01
No shifts
It answers and calls 24 hours a day, weekends included. The debtor picks up when they can, not when your operation is open.
Comparison
We're the ones selling the bot, so let's say it up front: it doesn't replace your team. There are buckets where it wins hands down and buckets where deploying it is throwing money away. Here's the line, based on what we've seen in production.
Where the bot wins
The automated agent's advantages aren't about intelligence: they're about scale and stamina. It does the same on account number ten as on number five hundred, on a Sunday at eleven at night.
01
It answers and calls 24 hours a day, weekends included. The debtor picks up when they can, not when your operation is open.
02
Conversation two hundred has the same energy as the first. In a high-volume bucket, that's half the result.
03
It won't offer a write-off that doesn't apply just to close faster. What's outside policy, it doesn't offer.
04
Raising the volume of work doesn't mean adding seats, training, or waiting out a learning curve.
05
Recording, transcript and disposition for 100% of interactions. Auditable without sampling.
06
It takes the bucket where cost per contact eats up whatever a human collector recovers.
Where the person wins
Anything that means stepping off the script is still human territory. And it isn't a temporary limitation that more technology fixes: in many of these cases you don't want a machine deciding.
01
Where a badly calibrated write-off costs more than the collector's salary. That's where you want your best person.
02
If the debtor questions the balance or says they already paid something that isn't on record, it needs investigating, not negotiating.
03
Illness, job loss, vulnerability. They call for judgment and tact, and sometimes a decision that isn't in any policy.
04
Any agreement that needs a supervisor's approval. The bot can spot it and hand it off, not settle it.
05
When the debtor is also an active customer you don't want to lose, it's a different conversation.
06
Deaths, estates, fraud, identity theft. Low volume and a high risk of getting it wrong.
The numbers we have
On a consumer card portfolio (anonymized), across all of September, we compared Saldia against the contact center's average collector. The bot worked the low balances; the human collectors, the high ones.
1.7×
more recovered
$29.2M vs. $16.9M for the average collector.
3.7×
more promises
Than the contact center's average collector.
189
accounts paid
After negotiating with the bot.
#1
in recovery
In the recovery-per-intervention ranking.
Read this carefully, because it's where people oversell. The bot didn't negotiate better than a good collector: it worked more hours on the bucket that pays a person the least (the bot worked the low balances; the human collectors, the high ones). Had we put the bot on the large accounts, the result would have been different — and worse. The full detail is in the Sercom case.
How to split it
The useful question isn't "bot or people", it's which part of the portfolio you give to each. A split that works in practice:
Early-stage delinquency and low balances, mass first contact, reminders and resending links, retries at different hours, follow-up on promises already taken, and all the work outside office hours.
High-balance accounts, anything the bot hands off, complaints, agreements that need approval, customers with an active relationship, and the cases that call for judgment.
The condition for this to work is a clean hand-off: when the bot escalates, the collector has to receive the whole conversation. If the customer has to repeat everything from scratch, you've lost the advantage and annoyed them on top of it.
Let's talk
We'll look at your buckets and tell you honestly what we'd automate and what we wouldn't.
Book a call