I think both sides have strenghts that just can't be rivaled from the other side.

Virtual Advantages are of course speed and distance, and also a large diversity in functionality, with most niches covered.

F2F Advantages are more personal or 'intimate' and relate to cultural challenges as well as the better understanding of communication that comes from adding body language, and while Video is available in the Virtual space, I don' t think it provides the same emphasis as 'real', physical presence.

I think my boss would tear my head off, if I tried to excuse myself from a F2F meeting. I agree that it is easier in the virtual space.

I think the largest problem in the virtual space is, that many companies are hesitant to use online tools due mainly to security issues.

If the companies use the 'public' infrastructure, they face security challenges, and if they implement corporate solutions, they often have compatibility issues against partners and customers. (i.e. customers using MS Live Messenger - company using Sametime).

Of course - this can all be solved, but it is a challenge for many companies today.

I think it comes down to body language. Particularly important in the context of negotiations. It is very challenging to get from a emoticon or a funny remark on a con call the full understanding of someone's intended meaning. Were they being funny or a smartass? Was there someone sitting next to them that shared a funny look with them at your expense? Are they on IM with everyone else in the meeting and not giving you 100% of their attention? This is all hard to read and when business discussions are critical, but you still want to save on travel, the virtual meeting just doesn't cut it for many scenarios.

Have you had a chance to experience Telepresence? This really blurs the line between F2F and Virtual meetings. The combination of hi def video at a real time framerate with audio that will draw your eyes to the exact location of a hand tapping on a desk is incredible. Combine Telepresence with sharing documents via collaboration software and you have a very compelling virtual meeting. There is the matter of cost, but as bandwidth costs continue to fall and endpoints like the Cisco CS500 and CS1000 get cheaper and cheaper, it soon will be generally affordable.

For now, if you have critical business regularly with people across the country or around the world, it pays for itself.

Whereas I believe that your comments are probably right for two (or more) parties that have the same attitude towards meetings and technology in general. When two non-compatible parties meet, a f2f is gets a whole different level of importance. As Steve mentioned above, body language, interaction etc. are quite different. Lars also mentioned that the level of concentration, attention and display of commitment in a f2f is totally different. You can multitask and concentrate on other things in a virtual meeting in ways that would be simply rude to do in f2f.

I always find that when facts need to lead the way, a virtual meeting is often the best solution (or at least an acceptable one) but if there are more social topics to be covered (for lack of better vocabulary) then f2f are often better. Non-verbal communication is one of the reasons, but the other is also the commitment you show by getting your B-Hind to where the other party is and showing up in person.

Just like you don't want to go back-and-forth with e-mails on and on about issues (mostly problems) when yo can pick up the phone and just talk it out, everybody needs to be cognizant of what form of meeting is more effective for the topic/occasion and the parties involved.

@Steve, I need to see telepresence for sure

Replacing f2f meetings and communication with virtual meetings requires that you also redefine your communication process. Virtual meetings require different systems of planning and accountability. Often the tendency is to simply substitute one for the other and then teams, management wonder why they are not successful.