Illustrative case study · Private Equity

Leaders name fees as the trigger. Complaints move the work.

The 150 finance leaders in this study pick or approve the firm that recovers their company’s overdue accounts. A private equity investor building a position in outsourced receivables recovery needed to know what keeps them with that firm. The researcher delivered the report in 12 days.

Illustrative scenario

Samplen = 150

Illustrative report

Outsourced Receivables Recovery Market

Will companies keep paying outside firms to recover overdue accounts, and what makes them pull the work back?

Study architecture

Rank the criteriaTen selection criteria, indexed, and the proof each top one needs

Trace the pullbacksTriggers leaders name against what came before an actual pullback

Test automationDemand for automated recovery, and who would supply it

Scope

The reasons leaders give for leaving a recovery firm can differ from the reasons they actually left.

Sample

150

CFOs, finance directors and credit directors who pick or approve the recovery firm.

Research by

Study typeSwitching study

ScenarioIllustrative

Receivables recovery · Executive reportExecutive summary

Executive summary

Leaders name fees as the trigger, and complaints from their own customers move the work

Finance leaders ranked ten selection criteria and said what would make them take recovery in-house. Recovery rate and the treatment of their own customers lead the list. Fees top the triggers they name, yet complaints came before most of the pullbacks they made. Leaders want automated recovery for early-stage accounts, and most would buy it from their current firm.

82index

treatment of our customers, against recovery rate at 100

66%n = 150

name higher fees as a trigger to take recovery in-house

64%n = 58

of leaders who pulled work back did so after a customer complaint

70%n = 92

would buy automated recovery from their current firm

Figures rounded. Base n = 150 finance leaders unless stated.

Top lines

1Recovery rate leads the criteria, with treatment of customers close behindTen criteria indexed, and the proof behind them03

2Directors put customer treatment first, and the C-suite puts recovery firstThe criteria index by role04

3Complaints from customers move work more than fees doNamed triggers against actual pullbacks05

4Leaders want automated recovery, and most would buy it from their firmDemand and preferred supplier06

5Sample, screener and quality controlWho we interviewed and how07

AAppendixQuestion flow and data tables09

Sample

150 finance leaders

Segments

60 C-suite, 90 directors

Method

AI-moderated interviews, ranked index

Markets

US companies

Illustrative report. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional.

Illustrative report02

Illustrative reportExecutive summary

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

The engagement

Delivered in

days, with the report, the data file and a live readout.

Interviews

150

Finance leaders who pick or approve their company’s recovery firm.

Audiences

60 C-suite finance leaders and 90 finance and credit directors.

Method

Ranking

Ten criteria ranked and indexed; named triggers checked against events.

The brief

Client

A private equity investor

Decision

Which outsourced recovery firms to pursue, and how to screen them

Stage

Market assessment, before a deal

How we ran it

Approach

AI-moderated interviews with a ten-criterion selection index

Measured

Selection criteria, named and actual pullback triggers, automation demand

Sample

Mid-size and large companies that place overdue business accounts

Headline figures

Pullbacks64%

of leaders who pulled accounts back did so after a complaint from their own customer

Named trigger66%

name higher fees as a reason they would take recovery in-house

Automation70%

of leaders who want automated recovery would buy it from their current firm

The question

Will companies keep paying outside firms to collect?

If automation or rising fees pull recovery work in-house, the market shrinks. The investor was assessing outsourced recovery of overdue business accounts as a market to build in, and the finance leaders who choose the recovery firm are the ones who decide when to take accounts back.

What do finance leaders want most in a recovery firm?

What triggers a company to pull its accounts back in-house?

How much do they want automated recovery, and who would they buy it from?

What we did

How the study ran, start to finish.

1Kickoff
The deal team names the decision.
Will companies keep paying outside firms to recover overdue accounts? The kickoff turned it into three questions: what leaders want in a firm, what triggers a pullback, and how much they want automated recovery.
2Design
Two finance tiers, ten ranked criteria.
The screener admitted leaders who pick or approve the recovery firm and place accounts with one today: 60 in the C-suite and 90 directors. They ranked ten selection criteria, named the proof each top criterion needs, and said what would bring the work in-house.
3Fielding
Every named trigger, checked.
Leaders spoke or typed, quant and qual in one conversation, for a median 26 minutes, and each named trigger was checked against what had happened. The researcher read all 176 and removed 26 for rushed responses or a mismatched title, leaving 150.
4Analysis
Named triggers and real ones differ.
The researcher compared the triggers leaders named with what came before each actual pullback and found two different lists. Fees topped the named triggers at 66%, yet 64% of the 58 leaders who pulled work back did so after a complaint from their own customer.
5Readout
64% pulled back after a complaint.
The researcher reviewed a 28-page report on criteria by role, both trigger lists and automation demand with the deal team at a live readout, then handed over the full data file. Complaint rates now lead the screen for every firm on the target list.

