Remote Work Threatens US-Based Content and Marketing Jobs. Why Aren't We Talking About It?
Agencies can significantly reduce costs by pursuing non-US-based remote workers. What does that mean for US-based salary growth and job security?
Hi and Welcome to Content People!
Thank you so much for reading or subscribing.
Today is part three of a four-part series on the disruptive forces poised to impact SEO and content marketing now and in the coming months and years. (If you missed last week’s send you can check it out here: ChatGPT and other AI tools really are coming for (at least 30%) your content marketing jobs.)
A lot of ink has been spilled (some by me) about the threat that AI tech poses to content creators or other SEO-adjacent professionals. Today I give the robots a break.
Instead, I’m detailing the ways in which the adoption of fully remote work has opened the door to more easily off-shoring professional service workers.
Ok. Let’s get into it. Here’s part three:
Remote US-Based Content Creators are Replaceable. And not just by AI.
Many studies suggest that remote workers are more productive.
To be fair, some studies point in the other direction, and I expect it will be years before we have anything other than what amounts to large-scale, anecdotal information to toss around.
But, the generally accepted or reported narrative seems to be: Remote workers are just as, if not more, productive than in-office workers. A hang-up is that bosses need to release their “productivity paranoia” and fears that remote workers are slacking. But business leaders should embrace remote work and its bottom-line benefit that remote workers are happier and willing to take a slight pay cut to retain remote or hybrid status.
What I don’t see yet covered is just how much certain businesses can save by pursuing remote workers who are based outside of the US - and what that might mean for US-based salary growth and job security in the professional services sectors over the next decade. The remote revolution is also the globalization of the world’s information workforce.
These insights are mostly related to the agency world - but I presume this might feel relevant to other professional services sectors, too. (If so - or if not - I’d love to hear from you via email or in the comments).
Specifically for agencies, here’s how it breaks down:
Historically, an agency’s two largest expenses would be its payroll (a disproportionally high percentage of revenue, compared to many other business models) and its office space (it needed to be large enough to hold employees on said payroll, centrally located for staff and clients, and nice enough to impress clients).
Somewhat overnight COVID-19 presented opportunities to significantly reduce those costs. The broad adoption of remote work meant that the financial albatross of a large, chic office space was gone. And, perhaps even more impactful, US-based agencies could now tap into a cheaper, global talent pool.
Today, with the right recruitment strategies (which have likely taken some time to refine), creative client-service organizations can hire exceptionally talented designers, animators, writers, project managers, strategists, account managers, or other roles in locations like Brazil, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK. Those international teammates (often brought on as independent contractors) will likely have compensation requirements ranging from 30% - 70% of what US-based staff would expect to make.
You might say. Damn - once those international workers find out, aren’t they super pissed? Don’t they demand more? Yes - and then no. In many cases, while these compensation rates are comparatively very low by US standards, for international talent these rates are often much higher - and more reliable - than available local opportunities. And the US Dollar has been steadily gaining strength despite the current, complex economy. That means that, at least for now, those international workers are not necessarily inclined to make waves and demand parity - they are motivated to keep this lucrative work.
For larger agencies in particular, this is a temptingly profitable model. Hiring a number of lower-cost, international workers (often just replacing entry-level departing US-based team members via attrition) significantly reduces overall salary costs - and therefore likely increases margins.
While these international hires are predominantly (for now) limited to independent contributor roles (such as creative producers or other information workers with billable hours, rather than leadership roles or team managers) professionals across the globe are now significantly more incentivized to build their hard and soft skill sets to be viable candidates for more senior positions down the line.
I expect there will be coaches, courses, and other services springing up that purport to help international workers build out their skill sets and make themselves even more viable candidates for remote roles with US-based companies.
There are downsides to a global staff for US colleagues
While the bottom line is likely positive for companies that make the transition, managing across different time zones and navigating language barriers can prove challenging for both the off-shore staff and their US-based colleagues.
However, those problems are all mostly surmountable, and teams are likely to get better at managing the nuances of these collaborations over time. Or, HR teams will get better at figuring out the most viable locations from which to source off-shore contractors.
In many instances, while those challenges put additional pressure on the actual staff who need to deal with the logistical issues, the problems might not feel impactful enough to senior management to justify leaving the cost savings on the table.
What does all of this mean for agencies and agency workers?
I’ve recently written about AI’s impact on creative careers and the potential disruption that search and search-adjacent industries face. I believe this is another powerful force that will shape the direction of the professional services sector moving forward, and one that doesn’t, at least currently, bode well for US-based creative workers.
Here are a few guesses of what could come to pass in the US if this approach takes hold:
Fewer creative career entry points for US-based creative workers
Similar to the potential impact of AI tool integration, it’s possible that this approach could significantly reduce the available number of more entry-level roles, which tend to be less client-facing and are more easily outsourced. That could also make the ladder up and into mid-level or senior roles less obvious or available for Gen Z workers in the future.
Potential government policy shifts
Perhaps, over time, this option could prove to be a catalyst for more employer-friendly policies (taxes or otherwise) for US-based companies that employ US-based workers. And/or there could be more penalties for organizations relying solely on contract workers.
Fewer but better US-based creative marketing jobs
And, there’s also the potential for off-shore contract workers and US-based employees to have a symbiotic relationship: An overall reduction in salary or compensation averages might allow some organizations to bring on more workers overall, effectively reducing unrealistic workloads (a bane of the creative industry and a hindrance to quality work, employee retention and employer reputation) without increasing overall operating costs.
Reduced power (and salaries) for US workers
Ideas like “quiet quitting” or “acting your wage” will lose steam if US-based staff feel more of a need to prove their value to their current employers. It does feel like all of the recent layoffs have already impacted US workers’ embrace of those trends. And it’s likely that folks who opt into fully remote work for lifestyle benefits will find that their ability to negotiate for higher salaries becomes significantly reduced.
Overall, for now, this approach seems like a bit of a boon for international workers and US-based employers. US-based employees lose out as they become more cheaply replaced. But all three - agencies, international workers, and US-based creatives - will likely be as much or more significantly impacted by the threat of improved and refined AI capabilities in the coming decade. There are myriad outcomes.
Either way, I’m surprised at the lack of conversation around this factor in the news or even the industry at large. (Though Scott Galloway did mention the salary pressures remote workers will face toward the end of his great interview on the Ten Percent Happier podcast.)
If you have thoughts, opinions, or predictions about this I’d be thrilled to hear from you.
Thanks for reading. If you’re liking this content you can support the newsletter by subscribing, recommending it, or sharing it on social media with a link.
Next Time in Content People: These past three sends I’ve explored potential disruptive forces in the SEO/Content space, and it might have felt pretty very doom and gloom. Next time I’ll wrap up this series on a more positive note: My thoughts and suggestions for how SEO experts, marketers, and content creators can successfully navigate these potential shake-ups.
Are you into this kind of thing? Check out my podcast - also called Content People - wherever you get your podcasts.
Hi Meredith,
I'm analyzing 1 million remote job openings for a research study I'm doing on remote work.
I'm curious if there's anything interesting you would like to see in the study?
So far, I'm planning to cover:
- How the # of remote job openings have declined or increased in the past year
- Which types of jobs are most likely to be remote
- Average salaries of remote jobs vs non-remote
- Whether leadership jobs are less or more likely to be remote
- Countries with the most growth in remote jobs
- Whether US-based companies are offshoring remote jobs to other countries.
I'd love to hear whether there's anything else you would be curious to read in this study?
I'll let you know when I'm done writing it.
Best,
Henley, Researcher at Bloomberry
henley@bloomberry.com