The Distaste for Debt Collectors is Systemic

The public’s distaste for debt collectors is being exploited, again. It seems that the typical news stories focused on “evil” debt collectors violating the FDCPA is becoming stale (“What the ARM Industry is Currently Up Against,” March 8).  So a new group is hopping on the pile: Hollywood.

A new movie coming out in theatres across the country today – Repo Men – tells the story of an evil corporation that employs debt collectors to recover their products purchased on credit. Since the products are artificial organs, the collectors – or repo men – are portrayed as heartless killers without a conscience.  After the movie’s protagonist, Jude Law, has a health scare on the job, the tables are turned and the hunter become the hunted – “proving” that collectors are loyal only to their jobs and money.

It’s another mischaracterization of the industry, just like news outlets have done for years. Sure, the main target of the film is the evil corporation that originally issued the organs on credit. And yes, the picture is set in a not-likely-happen dystopian future of darkness and gloom. But the fact that moviegoers won’t have to suspend their disbelief too much (“I could totally see debt collectors doing that.”) should speak volumes.

Never mind the fact that agencies have actually helped people on large scales (“Alabama Collection Agency Shows Appreciation for Soldiers’ Sacrifice,” June 5, 2009), and on the smaller day-to-day scale, like a collector helping a debtor finally pay off that credit card account that followed them for years. You won’t see that story (other than on insideARM, perhaps), because it doesn’t fit the narrative in the collective consciousness of Americans when it comes to the concept of debt collection.

The media, not just here, loves to point-the-finger at negatives in the debt collection industry. For instance, yesterday’s news featured an article from the China Post that spoke of real men, supposed debt collectors for a criminal organization.

The article says that the Criminal Investigation Bureau in China picked up 47 men, calling most of them debt collectors. These “debt collectors” broke the law by administering violent, destructive recovery methods for illegal loan sharks and extortion rings. I have a question: Why classify these men as “debt collectors”? I guess they were technically collecting (illegal) debts. But the phrase “debt collectors” has a connotation. Even in China, debt collection is a valid and vibrant industry. These guys were simply criminals engaging in criminal activity.

The sad truth is, why not call them debt collectors? People already dislike debt collectors, so using a familiar term that most dislike shows the men as a menace to society. It’s a common reference point of disgust.

Can the perception of the industry ever change? Maybe. The industry itself has the most influence over that, of course. But it also helps to be diligent in pointing out where mass media gets it wrong and how words can color people’s perception.