|
Email Guides and Essays
About Overcome Email Overload with Eudora 5 About Overcome Email Overload with Microsoft Outlook 2000 and Outlook 2002
About Kaitlin Duck Sherwood
|
Return On Investment of Email ImprovementsI believe that improving email efficiency -- which can be helped in large part by better email programs -- is a task with potentially huge ramifications.By my estimates, US corporations spend between US$ 238 billion and US$ 4.5 trillion on email every year. (The 8x spread in the numbers is due mostly to uncertainty in the average US worker's salary.) Using the figures that I believe most, I estimate US$ 1.5 trillion per year. These figures only count salaries for the time workers spend reading, replying to, and organizing their email. I didn't try to count the cost of software, hardware, or system administrators' time. For comparison, the entire US military budget in 2002 was US$ 360 billion. The huge tax cut of 2001 is estimated at US$ 1.3 trillion over ten years, or US$ 130 billion per year. I believe that reducing the time spent on email by 25% is a perfectly achievable goal. That works out to savings between US$ 59 billion and US$ 1.1 trillion per year, while my best estimate says that we can save US$ 375 billion per year. Even if we use a lower bound of 7.5% savings, that works out to an absolute minimum of US$ 17 billion per year and upper estimate of US$ 337 billion per year. By contrast, the entire world currently spends only about US$ 10 billion per year on AIDS prevention and research. Moral: improving workers' email effectiveness gives an extraordinary return on investment. Justification for EstimateThe sections that follow explain how I came to my estimate. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to get good data on anything related to the Internet.I've tried to link the figures I give to the source of the information. Sometimes I don't have a primary reference, in which case I link to articles that mention the information. Number of People Using Email At WorkThere are a number of different ways to estimate the number of people who use email at work. These give credible figures between 84 million and 112 million, with one figure of 130 million that I don't believe.I only found one direct measure, which only deals with email users inside corporations. (This would thus not count people in partnerships or sole proprietorships.)
Here's a third way to calculate:
The Commerce Department and Forrester numbers are quite old and may not still apply, but I think that 84 million is a reasonable lower boundary for the number of corporate email users in the US. Hours Spent on Email Each DayThere are a number of different estimates of the amount of time spent on email every day. It seems to be between 2.2 and 4 hours per day, with the best estimate being the 2.2 hours per day.
Improvement in EfficiencyI believe that a reduction in email time of 25% is possible with better techniques and tools. I unfortunately don't have solid survey data that I can use to back this up, it's just a hunch.I do believe that I have solid figures for a 7.5% reduction in time. While much smaller, it still works out to a significant dollar savings. Spam alone is significant problem, and I believe that the second-generation of anti-spam products will get rid of most spam.
SalaryI don't know what the average US worker makes. (If you know, please send me that information.) However, the minimum wage is currently US$ 5.15.That US$ 5.15 is "unburdened" -- it does not count payroll taxes, insurance, retirement, or any of the other costs associated with an employee. I've heard that the "burdened" rate is around twice the "unburdened" rate. I suspect that the average wage is actually around US$ 15-20 hour, which when burdened would be around US$ 30-40 per hour. Hours Per YearTo complete the analysis, I assume that workers work five days per week, 50 weeks per year. This works out to 250 work-days per year.(For the purposes of this calculation, I assume that workers don't read email on weekends or on vacation. Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that this is not correct.) |