waste of time and money. Some types of activities need a more focused, uninterrupted approach. Like reading or shoplifting.

So now the question is: When is it best for live, in-person instruction, less participatory instruction like a Webinar, or training that has no participation like watching a video, listening to a podcast or reading? It’s the balance between cost-effectiveness and effectiveness. Or maybe you just have so much to do that you can’t just do one thing at a time.

So back to the tennis lesson example: If you’re a tennis pro and can get 50 tennis players to sign-up for a tennis lesson Webinar, it’s great for you as you can do it in your home and you’d make more money, even if you charge less than a live lesson, which you should. And even though it’s tennis instruction via a Webinar, you are confident that these 50 people will become at least a little better at tennis. But you’ll never really know.

Rest assured your audience will be multitasking (or at least 44 of the 50 will be says the research) and the instruction won’t be as individualized, and you, as the tennis pro, won’t actually be able to see and evaluate anyone’s tennis game. So instead of charging $60 per hour for a live, on-the-court private tennis lesson, you’re charging maybe $15 for a tennis lesson Webinar. And if your audience gets 25% of the value, you’re okay with that.

But what if the stakes are really high for you to learn as much as possible? Do you want your surgeon to have learned how to remove your cancerous growth via a Webinar? How about the pilot on this very flight I’m on right now on my way to Chicago learning to fly this jet via Webinar? Or is it okay to learn to drive a car via a Webinar? Or you are the lead negotiator for arms reduction between two countries and you want to learn how to negotiate via a Webinar?

Or how about any other activity that requires well-developed face-to-face, interpersonal skills? Like how to introduce yourself and start a conversation or how to start and maintain a relationship.

It seems to me that if you’re trying to learn to do something and you need to interact with something (like a plane) or someone (like a customer), Webinars are not very effective. But since business Webinars appear to be so cost-effective, they have become the first choice for a lot of instruction and training. I just think having 12% of someone’s attention during any type of training isn’t good. But all of the attendees can say they went through the training.

If you’re actually in a room experiencing live, in-person, interactive, and well-thought training, you’re going to get far better results. But it’s going to cost more. Depending upon the stakes or the desired level of results, it’s usually worth it.

Tags: ,
Posted in Business, Face-to-Face Communications | No Comments »