Peak Oil… Meet Public Media: Virtualizing the Workplace
Energy and other costs are rising, and we’re just beginning to feel the ripple effect through the rest of the economy. Public media organizations are approaching the next year conservatively, assuming a downturn, and one which might last for awhile.
So, how will you adapt? This week, I’m posting thoughts on a couple of the many ways this new economic reality might have an impact on public media.
Your star reporter says, “Look, it’s cost prohibitive for me to drive to the station every day. Why do I have to commute to this building every day when I can do my job with a microphone and a laptop?”
We’re going to be squeezed hard in the next couple years. Our infrastructure costs will rise significantly, and it’s likely our membership revenue will remain flat or drop somewhat.
Making big cuts in the services we provide would kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But we are going to have to cut somewhere.
Costs that have been considered mandatory are going to come into sharp focus: how much are we paying for office space, cubicles, heating and cooling… all based on an assumption that everybody needs to be in the building for 8 hours a day, sitting at an expensive desk, using expensive electricity?
If you can’t give your star reporter, or any of your employees, a raise next year or the year after, what are you prepared to do to keep them? Are you willing to consider letting your reporters work from home one or two days a week? They’re still going to drive to cover the news on the station dime, of course, but a 20% or a 40% reduction in commuting costs could be the equivalent of a nice salary increase with $5 a gallon gas. And after you spend a little (very little) cash to equip them to work virtually, your infrastructure expenditures at HQ may fall.
Other staff in various departments may also be able to work from home for a day or two a week. Internet access and other tools could keep them connected to the home office.
What about employees who do have to report to headquarters every day: your on-air staff, among others? They may have some justification in asking for a raise to cover their higher commuting costs.
Can you virtualize the entire radio or TV station? Of course not. But must everyone be gathered in the same physical space from 9am-5pm each day? No.
In most sectors employing knowledge workers, including public media, concepts like flex-time, and performance standards based on accomplishment are going to become more important than occupying a cubicle for 40 hours a week. Other public media organizations that understand and act on this before you do will have something new and compelling to attract your employees.
What do you think? Would you implement workplace changes like these in order to control costs, or reduce employee commuting costs? Would they have a positive impact, or not? What ideas is your organization considering to control rising infrastructure costs? A “green” initiative, perhaps? Leave your thoughts in the comments!
- Part 2: Social Media for Ourselves
- Part 3: Engaging the Community
So right Todd – a huge amount of costs are involved “going to work” the commute time, the car, the gas, the parking – lunch for the staff. Worse for families – daycare etc – time away from our partners the financial and economic costs are big
The office, the kit, the taxes, the heat and cooling the taxes etc for the employer.
All because we need face time. All because we don’t manage by outcomes.
Social media gives us the social part of work – I hardly ever see my co workers or clients – when I do we tend to party and work very hard. This is much better.
Isn’t most of your work on the PC anyway?
Come in for the odd meeting – but don’t spend all your money on “going to work”
If we telecommute many parts of our lives get better
Thanks for the comment, Rob! You’re one of the best examples of successful telecommuting: on-site when you need to be, at home in paradise on PEI the rest of the time – but always connected.
Here’s an interesting angle on the cost of energy. There are several public radio stations in rural Alaska that actually buy their own diesel fuel supplies in order to power their generators that power their transmitters.
Those stations are dying, and fast. They’re appealing to the state for more money, and they’re getting a little bit now, but in the end, they’re likely to be killed off. One station has already dropped its membership in the statewide network because they can’t afford the fees anymore. This is a once-proud station that had 5 reporters on staff but now has 1.5 people on staff total.
This is, of course, a rare example. But it’s quite real for the folks in rural parts of Alaska that in time will lose their public radio service entirely — in towns where public radio is the only broadcast service of any kind.
Separately, I totally agree that reporters should be “virtual” employees. Even when our folks are working in the same physical space, they’re still exchanging files and info via e-mail (and lately, chat) and even use a blog for some coverage planning.
Why they have to be in our office is unclear to me, except for a couple times a week to “touch base” with the whole crew. My understanding is that the always-out-of-the-office mode is typical for newer services like Pegasus News in the Dallas, TX area. It’s the smart way to go, even without a fuel crisis or a peak oil situation.
I’m really sorry to hear that it’s come to this. These public radio stations are the only local radio in many Alaskan communities. John – I’m not as connected to Current as I should be. Has this story been widely published?
Yes, Iowa Public Radio’s news department has functioned well, spread out over 4 locations, with a daily conference call, emailing of scripts, an ftp site and heavy use of Google Talk. Thanks for the comments!
To my knowledge it hasn’t been published at all. The stations I’m talking about aren’t “mine” so I can’t speak for them. If someone wanted to inquire about this (from Current or otherwise), I’d start with the GM of KSKO in McGrath, Alaska. They’ve been hit really hard and are trying to survive, but the future is murky at best.
The only thing that’s official and public is that the Alaska legislature passed a one-time $400,000 payment to the statewide public radio system to help with rising fuel and healthcare costs this year. No commitments into future years.
Stations in Alaska — like much of the rest of the country, I suppose — don’t like to talk doom-and-gloom in public, for fear of scaring away supporters.