What we found

Four findings from the report.

Summary

Leaders choose a recovery firm on recovery rate and how it treats their customers, and directors put treatment first. Asked what would make them take recovery in-house, they name fees. Yet 64% of the leaders who pulled work back did so after a complaint from their own customer. Of those who want automated recovery, 70% would buy it from their current firm, and 4% would build it.

Receivables recovery · Executive reportTop line 1

Top line 1 of 4

Recovery rate leads the criteria, with treatment of customers close behind

¹ Q4. Rank these ten criteria for choosing a recovery firm. Scaled to the top criterion, n = 150.

² Q5. For each of your top three, what proof would you need? Open response, coded.

Leaders ranked ten selection criteria, indexed to the top one. Recovery rate scores 100 and treatment of the company’s own customers 82¹. Fees follow at 66 and compliance record at 64. For each of their top three, leaders named the proof they need: audited recovery rates, call recordings and complaint logs lead.

100index

recovery rate, the top criterion

82index

treatment of our customers

66index

fees

64index

compliance record

Selection criteria for a recovery firm, indexed to the top one

Criteria index, top criterion = 100 (n = 150)

Proof leaders need for recovery rate

1Audited recovery rates by account age
2References from similar companies
3A trial on a sample of accounts

Proof leaders need for treatment of customers

1Call recordings
2Complaint logs
3Scripts and letters

Ten criteria ranked and scaled so the top criterion = 100; scores are relative and do not sum to 100.

Supporting evidence

Industry experience scores lowest of those shown; leaders expect a good firm to learn their accounts. § 3.2
Call recordings matter most where the overdue accounts belong to long-standing customers. § 3.3²

Illustrative report03

Receivables recovery · Executive reportTop line 2

Top line 2 of 4

Directors put customer treatment first, and the C-suite puts recovery first

¹ Q4 by role: n = 90 directors, n = 60 C-suite.

² Role differences on fees are directional; see the appendix tables.

The two tiers weigh the firm differently. Directors index treatment of their customers at 100 and recovery rate at 92; C-suite leaders index recovery rate at 100 and treatment at 46¹. C-suite leaders put fees second, at 75, where directors put recovery rate second, at 92. Directors manage the firm day to day and take the calls when a customer complains.

100n = 90

directors: treatment of customers

92n = 90

directors: recovery rate

100n = 60

C-suite: recovery rate

46n = 60

C-suite: treatment of customers

Criteria index by role, each role’s top criterion = 100

Top criteria by role, each role’s top = 100

Top three, directors (n = 90)

1Treatment of our customers
2Recovery rate
3Compliance record

Top three, C-suite (n = 60)

1Recovery rate
2Fees
3Compliance record

Each role’s scores are scaled so its own top criterion = 100. The pooled index weights 90 directors and 60 C-suite leaders.

Supporting evidence

Directors rank compliance record third, ahead of fees. § 4.2
C-suite leaders rank fees second and expect the recovery rate to cover the firm’s cost. § 4.3²

Illustrative report04

Receivables recovery · Executive reportTop line 3

Top line 3 of 4

Complaints from customers move work more than fees do

¹ Q7. Have you taken accounts back from a recovery firm in the past two years, and what came before it? n = 150; reasons n = 58.

² Q8. Which accounts did you take back? Asked of the 58 who pulled accounts back.

Leaders were asked what would make them take recovery in-house, then whether it had happened. Fees top the named triggers at 66%, yet 64% of the 58 leaders who pulled accounts back did so after a complaint from their own customer¹. 26% pulled work after a fee rise.

64%n = 58

pulled accounts back after a customer complaint

66%n = 150

name higher fees as a trigger

39%n = 150

pulled accounts back in the past two years

26%n = 58

pulled accounts back after a fee rise

Triggers leaders name, against what came before an actual pullback

What came before the pullback, multi-select (n = 58)

Triggers leaders name, multi-select (n = 150)

Pulled accounts back in the past two years (n = 150)

Pulled some backKept all accounts out

Named triggers asked of all leaders; pullback reasons asked of the 58 who pulled accounts back. Multi-select; shares do not sum to 100.

