About MeetingBurn

MeetingBurn makes invisible meeting waste visible. A live-ticking counter shows dollar-per-second burn rates and creates shareable receipts that drive behavior change in corporate meeting culture.

Core value: Transform abstract meeting time into concrete financial data with shareability.

When remote beats in-person (and when it doesn't)

Remote meetings (Zoom, Teams, Webex) can be more effective than in-person for many use cases: no commute, no room booking, easier to record and replay, and—crucially for makers and creatives—less disruption to flow state. In-person all-hands often require everyone to travel, sit in a room, and listen to updates that could have been a Slack message or a 5-minute async video. The cost is the same either way; the question is whether the format justifies it.

In-person still wins for team building, complex negotiations, and whiteboard brainstorming. But for status updates, standups, and one-way announcements, remote (or better yet, async Slack/Teams) is often more efficient and less draining. MeetingBurn helps you see the cost either way—so you can decide whether the meeting format is worth it.

How meeting cost is calculated

MeetingBurn converts each participant's compensation into an hourly rate, sums those rates, and multiplies by meeting duration. All math runs in your browser—no data is sent anywhere.

Industry presets: average salary and verifiable sources

Preset salaries are based on documented 2026 US market data—not random guesses. Salary data is accurate as of February 9, 2026. Below is every industry preset with its average salary and verifiable source links.

These are average estimates and may be lower than expected for senior roles or high-cost regions. Actual salaries vary by location, experience, company size, and role. You can customize any value in the calculator.

Hourly rate per participant

• Full-time (salary): Annual salary ÷ 2,080 hours/year. 2,080 is the standard working hours (40 hrs/week × 52 weeks).
• Contractor (hourly): The hourly rate you enter is used.

Average rate

The average rate is the sum of all participants' hourly rates divided by the number of participants. It represents the blended hourly cost of the meeting.

Total meeting cost

Total cost = (sum of all hourly rates) × (duration in seconds) ÷ 3,600. The cost per second is the sum of hourly rates ÷ 3,600; multiply by elapsed seconds to get the total.

In-person “tax” (usually paid by employees)

In-person meetings add hidden costs that most companies don’t cover: commute time, coffee, parking, childcare, etc. These are typically paid by employees, not the employer.

When you choose “In-person” and include this cost, we add:

• Included by default—commute time value: The dollar value of time spent commuting. Formula: sum of hourly rates × (round-trip minutes ÷ 60). Default is 30 minutes.
• Extra cost (optional): Out-of-pocket expenses beyond commute time, e.g. coffee, parking, childcare, tolls. Add a per-person dollar amount if applicable.

The receipt itemizes Company pays (meeting time) vs Each employee pays (avg) (per-person average—not exact; commute, daycare, coffee, etc. vary) and All employees together pay (total), so it’s clear who bears which cost.

How meeting scores are calculated

Meeting scores (0–100) evaluate meeting efficiency based on format, participant count, duration, and meeting type. The algorithm is designed to surface evidence-based patterns of meeting waste while accounting for legitimate use cases. Scores are subjective and opinionated—meant to spark reflection, not dictate policy.

Note: Scores are only visible when you toggle them on. They're never shown in shared receipts, downloads, or clipboard copies. This is intentional: scores are for your own reflection, not for public judgment of colleagues or teams.

Algorithm principles

All meetings start at 100 points. Penalties are applied for patterns associated with meeting inefficiency. Bonuses are rare and small (e.g., +5 for efficient remote async-friendly meetings).

1. Format appropriateness: Remote vs. in-person

Remote meetings are generally preferred for routine work. Research shows remote work reduces commute time, increases flexibility, and—crucially for knowledge workers—preserves flow state (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). A 2023 Stanford study found remote workers saved an average of 72 minutes per day on commuting, with no productivity loss for collaborative or creative tasks.

