When organisations start planning a virtual or hybrid event, one of the first questions is usually about technology: what platform should we use? And because most organisations already have access to Teams, Zoom, or Google Meet, the temptation is to reach for what's familiar.
Sometimes that's the right call. Often it isn't. And the difference between the two cases is worth understanding before you commit to an approach.
What video conferencing tools are built for
Teams, Zoom, and Google Meet are collaboration tools. They're designed for meetings - two-way conversations between participants who can all see and hear each other, share their screens, and interact freely. They're optimised for the experience of being in a meeting: ease of joining, familiarity, flexibility.
That design makes them excellent for internal meetings, client calls, and informal team sessions. It makes them less well suited to events where the dynamic is fundamentally different - where there's a clear distinction between the people presenting and the people watching, where the broadcast quality and reliability need to be consistent regardless of where each presenter is joining from, and where the audience experience needs to be actively managed rather than left to take care of itself.
Video conferencing tools can be pressed into service for these purposes. Webinar modes exist in Zoom and Teams that disable audience cameras and mute attendees by default. But these modes are adaptations of a meeting tool, not purpose-built broadcast infrastructure - and they show their limitations at scale and under pressure.
What streaming platforms are built for
Dedicated streaming and webcast platforms - the kind used for professional corporate events - are built from a different set of assumptions. The audience is watching, not participating as equals. The presenter experience and the viewer experience are managed separately. The platform is designed to handle large concurrent audiences without degradation. Access is controlled, registration is managed, and attendance is tracked.
More importantly, a streaming platform is designed to receive a professional broadcast feed - the output of a production setup that's actively managed, switched, and monitored - rather than simply connecting participants' cameras together and letting the software manage the mix.
This matters because the quality of a broadcast event isn't just determined by the platform. It's determined by what's happening at the production end: who's managing the incoming feeds, who's monitoring the output, who's making real-time decisions about what the audience sees and hears. A streaming platform gives a professional production team the infrastructure to deliver that properly. A video conferencing tool limits what's possible regardless of how good the production team is.
When video conferencing is fine
This isn't an argument against Teams or Zoom. For the right use case, they're the right tool.
A team briefing for twenty people who all know each other and are comfortable with the platform - Teams is fine. An informal Q&A session with a small group of stakeholders who want the familiarity of a Zoom call - Zoom is fine. An internal update where the production values don't need to be exceptional and the audience is forgiving - either will do the job.
The moment you're dealing with a large audience, a formal occasion, a legally significant meeting, a high-stakes presentation, or any situation where reliability and production quality genuinely matter - that's when the limitations of a conferencing tool become relevant.
The questions that clarify the decision
How many people will be watching? Video conferencing tools can handle hundreds of participants, but the experience degrades at scale. Streaming platforms are built for large concurrent audiences.
How formal is the occasion? An AGM, a results presentation, or a major company-wide announcement has different expectations than a team catch-up.
How much do you care about production quality? If the answer is "a lot," you need a production setup that a streaming platform can accommodate - not the constraints of a conferencing tool.
What happens if it goes wrong? For a meeting, a technical problem is inconvenient. For a broadcast event with a defined audience expecting a professional experience, reliability matters considerably more.
The platform is one piece of the puzzle. The more important question is what's sitting behind it.