Supporting evidence

Most complaints that led to a pullback came from a long-standing customer. § 5.2
After a complaint, leaders usually took back only the early-stage accounts. § 5.3²

Illustrative report05

Receivables recovery · Executive reportTop line 4

Top line 4 of 4

Leaders want automated recovery, and most would buy it from their firm

¹ Q9. How interested are you in automated recovery for early-stage accounts? Five-point scale, n = 150.

² Who would you want to provide it? Asked of the 92 who want it.

Leaders rated an automated service for early-stage accounts. 61% want it, and 70% of those would buy it from their current recovery firm¹; 26% would buy software from a separate vendor and 4% would build it in-house. Directors want it more than the C-suite, 64% against 57%, and leaders who pulled work back want it most, at 72%.

61%n = 150

want automated recovery for early-stage accounts

70%n = 92

would buy it from their current firm

4%n = 92

would build it in-house

64%n = 90

of directors want it

Demand for automated early-stage recovery, and who would supply it

Who would supply automated recovery (n = 92)

Want automated early-stage recovery, by group

Want automated early-stage recovery (n = 150)

Want itUnsureDo not want it

Automated recovery was described as reminders, payment links and payment plans for early-stage overdue accounts.

Supporting evidence

Leaders see automation as a feature of the firm they already trust with their customers. § 6.2
Those who would build it in-house already run collections software. § 6.3²

Illustrative report06

Top line 1 of 4 · page 03Illustrative report · top line 1 of 4 · swipeIllustrative report

Question 1 · The criteria

Recovery rate leads the list, and treatment of customers runs close.

Indexed to the top criterion, recovery rate scores 100 and treatment of the company’s own customers 82, ahead of fees at 66. Directors, who manage the firm day to day, put treatment first.

Recovery rate100

Treatment of our customers82

Fees66

Compliance record64

Criteria index, top = 100 · top four of ten · n = 150

Question 1 · By role

Directors put customer treatment first, and the C-suite puts recovery first.

Directors index treatment of their customers at 100 and recovery rate at 92. C-suite leaders index recovery rate at 100 and treatment at 46, less than half the directors’ score.

100Directors: treatment of customers

46C-suite: treatment of customers

Criteria index by role, own top criterion = 100 · n = 90 vs n = 60

Question 2 · Pullbacks

Complaints move work more than fees do.

Fees top the triggers leaders name, at 66%. Of the 58 leaders who pulled accounts back in the past two years, 64% did so after a complaint from their own customer, and 26% after a fee rise.

A complaint from our customer64%

A falling recovery rate31%

A fee rise26%

A new in-house system9%

What came before the pullback · multi-select · n = 58

Question 3 · Automation

Leaders would buy automated recovery from the firm they already use.

61% want automated recovery for early-stage accounts, and 70% of those 92 would buy it from their current recovery firm. 4% would build it in-house.

70%would buy from their current firm

4%would build it in-house

Leaders who want automated recovery · n = 92

“Fees I can negotiate. When a customer of ten years calls my CFO about a collector, that account comes back the same afternoon.”

Credit director · Illustrative quote

Illustrative quotes

Three themes behind the numbers.

Treatment

“Some of these customers owe us money this month and buy from us next month. The firm has to collect without burning that.”

Finance director

Pullback

“We took the early accounts back after two complaints in one quarter. The fee never came up in that meeting.”

Head of credit

Automation

“Have our firm add the reminders and payment links and I’d take it tomorrow. Building it ourselves is a project nobody here wants.”

Chief financial officer

What the investor did

Three moves made with the report.

1The screen · from finding 3

Ranked targets on complaints before anything else.

Every recovery firm on the acquisition list is scored on complaints from its clients’ customers before any other diligence.

2The pitch · from finding 2

Led the pitch with customer treatment.

Directors run the relationship and index treatment at 100, so the pitch leads with call recordings and complaint logs.

3The product · from finding 4

Added automated early-stage recovery to the offer.

70% of the leaders who want automation would buy it from their current firm, so it joins the service as an add-on.

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

Bring us your next diligence question.

A senior researcher designs and presents every study.

Talk to our team

More private equity studies

Category demand study

How the study ran, start to finish.

1Kickoff

The deal team names the decision.

Will companies keep paying outside firms to recover overdue accounts? The kickoff turned it into three questions: what leaders want in a firm, what triggers a pullback, and how much they want automated recovery.

2Design

Two finance tiers, ten ranked criteria.

The screener admitted leaders who pick or approve the recovery firm and place accounts with one today: 60 in the C-suite and 90 directors. They ranked ten selection criteria, named the proof each top criterion needs, and said what would bring the work in-house.

3Fielding

Every named trigger, checked.