In-person meetings are penalized unless justified. The algorithm recognizes that some meeting types benefit from in-person presence (brainstorming, kickoffs, team building), while others do not (status updates, standups, announcements). Research by Mroz et al. (2018) found that face-to-face meetings are most valuable for complex problem-solving and relationship-building, but offer minimal advantage for information dissemination.

• In-person for async-friendly types (standups, status updates): -22 points. These meetings are candidates for Slack/email or short async video.
• In-person without clear justification: -8 points. If the meeting type isn't explicitly collaborative (brainstorming, kickoff, etc.), remote is preferred.
• Remote for async-friendly types: +5 points. Recognizes efficient format choice.

2. Participant count: Coordination overhead

Larger meetings increase coordination costs and reduce participation. Research by Woolley et al. (2010, MIT) found that optimal team size for collaborative work is 3–5 people. Beyond 8 people, participation drops and "social loafing" increases (individuals contribute less as group size grows). Latané et al. (1979) demonstrated this effect across multiple studies.

• 8–14 participants: -5 points. Medium-sized meetings require intentionality. Ask: does everyone need to be here?
• 15+ participants (async-friendly): -12 points. Large audience for a simple meeting type suggests broadcast (email, video) would be more efficient.
• 25+ participants: -8 points. Large meetings are harder to coordinate and reduce individual engagement.
• 50+ participants: -8 points (cumulative). Very large meetings often become one-way broadcasts. Consider async alternatives.
• 50+ in-person: Additional -10 points. Large in-person gatherings amplify cost and coordination complexity.

3. Duration: Time is expensive

Long meetings for simple tasks are inefficient. Harvard Business Review (2022) reports that the average professional spends 21.5 hours per week in meetings, with 71% of those meetings considered unproductive. Status updates and standups should be short—15 minutes or less. Longer durations for these types suggest inefficiency or lack of preparation.

• Async-friendly meeting >1 hour: -15 points. Status updates shouldn't take an hour. Consider async or breaking into smaller focused sessions.
• Async-friendly meeting ≤15 min: +5 points. Efficient use of time.
• In-person >4 hours: -6 points. Long in-person sessions amplify commute and opportunity cost.
• In-person >6 hours: -12 points. All-day in-person meetings should be rare and highly justified.

4. In-person costs: Employee burden

In-person meetings impose hidden costs on employees. The U.S. Census Bureau reports the average one-way commute is 27.6 minutes (55.2 minutes round-trip), costing employees time and money (gas, parking, childcare, etc.). Unlike meeting time—which the company pays for via salaries—these costs are borne by employees, not employers. Pew Research (2022) found that 64% of remote-capable workers prefer hybrid or fully remote schedules specifically to avoid commuting.

For remote meetings, cost per attendee-hour is NOT penalized. The "cost" of a remote meeting is just time and salary—an expected cost of doing business. High hourly rates in remote meetings don't indicate inefficiency; they indicate that highly compensated employees are working.

For in-person meetings, cost per attendee-hour IS penalized. High costs in in-person meetings reflect actual expenses beyond salary (commute, parking, lost productivity, opportunity cost). These penalties encourage teams to ask: "Is in-person worth the extra cost?"

• In-person cost >30% of total: -10 points. Significant employee burden (long commutes, parking, extras).
• In-person cost >$500 total: -6 points. Notable employee cost.
• Total cost >$8,000: -10 points. High total cost (e.g., $10K meeting with 50 people for 2 hours).
• Total cost >$15,000: -18 points. Very high total cost (e.g., $24K all-day meeting).
• In-person cost per attendee-hour >$150: -20 points. Very high cost per person (time + commute + extras).
• In-person cost per attendee-hour >$100: -10 points. Above-average cost per person.

What meeting types are "async-friendly"?

The algorithm considers the following types async-friendly (Slack, email, async video, etc.):

• Stand Up
• Status Update
• Sync
• Touch Base
• Review

These types are informational and don't require real-time interaction. Research by Iqbal & Horvitz (CHI 2019) found that async communication reduces interruptions and preserves focus time, particularly for engineers, designers, and writers.

