Unnecessary meetings cost 17 billion pounds a year
YouGov, the polling company, carried out a survey of 1,200 businesses in the UK and reports that unnecessary face-to-face meetings cost UK businesses £17 billion annually.
The survey was carried out on behalf of Polycom, a video and phone conferencing company, so the spin is obvious.
I am sceptical of PR-driven market research. (See my previous post on Surveys: uses and abuses for writers and PRs). Still, I think this particular pieces reflects something that most people feel intuitively about working life today.
The results in more detail:
- 23 percent said that they could save 1-2 hours a week by not attending off-site meetings. 21 percent claimed 3-4 hours and 11 percent believing that 5-6 hours were at stake.
- Half of respondents said that they have to plan their work around external meetings.
- 67 percent traveled at least once a week for meetings.
- 82 percent believed that many of these meetings were unnecessary and could have been accomplished over the phone.
- Two thirds travel by car with obvious implications for carbon emissions.
There is some interesting information on flexible working on the WorkWiseUK website.
I’m still wrestling with how I can change my working practices to become more efficient and focus more on productive work and less on meetings. I think the answer lies in making my communications outside meetings more effective.
The next paragraph is a rant about PR agencies. You don’t need to read it!
This information came from a press release issued by Bite PR on behalf of Polycom. I couldn’t find anything on Bite’s website or blog. I called Bite to get a link to the original report or an online precis but no-one was available to help me. I also called Polycom’s marketing department but got voicemail. In the age of instant information, it seems to me that both companies are missing an opportunity to make journalists’ lives easier - why not put the report and the press release online somewhere and link to it clearly. What’s the point of a BitePR blog if it doesn’t actually contain the information people need?
Technorati Tags: Meetings, PR, efficiency, flexible, mobile, working, YouGov
Andrew Denny wrote:
I can sympathise with BitePR not putting the info on their own blog, since it’s really client information. But there’s no excuse for not being available.
My own rant is about something I’m guilty of occasionally in my day job - putting someone down as a contact for a story, but in fact routing through to a switchboard and redirecting to someone else. Ideally I think a PR contact should be a mobile number, to one named individual.
Posted on 13-Mar-07 at 11:29 am | Permalink
Matthew Stibbe wrote:
Back when I did a lot of journalism I was always amazed at the difference between good and bad PR firms. The good ones would always track down someone to talk to you - I don’t mind going to reception if it means I speak to a real person not a voicemail. The bad ones would put you through to voicemail or play twenty questions with you before actually helping you. Or, in the case of Bite, say ‘there’s no-one who can help you, call back in a week.’ What’s the point of those fat retainer checks if you can’t even field a simple request for a client?
The all-time worst PR experience, though is the Ministry of Defence press office. I could write a whole blog entry on how awful they have been to me over the years. They should have sent them over to deal with Saddam, it would have been cheaper and easier.
As for the blogging bit, they could easily link to a client site where the information was held. Or explain to their client that they needed to blog it as part of reaching the widest possible audience.
Posted on 13-Mar-07 at 11:34 am | Permalink
Heather Yaxley wrote:
Confession - I am a PR person, but agree entirely with your thoughts on bad practices and how easy it should be to be helpful. My pet hate is not being able to find further information, even a press release, when you hear a story on the news - and most particularly the origins of data cited. I feel that it should be compulsory for press releases to back up assertions and statistics with sources or reference to reports that can be checked.
Also, the contacts should ideally be available - but in any event, they or whoever is able to help, should be informed and able to substantiate a story. I’m not totally convinced that PR consultancies are able to do that as well as in-house people. Even better, they should be able to put journalists who want to gain further information in touch with others in an organisation, such as engineers, etc. Less gatekeeping and more facilitating discussions.
We have to be much more professional - and being “awful”, which probably means being rude and unhelpful - is just not acceptable.
Posted on 13-Mar-07 at 2:02 pm | Permalink
Mat wrote:
What a waste of money. The survey and subsequent PR cam out of someone’s budget. They should be be cross that follow-ups are not being properly handled AND that the debate has morphed from the cost of meetings to the performance of their PR company!
Posted on 13-Mar-07 at 4:54 pm | Permalink
John McGarvey wrote:
Maybe all the PR people were in a meeting.
Posted on 13-Mar-07 at 5:04 pm | Permalink