01
High volume
Many accounts per collector, with little time for each conversation.
Success story · Sercom
Sercom added Saldia to a consumer card portfolio, in its early-stage buckets. In September the agent recovered 1.7 times what the average collector of the contact center did and ranked #1 in recovery per intervention. The bot worked the low balances; the human collectors, the high ones.
Who they are
Sercom is a collections agency with more than ten years in the market. They didn't come to Saldia looking for new technology: they came with a volume problem and the operational judgment to tell whether the tool was any good.
That experience ended up shaping the product. Sercom helped design the solution and was the first case in production: the negotiating policy, the delinquency buckets and the hand-off criteria came out of how a real operation works, not out of a hypothesis of ours.
The challenge
The portfolio is a consumer card one (anonymized), and the bot worked its early-stage buckets. It's the kind of portfolio where human collections gets expensive — many low-balance accounts, where each contact costs the same as on a large account but recovers far less.
01
Many accounts per collector, with little time for each conversation.
02
The cost per contact doesn't drop, but the amount to recover does.
03
Human collections ends when the shift ends; the debtor answers when they can.
What they deployed
The agent negotiates over voice, chat and WhatsApp 24 hours a day. It proposes plans within the portfolio's policy, closes the payment promise and logs it — and hands off to a human collector when the case calls for it.
The same agent on all three channels, with the same policy.
No gaps for shifts or weekends.
It works the low balances; the human collectors keep the high ones.
Results
All of September, the 1st to the 30th. The numbers compare Saldia against the contact center's average collector, on the same portfolio.
1.7×
more recovered
$29.2M vs. $16.9M for the average collector.
#1
in recovery
In the recovery-per-intervention ranking.
520
payment promises
$99.6M committed, a third of the whole portfolio.
3.7×
more promises
Than the contact center's average collector.
How to read these numbers. 189 accounts paid after negotiating with the bot. The bot worked the low balances; the human collectors, the high ones. That isn't a weakness: those are precisely the buckets a human operation gets the least out of. It wins on volume, which is exactly what it was put there to do.
What the case shows
The bot didn't top the ranking because it negotiates better than a good collector. It topped it because it works 24 hours, doesn't tire out on account number two hundred, and takes without complaint the part of the portfolio that eats a human's day to recover very little.
That leaves collectors where they do make a difference: the large accounts, the cases with a complaint, the situations that call for judgment. Same team, workload split a different way.
Let's talk
A 30-minute conversation is enough to see whether your operation has a similar case.
Book a call