I hate voice mails. They are tedious and a general pain in the butt.
Just text me.
And it seems I’m not the only one.
Last winter, Coca-Cola Co. disconnected voice mail service at its Atlanta headquarters, “to simplify the way we work and increase productivity,” according to an internal memo.
In the age of smartphones and ubiquitous text messaging, the world’s largest soft drink company found landline voice mail increasingly redundant, and Coca-Cola isn’t alone. Last month, JPMorgan Chase & Co. eliminated voice mail for thousands of employees who do not take calls from customers.
The eliminations aren’t only good for employee sanity, they’re saving companies some dough. At $10 per person, JPMorgan is eliminating 65 percent of its voice mail boxes, according to a Bloomberg Business report. The division expects to save $3.2 million a year from the move. Coca-Cola’s savings are more modest, estimated at less than $100,000 a year.
Coke now uses a standard outgoing message informing callers to try the person again later or use an alternative method of contact.
And there’s the rub.
As much as I personally dislike voice mail, I use it professionally every day for work. I leave dozens of messages a week with sources requesting interviews or a quick fact check. Sometimes, I don’t have an “alternative method to contact the person.”
Voice mail may be past its prime, but I’m not sure we can ship it off to the land of outdated office tech with typewriters and fax machines just yet. Eliminating something so commonplace would require a communications overhaul.
Currently, most of the business websites I visit simply list a main office line or a generic email address. In a world with no voice mail, I’m going to need more information. At the very least, businesses would need to make employee email addresses readily available, if not cellphone numbers.
That brings to light drawback No. 2: Businesspeople would have to readily give out their personal cellphone numbers.
Inherently then, that leads to a 24/7 work environment. How much work must one conduct on a personal cellphone before it becomes a work cellphone? At which point, when does the employer start splitting the bill?
It’s a conversation I’ve had before with a group of colleagues during a Missouri Press Association convention. A few years back, the Chicago Tribune let go of its staff photographers, instead issuing reporters iPhones to snap pictures and video as they went about their reporting. Many news organizations also issue smartphones to reporters who are expected to constantly update social media. Gannett Co., owner of the Springfield News-Leader, does just that.
Office-issued cellphones could become the new normal, as commonplace as a computer, but it could come with a steep cost. A company may save $10 per person eliminating voice mail, but how much is a smartphone bill going to run each month?
I’m all for eliminating the time I spend tethered to my voice mail. You. Have. Five. New. Messages. And I’d be thrilled to get rid of that constantly blinking red light, but I think Coke and JPMorgan might be jumping the gun.
Text messages and email are valid alternatives to voice mail, but have you ever tried to get a cellphone number from a secretary? You would think I’d asked for the Holy Grail itself.
Until companies stop viewing that information as private, the list of “alternative methods to contact the person” is nonexistent.
For the time being, the answer to my headline sadly is no. Voice mail is alive and kicking and annoying us one message at a time.
Springfield Business Journal Features Editor Emily Letterman can be reached at eletterman@sbj.net.[[In-content Ad]]
