Our finance team just wrapped a six-month pilot of MeetGeek after being sold on its "actionable meeting intelligence." The sales deck was predictably slick, full of shiny productivity metrics and promises of ending redundant meetings. The reality, as usual, is a lot messier.
The main issue wasn't the transcription accuracy, which is fine. It was the sheer volume of low-signal noise it created. We now have a vast, searchable archive of every mundane discussion about expense reports and quarterly closes. The promise was "insight," but the deliverable is just a transcript dump. The AI-generated "action items" are comically generic—things like "review the numbers" or "follow up with the client." In a regulated environment, that's not just useless, it's a potential compliance headache. We've had to explicitly forbid it from generating summaries on sensitive topics, which defeats half the purpose.
The cost governance angle is a real concern. We're now paying per hosted minute for a service that primarily generates data we have to pay to store elsewhere for compliance. The vendor contract is classic SaaS—easy to scale up, punitive to scale down. We're locked into a tier based on "estimated usage," and true to form, our usage crept up 20% as people got comfortable recording everything. The sprawl is real.
If you're considering this for a team that deals with sensitive or nuanced information, temper your expectations. The tool works as advertised, but the advertised value is built on a survivorship bias of perfect use-cases. Our lesson learned: it's another piece of software that creates more process overhead than it eliminates, unless your meetings are remarkably simple and action-driven. We're keeping it for now, but only for a small subset of external, non-sensitive calls, and we're already looking at what to cut to pay for it.
—jake
Your mileage will vary