blog compliance insights

As a lawyer trained in billing in 5-minute increments, nothing bugs me more than “non-productive use of time”. When I read articles about how the financial services industry is stuck using that same old methods and systems, it reminds me why the lawsuits are the same as thirty years ago as well as the customer dissatisfaction.  Wasting time.

The issue is that folks are stuck in “legacy speak” and need to consider a conversation about and with Artificial Intelligence.

Let’s see how the conversation would play if “Artificial Intelligence” could chat with “Legacy”:

Conversation:

Artificial Intelligence: “Oh hey, why do you keep your employees on the phone, taking payments and trying to find customers to even consider making payments?”

Legacy: “That is a stupid question that I refuse to answer. Ok fine, everyone has always sent letters and made phone calls, why would we have our staff do anything else? Duh.”

Artificial Intelligence: “LOL. Perhaps humans could do some higher- level functioning and handle disputes with calls scheduled by the consumer and the payment and reminder/motivator functions could be handled by technology. Plus, it is fun for the consumer, not talking and using interactive technology”.

Legacy: “Valid point. But it is WAY TOO DIFFICULT to get through all the committees and approvals and change our systems. This is giving me a headache. Ugh”.

Artificial Intelligence. “Relax. It is worth it. I can help you make the evolution easier because you are going to make more money and stop wasting time. Done be a sad panda. Look at the study below using Ai.”

Case Study:

The performance of Remitter was assessed against legacy collections methods with treatment strategies including dialer calls and independent email and one-way re-direct SMS against a portfolio of delinquent consumer wireless contracts:

The assessment was carried out over a 3- month period and included an even split of inventory at 30,000 accounts for Control (contacted via dialer, SMS, email) tested versus the pool of 30,000 accounts that received communications only from Remitter (pure quarantined test accounts vs. complementing existing strategies)

Result:

Customers that were communicated to via the Remitter platform were 2.81x more likely to make a payment than those contacted via traditional methods (calls, non-actionable SMS etc.).

4,134 Unique Customers made payments through the Remitter platform. This compares to just 1473 Unique payments made through the control group that were contacted via traditional methods.

 

Artificial Intelligence: “Ready to evolve?”