You might be scratching your head wondering what connection exists between a football long snapper and debit or credit card disputes. Let’s explore these seemingly unrelated scenarios and discover their surprising commonality.

The Critical Role of the Long Snapper

In football, the long snapper has a specialized and crucial job: to snap the ball perfectly to the punter or the holder for a field goal or extra point. This role is so essential that NFL teams allocate one of their limited 53 roster spots specifically for this position. The precision required of a long snapper is immense, and the stakes are high. A single misstep can lead to disastrous consequences for the team, such as a botched punt resulting in excellent field position for the opposing team or a missed scoring opportunity.

Long snappers often go unnoticed when performing their duties flawlessly. However, when errors occur, their names quickly become infamous among fans and commentators. The highest-paid long snappers earn up to $1.6 million annually, highlighting the value placed on their reliability and skill.

Debit and Credit Card Disputes

Now, let’s pivot to the world of debit and credit card disputes. When customers file disputes over fraudulent charges or billing errors, they expect the process to be smooth, accurate, and efficient. Just like the long snapper’s role, the expectation is perfection.

Customers demand convenience and flexibility in how they file disputes and anticipate a swift resolution. When the dispute resolution process works seamlessly, it goes unnoticed, much like a successful long snapper. However, when it fails, it can severely damage the financial institution’s reputation. Customers are highly sensitive about their money, and a poor dispute handling process can drive them to seek out competitors.

Commonalities and Divergence

Both scenarios underscore the importance of reliability and precision. In football, a long snapper’s error can cost the team points or field position. In banking, a flawed dispute resolution process can cost the institution its customers, tarnish its reputation, and result in onerous compliance penalties.

Where these scenarios diverge is in the potential for automation. The role of a long snapper will always require human skill and precision. On the other hand, the dispute resolution process, which is often manually intensive, has significant potential for automation. By automating the majority of dispute processing and reserving human intervention for exceptional cases, financial institutions can achieve outstanding results. Automated systems can enhance accuracy, speed, and customer satisfaction, ultimately reducing the risk of errors that can lead to customer attrition.

In conclusion, while a long snapper’s role in football and a bank’s dispute resolution process may seem worlds apart, both rely on precision and reliability. Automating the dispute process offers financial institutions an opportunity to improve service quality, much like how teams rely on their long snapper to perform under pressure. This comparison highlights the importance of planning, execution, and the potential for innovation in ensuring successful outcomes.

Here’s what automation can produce for your organization; if you’d like to learn more, please reach out to one of our experts:

Reduced Dispute Losses

• By > 50% compared to industry average
• 96% Recovery Rate
• 76% Denial Rate
• 2% Representment Amount Rate

Reduced Operating Expense

• 97% Automation of Tasks
• 2.37 FTEs per 100K annual Disputes
• > 99.9% Successful Automation of Correspondence & Accounting

Ensure Regulatory Compliance

• 100% Compliance: Reg E, Reg Z, & Nacha
• Transparent and Auditable
• Sub 1% Error Rates

Greater Customer Satisfaction

• 14.99 Days – Average Time to Accountholder Resolution
• 45% Reduction in Average Handling Time and Call Backs