Leaders spoke or typed, quant and qual in one conversation, for a median 26 minutes, and each named trigger was checked against what had happened. The researcher read all 176 and removed 26 for rushed responses or a mismatched title, leaving 150.

4Analysis

Named triggers and real ones differ.

The researcher compared the triggers leaders named with what came before each actual pullback and found two different lists. Fees topped the named triggers at 66%, yet 64% of the 58 leaders who pulled work back did so after a complaint from their own customer.

5Readout

64% pulled back after a complaint.

The researcher reviewed a 28-page report on criteria by role, both trigger lists and automation demand with the deal team at a live readout, then handed over the full data file. Complaint rates now lead the screen for every firm on the target list.

Four findings from the report.

Summary

Receivables recovery · Executive reportTop line 1

Top line 1 of 4

Recovery rate leads the criteria, with treatment of customers close behind

¹ Q4. Rank these ten criteria for choosing a recovery firm. Scaled to the top criterion, n = 150.

² Q5. For each of your top three, what proof would you need? Open response, coded.

100index

recovery rate, the top criterion

82index

treatment of our customers

66index

fees

64index

compliance record

Selection criteria for a recovery firm, indexed to the top one

Criteria index, top criterion = 100 (n = 150)

Proof leaders need for recovery rate

1Audited recovery rates by account age
2References from similar companies
3A trial on a sample of accounts

Proof leaders need for treatment of customers

1Call recordings
2Complaint logs
3Scripts and letters

Ten criteria ranked and scaled so the top criterion = 100; scores are relative and do not sum to 100.

Supporting evidence

Industry experience scores lowest of those shown; leaders expect a good firm to learn their accounts. § 3.2
Call recordings matter most where the overdue accounts belong to long-standing customers. § 3.3²

Illustrative report03

Receivables recovery · Executive reportTop line 2

Top line 2 of 4

Directors put customer treatment first, and the C-suite puts recovery first

¹ Q4 by role: n = 90 directors, n = 60 C-suite.

² Role differences on fees are directional; see the appendix tables.

100n = 90

directors: treatment of customers

92n = 90

directors: recovery rate

100n = 60

C-suite: recovery rate

46n = 60

C-suite: treatment of customers

Criteria index by role, each role’s top criterion = 100

Top criteria by role, each role’s top = 100

Top three, directors (n = 90)

1Treatment of our customers
2Recovery rate
3Compliance record

Top three, C-suite (n = 60)

1Recovery rate
2Fees
3Compliance record

Each role’s scores are scaled so its own top criterion = 100. The pooled index weights 90 directors and 60 C-suite leaders.

Supporting evidence

Directors rank compliance record third, ahead of fees. § 4.2
C-suite leaders rank fees second and expect the recovery rate to cover the firm’s cost. § 4.3²

Illustrative report04

Receivables recovery · Executive reportTop line 3

Top line 3 of 4

Complaints from customers move work more than fees do

¹ Q7. Have you taken accounts back from a recovery firm in the past two years, and what came before it? n = 150; reasons n = 58.

² Q8. Which accounts did you take back? Asked of the 58 who pulled accounts back.

64%n = 58

pulled accounts back after a customer complaint

66%n = 150

name higher fees as a trigger

39%n = 150

pulled accounts back in the past two years

26%n = 58

pulled accounts back after a fee rise

Triggers leaders name, against what came before an actual pullback

What came before the pullback, multi-select (n = 58)

Triggers leaders name, multi-select (n = 150)

Pulled accounts back in the past two years (n = 150)

Pulled some backKept all accounts out

Named triggers asked of all leaders; pullback reasons asked of the 58 who pulled accounts back. Multi-select; shares do not sum to 100.

Supporting evidence

Most complaints that led to a pullback came from a long-standing customer. § 5.2
After a complaint, leaders usually took back only the early-stage accounts. § 5.3²

Illustrative report05

Receivables recovery · Executive reportTop line 4

Top line 4 of 4

Leaders want automated recovery, and most would buy it from their firm

¹ Q9. How interested are you in automated recovery for early-stage accounts? Five-point scale, n = 150.

² Who would you want to provide it? Asked of the 92 who want it.

61%n = 150

want automated recovery for early-stage accounts

70%n = 92

would buy it from their current firm

4%n = 92

would build it in-house

64%n = 90

of directors want it

Demand for automated early-stage recovery, and who would supply it

Who would supply automated recovery (n = 92)

Want automated early-stage recovery, by group

Want automated early-stage recovery (n = 150)

Want itUnsureDo not want it

Automated recovery was described as reminders, payment links and payment plans for early-stage overdue accounts.

