Here, we explore how collections agencies can level up their data \u2014 and collect more debt in the process. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sources of Data and Their Perception<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Spokeo commissioned its survey as a means to gauge the current state of data acquisition and usage within the debt collection industry. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The responses were instructive, and a key takeaway is that the status quo in data acquisition and management is unsatisfactory. (You can check out four other key takeaways from the survey in this article.) In their quest for comprehensive and up-to-date debtor information, respondents reported turning to sources including\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- client data<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- third-party services<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- public records<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- credit-reporting agencies<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- general internet searches<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- in-house databases <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Survey responses showed that no single data source dominated as the go-to for collections agents. But, interestingly, that is not the case for agencies\u2019 perception<\/em> of these sources. Client data was strongly perceived as the most valuable data source, top-ranked by 63% of respondents. In-house databases and third-party services were ranked as their most important data sources by only 17% and 12% of respondents, respectively. It is notable that only 23% of respondents cited client data as one of their current data sources, indicating that the majority of firms would prefer to use client data but do not have that option at their disposal.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Case for More Rigorous Vendor Selection and Data Management<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
As data vendors ourselves, we found the responses pertaining to third-party data sources to be both fascinating and chastening. Only 23% of respondents reported using third-party vendors as a data source, and only 12% ranked data partners as their highest-value source (another 27% ranked third-party services as second in importance, for a total of 39%, but that figure still lags well behind client data and internal databases). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Questions on respondents\u2019 use of third-party vendors yielded more food for thought. A strong majority (82%) of respondents reported using two or more third-party vendors, and 20% use four or more. This correlates to significant expenditures, with 80% of respondents spending $1000 or more per month, and 39% reported spending $5000 or more per month. Cumulatively, these responses \u2014 the widespread use of sources other than third-party vendors, the need for multiple vendors, and the corresponding costs \u2014 point to high demand for vendors capable of helping collections firms streamline their data-acquisition processes and their associated costs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
That said, responses to the survey also painted a picture of a debt collection industry that has yet to adequately address the increasingly central importance of data acquisition and management. In total, 69% of respondents review their data acquisition strategy \u201cas needed\u201d or on no set schedule. Similarly, responses showed little consensus on which performance indicators are most meaningful. It does not require deep analysis to conclude that the industry\u2019s lukewarm attitude toward third-party vendors and its own less-than-rigorous approach to managing data acquisition are related and mutually reinforcing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"two](\"https:\/\/www.spokeo.com\/pathfinder\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/pexels-mikhail-nilov-6894211-1024x682.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nA Suggested Process for Data-Vendor Management, Measurement, and Selection<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Addressing this scenario requires a significant reevaluation of how data is managed, as well as how data vendors are chosen and monitored. While every agency\u2019s specific circumstances are unique, in broad terms, the challenges involved (and the steps required to overcome them) are similar enough to suggest an evaluation and management process that can be adapted by most firms. Here\u2019s what we recommend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. Conduct Comprehensive Audits of Your Current Data Sources<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Most respondents to our study reported drawing on data from multiple sources, each of which should be evaluated carefully. Data from public records or credit-reporting agencies, for example, can be considered fundamentally reliable but may be outdated. Data from third-party vendors should be scrutinized for completeness and accuracy. Time spent remediating deficiencies in purchased data through less-efficient means, such as internet searches, should be logged and accounted for.
Audits should be conducted regularly, and records kept ongoingly. Armed with this information, managers can now compare data sources and vendors fairly and accurately, and to identify those that are not providing appropriate value for resources invested in them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n2. Create a Consistent Set of Metrics to Assess Performance<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Our survey demonstrated that the debt collection industry as a whole is deeply divided on which metrics (key performance indicators) are the most meaningful. The most-used metric in our study was right-person contacts, but it was cited by only 28% of respondents. That represents a narrow plurality over collection success rates and cost per dollar collected, both at about 20%, and skip trace hit rates at 18%. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In practice, it\u2019s less important which KPIs you choose to monitor than settling on one or more (because no single metric is a completely satisfactory proxy for ROI) and monitoring those metrics consistently over time. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
3. Introduce Regular Strategic Reviews<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Once a suitable set of metrics has been chosen and applied over a period of at least one or two quarters, set aside time to review the data generated from monitoring those KPIs. Inevitably, as the pool of monitoring data grows, trends will emerge that indicate which sources of data perform acceptably or exceptionally, and which do not. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
These strategic reviews should assess which consumer data sources contribute most to operations, and whether any one source provides crucial data that cannot be replicated by the others (because those, even if less cost-effective, must remain in place). Finally, these periodic reviews should question whether each data source justifies the continued expenditure it represents, or should be replaced by a more advanced, more comprehensive, or more cost-effective tool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"female](\"https:\/\/www.spokeo.com\/pathfinder\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/pexels-mareklevak-2265488-1024x682.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n4. Structured Evaluation of Potential Data Sources and Providers <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
