Video conferencing has become the default for just about everything these days—meetings, catch-ups, even quick chats. But let’s be honest: it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. In fact, in many situations, video conferencing is more of a hassle than a help.

Here’s why video conferencing generally sucks—and why there are better ways to communicate.

It’s exhausting

Video calls are mentally draining. You’re constantly trying to focus on multiple things at once—listening to what’s being said, reading people’s faces, looking engaged, managing your own appearance on camera. It's tiring. With voice-only calls or written communication, you’re able to focus entirely on the conversation itself. You don’t need to perform; you just communicate.

Awkward pauses and technical glitches

Video conferencing is notorious for awkward silences, people talking over each other, and “Can you hear me now?” moments. The more participants you add, the worse it gets. Sure, phone calls have some of these issues, but not nearly to the same degree. You can rely on tone and timing more naturally without having to guess whether someone's frozen or just thinking.

The fake sense of connection

A lot of people think video adds a human touch, that it makes the interaction more personal. But does it really? More often than not, people are distracted by their surroundings, messing with their background, or just zoning out. The truth is, a voice call—or better yet, an in-person conversation—offers a much deeper connection. When you’re not worried about what you look like on screen, you’re actually more present.

It’s a time suck

Video conferencing tends to stretch out conversations. When you’re on a call, especially with multiple people, you end up with a lot of unnecessary small talk, screen-sharing delays, and awkward transitions. A voice call gets to the point faster. Even email or chat can be more efficient when you just need to relay information or make a decision. You skip the whole process of scheduling a time that works for everyone, setting up, and dealing with inevitable tech hiccups.

Not everyone needs to be there

One of the worst things about video calls is the expectation that everyone has to be there, all at once. But more often than not, some people don’t even need to be part of the conversation. With other communication methods—whether it’s a voice message, email, or even a shared document—you can involve only the people who really need to participate. It’s quicker, more focused, and doesn’t waste anyone’s time.

It’s inherently distracting

There’s so much happening on a video call that it’s easy to get distracted. You’re not just focused on what’s being said; you’re also monitoring everyone’s facial expressions, backgrounds, and whatever notifications pop up on your own screen. In a voice call, all of that falls away. It’s just about the words. You get clearer communication without all the clutter.

It kills spontaneity

In face-to-face interactions or even on a simple voice call, conversations can flow naturally. You can jump in, react in real time, and build off each other’s energy. But with video, there’s often a formality and structure that stifles spontaneous dialogue. The added layer of technology—mutes, un-mutes, screen shares—interrupts that natural flow. Conversations end up being less fluid, more rigid.

What works better

We’ve become conditioned to think that more technology equals better communication, but that’s not always the case. Sometimes, stripping things down is more effective. A simple phone call can often lead to a faster, more focused conversation. An email lets you organize your thoughts and respond when it makes sense. And if it’s something that truly requires face-to-face interaction, there’s no substitute for meeting in person.

In conclusion

Video conferencing has its place, but it shouldn’t be the default. In most cases, it just complicates things. It adds unnecessary layers to communication that end up being more distracting than helpful. Before you schedule that next Zoom or Teams meeting, ask yourself: is there a simpler, faster way to get the same result? Chances are, there is.