Meeting Cost Meter

Meeting Cost Meter Skill

Meetings are the only five-figure purchases made without a price tag: a weekly hour with nine people at a blended $120/hour loaded rate is ~$56,000 a year — a number nobody approved because nobody computed it. The meter computes it (attendee-hours × honest loaded rates × the recurring multiplier), then asks the only question the number exists for: what does this price buy, and is there a cheaper supplier — fewer people, shorter slot, lower frequency, or a document. The output is leverage for change, not gotcha theater: the point is better purchases, not shame.

What This Skill Produces

• The price — per instance and annualized, with the rate assumptions stated (loaded, not salary-only, and labeled as estimates)
• The context-switch surcharge — the honest note that the calendar cost exceeds the clock cost (fragmentation prices separately — see context-switch-budget)
• The cost-per-outcome read — what the meeting produces, priced per decision/artifact
• The reduction levers, ranked — attendees, length, frequency, format — each with its recomputed price

Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:

• The meeting's shape — attendees (count and rough seniority mix), length, frequency
• The rate basis — real loaded rates if known, or the placeholder bands (stated as placeholders: loaded cost ≈ 1.3–1.6× salary; senior-heavy rooms price differently than mixed ones)
• The outcomes — what this meeting demonstrably produces (decisions per month, the artifact, the alignment that prevented X); the meter prices against something or it's just a big number
• The political intent — pruning a calendar? Making a case to a boss? Auditing a culture? The output's framing follows the use

Framework: The Meter Rules

1. Loaded rates, labeled honest: salary ÷ 2000 undercounts by 30–60% (benefits, overhead) — the meter uses loaded bands and states them as assumptions, because a cost argument built on precise-looking fake numbers dies at the first challenge. Ranges beat points.
2. The recurring multiplier is the reveal: per-instance costs feel small; ×48 weeks is where the number gets attention. Every recurring meeting gets annualized — "this standing sync is a $56k/year line item" is the sentence that changes calendars.
3. Price against the outcomes: decisions-per-quarter, the artifact produced, the coordination that visibly prevented rework — cost ÷ outcomes gives cost-per-decision, and a $4,600 monthly review producing zero decisions for three months prices its own verdict. Meetings with unpriceable-but-real outcomes (trust, cohesion) get that stated honestly, not zeroed — the meter informs judgment, it doesn't replace it.
4. Levers in leverage order: attendee count first (the only lever that's linear and painless — two optional attendees off a weekly hour = ~$12k/year back), then length (60→25 min is usually free), then frequency (weekly→biweekly halves), then format (the async conversion, via async-instead). Each lever ships with its recomputed price so the proposal is arithmetic, not opinion.
5. The meter serves proposals, not prosecutions: the output frames as "here's what we're paying and three cheaper options" — cost-shaming a meeting its owner loves entrenches it; showing the owner what $30k of savings buys elsewhere converts them.