What meeting types justify in-person?

The algorithm recognizes these types as potentially benefiting from in-person presence:

• Brainstorm
• Kickoff
• All Hands

Even so, long or very large in-person sessions for these types still receive penalties, as the cost and coordination overhead may outweigh the benefits.

Score interpretation

• 85–100: Efficient. Remote, lean, and justified.
• 70–84: Decent. Could be async or smaller, but not egregious.
• 50–69: Questionable. Strong "could have been an email" energy.
• 0–49: Inefficient. High cost, large audience, or poor format choice.

Why scores are subjective

Meeting efficiency depends on context. A 50-person in-person all-hands might be worth it for a company-wide announcement or culture-building event, even if it scores low. Conversely, a 5-person remote brainstorm might score high but still be unproductive if participants aren't prepared. Scores are a starting point for reflection, not a verdict.

Research sources

• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology. Springer. APA link
• Barrero, J. M., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. J. (2023). Why Working from Home Will Stick. Stanford WFH Research. wfhresearch.com
• Mroz, J. E., Allen, J. A., Verhoeven, D. C., & Shuffler, M. L. (2018). Do We Really Need Another Meeting? Journal of Management. SAGE link
• Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in Groups. Science, 330(6004), 686–688. Science link
• Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822–832.
• Perlow, L. A., Hadley, C. N., & Eun, E. (2017). Stop the Meeting Madness. Harvard Business Review. HBR link
• U.S. Census Bureau (2021). One-Way Travel Time to Work Rises. Census link
• Parker, K., Horowitz, J. M., & Minkin, R. (2022). COVID-19 Pandemic Continues to Reshape Work in America. Pew Research Center. Pew link
• Iqbal, S. T., & Horvitz, E. (2019). Regulating Workplace Interruptions. CHI 2019. ACM link

Sharing & Privacy

All data stays in your browser. No tracking, no servers, no accounts. Privacy-first by design.

History & storage: Meeting history is stored in your browser's local storage—local to your device and to your browser. You can clear it at any time. No data leaves your browser. Ever.

How sharing works (privacy-first)

When you share a receipt, MeetingBurn creates a shareable link that contains only the summary data (total cost, duration, participant count, sector, meeting type)—no names, no salaries, no hourly rates. The link looks like this:

meetingburn.app/share?r=eyJ0IjoxNzM4ODk...

What is Base64 encoding?

Base64 is a simple text format that converts data into a URL-safe string of letters, numbers, and a few symbols. It's not encryption—it's just a way to pack data into a link. Think of it like a ZIP file for URLs: it makes the data compact and safe to share in a web address.

Here's what happens:

• Step 1: Your browser (locally, on your device) takes the meeting summary and converts it to Base64 text.
• Step 2: That text becomes part of the share link.
• Step 3: When someone clicks your link, their browser decodes the Base64 text and displays the receipt.

You control who sees the data

Base64 is not a secret code. Anyone with the link can decode it (it's just converting text back to numbers). But only people you send the link to can see the data. No one else has the link. MeetingBurn never stores your data on a server—there are no servers. The encoding and decoding both happen in your browser and the recipient's browser. It's entirely in your hands.

What's in the share link?

The share URL contains only aggregated, anonymized data:

• Meeting timestamp (date/time)
• Duration (seconds)
• Number of participants
• Total cost and average rate (calculated)
• Sector (public/private) and meeting type
• Breakdown (how many full-time/contractor/unknown—no individual details)

What's NOT shared: Individual participant salaries, hourly rates, names, roles, or any personally identifiable information. The recipient sees only the final cost summary.

Bottom line: Sharing is safe because you choose who gets the link, and the link contains only summary data—never individual compensation details.

Examples

All salary and hourly rates in these examples are from our documented preset salary sources (2026): BLS, PayScale, Robert Half, and Motion Recruitment. Actual costs may be higher depending on your organization's compensation.

← Back to home