If your strategic review indicates a need to replace one or more of your current data sources, their potential successors should be evaluated using criteria based on your firm\u2019s needs and the new vendor\u2019s ability to exceed your current data stack. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Scrutinizing your firm\u2019s own selection criteria can be useful in this context. For example, respondents to our survey indicated that the accuracy of data (ranked first in importance by 46%) and compliance\/security features (ranked first by 31%) were their top priorities when selecting a new vendor. Yet, when asked about the biggest issues with their current providers, data quality and cost were the top responses at 31% and 23% respectively. While each agency will rank factors like these in accordance with its own priorities, it is important that all stakeholders agree on their relative importance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Direct comparison between vendors in areas such as data accuracy can be challenging. Historical accuracy rates may be available from the company\u2019s own testing, or from endorsements by existing customers, though these are not entirely reliable (hands-on testing by your own team, if available, is ideal). The vendor\u2019s product should also be assessed on criteria including: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Ease of use<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Speed of access<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Quality of documentation<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Ease of integration with your current software stack (i.e., the power and versatility of its API)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Breadth and quality of data provided<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Frequency of updates<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Scalability of the tool itself, and of the subscription plans that pay for it<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
5. Review Potential Vendors\u2019 Service Level Agreements (SLAs)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Your potential vendors\u2019 proposed SLAs are another potentially significant factor in choosing one vendor over another. The level of service on offer can vary sharply from one vendor to the next, and from one payment tier to the next. A favorable SLA \u2014 and a vendor with a demonstrated track record of meeting its obligations under those agreements \u2014 can represent a significant level of differentiation between peer vendors whose offerings might otherwise be very similar. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although a vendor offering a higher level of service may command higher up-front subscription fees, this can often be offset by correspondingly lighter burdens on your own firm\u2019s IT resources and staffing (which, as cited above, were a significant concern among our respondents). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
6. Create a Realistic Budget for Implementation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The first three steps in this process do not involve the selection or onboarding of new vendors or data sources, but they aren\u2019t cost-free. They will inevitably require both financial resources and labor, as well as adding to managers\u2019 workload. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
All of these things represent costs and must be budgeted for. If the outcome of those early stages results in the selection of one or more new data partners, the integration of new data sources into your workflow will also require time, money, and testing. Crafting a budget for this process, without unnecessarily weakening any other portion of the company\u2019s operations, may set a hard ceiling for signing with and implementing a new data source or software product. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
7. Build a Unified Technology Roadmap for Your Entire Operation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Any company\u2019s resources face limitations, and this is especially true of smaller and less-resourced agencies<\/a>. Updating an online payment portal, for example, as many firms must in the near-to-intermediate term, will require adequate investments of time, money, and personnel, which then become unavailable for other projects.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Settling on a single, unified roadmap that sets out a timeline and blocks out resources for all of your firm\u2019s planned technology upgrades, initiatives, and maintenance provides a framework within which all of these other steps can take place. Budgets and ROI goals for each phase should be clear, well-understood, and monitored. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Meeting a High Bar<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The unequivocal takeaway from the responses to our survey is that current data sources are failing to meet the market\u2019s need for robust, timely access to accurate, complete, and up-to-date data, delivered in a cost-effective manner by vendors with the resources to support their clients adequately. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s a high bar, and the unfortunate reality is that the collection industry cannot maximize its potential without data partners capable of meeting that bar. This is especially true of the large percentage of collections firms that lack the financial and IT resources necessary to compensate for their data suppliers\u2019 deficiencies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In that context, let us now make the case for why Spokeo for Business<\/a> exemplifies the emerging generation of agile, adaptable, and innovative data vendors.
Spokeo for Business provides:\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n- \n
- Ease of use that compares favorably with a standard internet search.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Data drawn from all six (and more!) of the sources currently cited by respondents to the survey, integrating all of them (including both regulated and unregulated data) into a single report for each query. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Unmatched strength in the area of social media intelligence, specifically, with data drawn from 120+ individual social platforms. Social media intelligence can provide a notable advantage in skip tracing<\/a> and asset recovery<\/a>, for example.\u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Broad and up-to-date data drawn from billions of individual data points and validated continuously by our proprietary algorithms. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- An easy-to-use management dashboard, enabling regular audits with minimal expenditure of managers\u2019 time and attention. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Robust, well-documented APIs to facilitate quick and powerful integration with the rest of your software stack. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Batch Append for Right Party Contact functionality makes accessing data on a large number of debtors easy.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Support for cost-effective batch searches without any custom programming, providing a powerful tool to smaller agencies with minimal IT staffing. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Flexible plans that can suit every business. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- A high level of support during the onboarding process to help your team bring its new data capabilities online, as well as live support from our US-based support team for the duration of your subscription. <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n