Supporting evidence

Leaders see automation as a feature of the firm they already trust with their customers. § 6.2
Those who would build it in-house already run collections software. § 6.3²

Illustrative report06

Top line 1 of 4 · page 03Illustrative report · top line 1 of 4 · swipeIllustrative report

Question 1 · The criteria

Recovery rate leads the list, and treatment of customers runs close.

Indexed to the top criterion, recovery rate scores 100 and treatment of the company’s own customers 82, ahead of fees at 66. Directors, who manage the firm day to day, put treatment first.

Recovery rate100

Treatment of our customers82

Fees66

Compliance record64

Criteria index, top = 100 · top four of ten · n = 150

Question 1 · By role

Directors put customer treatment first, and the C-suite puts recovery first.

Directors index treatment of their customers at 100 and recovery rate at 92. C-suite leaders index recovery rate at 100 and treatment at 46, less than half the directors’ score.

100Directors: treatment of customers

46C-suite: treatment of customers

Criteria index by role, own top criterion = 100 · n = 90 vs n = 60

Question 2 · Pullbacks

Complaints move work more than fees do.

Fees top the triggers leaders name, at 66%. Of the 58 leaders who pulled accounts back in the past two years, 64% did so after a complaint from their own customer, and 26% after a fee rise.

A complaint from our customer64%

A falling recovery rate31%

A fee rise26%

A new in-house system9%

What came before the pullback · multi-select · n = 58

Question 3 · Automation

Leaders would buy automated recovery from the firm they already use.

61% want automated recovery for early-stage accounts, and 70% of those 92 would buy it from their current recovery firm. 4% would build it in-house.

70%would buy from their current firm

4%would build it in-house

Leaders who want automated recovery · n = 92

Three themes behind the numbers.

Treatment

“Some of these customers owe us money this month and buy from us next month. The firm has to collect without burning that.”

Finance director

Pullback

“We took the early accounts back after two complaints in one quarter. The fee never came up in that meeting.”

Head of credit

Automation

“Have our firm add the reminders and payment links and I’d take it tomorrow. Building it ourselves is a project nobody here wants.”

Chief financial officer

Three moves made with the report.

1The screen · from finding 3

Ranked targets on complaints before anything else.

Every recovery firm on the acquisition list is scored on complaints from its clients’ customers before any other diligence.

2The pitch · from finding 2

Led the pitch with customer treatment.

Directors run the relationship and index treatment at 100, so the pitch leads with call recordings and complaint logs.

3The product · from finding 4

Added automated early-stage recovery to the offer.

70% of the leaders who want automation would buy it from their current firm, so it joins the service as an add-on.

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

Will companies keep paying outside firms to collect?

What do finance leaders want most in a recovery firm?

What triggers a company to pull its accounts back in-house?

How much do they want automated recovery, and who would they buy it from?

How the study ran, start to finish.

The deal team names the decision.

Two finance tiers, ten ranked criteria.

Every named trigger, checked.

Named triggers and real ones differ.

64% pulled back after a complaint.

Four findings from the report.

Recovery rate leads the list, and treatment of customers runs close.

Directors put customer treatment first, and the C-suite puts recovery first.

Complaints move work more than fees do.

Leaders would buy automated recovery from the firm they already use.

Three themes behind the numbers.

Three moves made with the report.

Ranked targets on complaints before anything else.

Led the pitch with customer treatment.

Added automated early-stage recovery to the offer.

Bring us your next diligence question.

AI Assistants in IT Service Desks

Commercial Bakery Ingredient Volume Outlook

Home Improvement Showroom Concept Test

Will companies keep paying outside firms to collect?

What do finance leaders want most in a recovery firm?

What triggers a company to pull its accounts back in-house?

How much do they want automated recovery, and who would they buy it from?

How the study ran, start to finish.

The deal team names the decision.

Two finance tiers, ten ranked criteria.

Every named trigger, checked.

Named triggers and real ones differ.

64% pulled back after a complaint.

Four findings from the report.

Recovery rate leads the list, and treatment of customers runs close.

Directors put customer treatment first, and the C-suite puts recovery first.

Complaints move work more than fees do.

Leaders would buy automated recovery from the firm they already use.

Three themes behind the numbers.

Three moves made with the report.

Ranked targets on complaints before anything else.

Led the pitch with customer treatment.

Added automated early-stage recovery to the offer.

Bring us your next diligence question.

AI Assistants in IT Service Desks

Commercial Bakery Ingredient Volume Outlook

Home Improvement Showroom Concept Test