Swimming Against the Tide
I Still Believe in Big Data
I had a research request this week. I did not expect to find things. Which does not mean I did not search. And unlike at least some other researchers, I start all my searching with Big Data. I pulled a comprehensive report on the research subject. Within five minutes, long enough to enter some client-provided information and then read the bing-bang-boom comprehensive report, I had bankruptcy, DUI, and a few other things. I still have work to do, but I can, right away, update and warn my client that “stuff” would be coming. I know specifically what to look for, and I’m going to be more concerned that there’s something else out there now that I have these results. Without Big Data, maybe I’d find all of this; maybe only some of it, especially if I scoped the litigation searches based on a 10 year address profile. Yet I still find articles and other posts knocking comprehensive reports. Frustrating to me. Why not obtain these reports? Listen to me. I’m swimming against the tide. I’m telling you. Run these reports.
In February 2022, I made the case for running the Big Data reports. That case was made after watching a video from a good investigator knock comprehensive reports. Then, a few weeks ago, another excellent and well-respected researcher piped in with a blog post, “Comprehensive report: Investigator’s friend or foe?” She answered her question with this statement:
Unlike many other investigators, I don’t use comprehensive reports for all my cases. For some, they’re essential. But I only use these reports when I need them, and always with extreme caution.
Honestly, being on the side of phooey to comprehensive reports would put me in better stead with my contemporaries–a lot of whom love to trash on these reports. Not surprisingly the above blog post was very well received in the community.
I understand two reasons why investigators and researchers fear these reports:
Clients will rely on them
Investigators or researchers will package up the reports and call it due diligence
Why Do My Clients Need Me?
There is fear in our business that the people who want vital information: lawyers, human resource personnel, property owners, family office directors, etc., will get their hands on one of these reports and skip the detailed and better researched product produced by professionals.
Why Did Not They Ask Me?
The other fear is that a client–that lawyer or whoever, will essentially be duped by someone who grabs a comprehensive report, slaps on their logo and a cover page, and calls it a top-dollar due diligence report. In other words, why pay for diligent diligence when this guy is providing me something that seems so darn comprehensive?
These are real fears. Both things happen. There are people who have axed their service providers in favor of getting a TLO or Accurint account; and there are service providers with TLO or Accurint accounts who simply paste their letterhead onto those reports and charge whatever price they think they can get for them–surely more than the report actually cost but less than a good researcher would charge. And yet, these are not reasons to fear the report itself.
There is one decent reason to not run a comprehensive report. Cost. These reports are generally not expensive, and the cost is often recoverable as an invoice line item. Still, there are lots of times when even that minimal cost causes you to think twice. Due diligence projects are often billed as a fixed amount. Any “hard cost” (i.e., a paid search you have to run) impacts the profitability of the work. It's likely there are situations where you want the information but cannot recover the cost to run the report, or even recover the cost that the names to be run will add. For instance, it’s a retail theft case. There are several people to interview, the budget is tight. A comprehensive report on each interview subject would be useful. It may, however, become cost prohibitive to run them.
All other arguments against comprehensive reports really boil down to two. One, comprehensive reports are often not as comprehensive as advertised. There can be whole categories of records, especially litigation related, not included in these reports; and within the categories ostensibly covered, like criminal records, there may be huge gaps in what is actually covered—with very limited information on these gaps when the reports are produced. Two, the reports are often not as accurate as advertised. The aggregation and scraping and machine logic miss things, combine the wrong people, and send you down bottomless rabbit holes. These concerns are frequently valid but are not reason to stop running comprehensive reports. Don’t overlook their usefulness. Take time to understand their failings. Know how to pressure-test results for accuracy. Ignore bad algorithms.
I made the arguments in February why I liked Big Data. I said you need it. Those reports can guide you. They cover for you. They include information that can be hard to pin down, track down, or otherwise get. You need them because they can uncover a lot of important connections. They guide you in that they can tell you where else to search. They cover for you. There is value in having someone else organize the data. These global searches join multiple sources of data and help you see what’s there. I began doing business research before these reports existed. I know how much they help.
Big Data reports are a tool. Don’t slap your name on one of them and feel good that you’ve done a deep dive. If you find a client that’s ghosted you because they now have a TLO subscription, know that they’re the ones at risk. Big Data reports are a start. Know what is not covered, and how to take advantage of what is. Embrace comprehensive reports. You will do better research. Provide a better product. Be happier. At least I will be. Although I may be swimming against the tide in telling you this.