PhilippinesBankingScale · $100K
Metrobank

The country's most conservative balance sheet deserves the least chaotic service desk: agentic banking service for Metrobank

Give Metrobank an agentic service layer — cards dispute resolution, fraud-alert response, and retail service in Taglish across app, Messenger, and voice — grounded in core and card systems with BSP-grade auditability.

Entry use case
Cards service & dispute resolution
Expected outcome
Deflect card-dispute intake, billing, and limit-service contacts into grounded in-channel resolution with proactive status through the chargeback lifecycle
Recommended next step
Baseline dispute-lifecycle contact volume and fraud-alert inbound spikes with the cards team, then scope a Messenger-first cards-service pilot.
What we understand

Metrobank's operating reality

Metrobank is among the Philippines' largest banks by assets, anchored in the Ty family's GT Capital group, with one of the country's leading credit-card franchises and an extensive branch network.

Public fact

The bank has been reporting record profitability in recent years on margin strength and cards growth, while maintaining a famously conservative credit posture.

Public fact

Cards businesses generate the most dispute-intensive contact mix in retail banking — unauthorized-transaction claims, installment questions, billing disputes — where BSP consumer-protection rules impose documented handling timelines.

Reasoned inference

Philippine consumers live on Messenger and Viber; a bank service layer that meets them there in Taglish, with real account context, is differentiated against hotline-first peers.

Reasoned inference

BSP's Financial Products and Services Consumer Protection framework and its push on fraud management (including the Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act) make evidence-grade interaction logging a supervisory asset, not just a cost.

Reasoned inference

The trust/wealth franchise could take a white-glove conversational tier (proactive maturity notices, statement service) as a later expansion surface.

Seller hypothesis — validate

Validate with the account team before outreach: Card-system and dispute-platform API accessibility for grounding · BSP examination posture on AI in consumer-facing dispute handling · Messenger/Viber verified-channel strategy and consent posture

Build vs buy

Why we have a right to win here

Partner-led target

Technically capable but needs industry workflows, integration, acceleration, or managed operations

Evidence: Metrobank has genuine technology capacity and a disciplined modernization program, but its pattern is procuring proven platforms and integrating them carefully — it is not a build-first digital attacker. A conversational platform with a partner owning delivery matches both its capability and its conservatism.

Why they won't build the full stack: The bank's differentiation is balance-sheet strength and the cards franchise, not contact-center software; a cautious institution will not put a homegrown system between itself and BSP consumer-protection SLAs when a hardened, auditable platform exists.

What management is signalling

Management has reported record annual profits in recent years, attributing growth to margin strength, cards and consumer lending expansion, and disciplined cost control.

Inferencerecent investor communications (validate) · 2025

GTM implication: Cards growth is the stated engine — pitch service capacity that lets the engine scale without dispute-handling friction becoming the bottleneck.

What already exists (don't pitch this)
  • Metrobank mobile app and online banking
  • Leading credit-card franchise with rewards ecosystem
  • Contact center and branch network
  • SMS fraud-alert infrastructure
  • GT Capital group ecosystem (insurance, auto) for cross-service
What customers still can't do end-to-end (pitch this)
  • →Conversational dispute intake with lifecycle status
  • →Two-way fraud confirmation with instant card actions
  • →Taglish voice automation
  • →Cross-channel context between app, Messenger, hotline, and branch
  • →100% interaction QA
Opportunity map

Where agentic communications pays off first

WorkflowWhy it matters hereValueComplexitySpeedChannels
Cards dispute & billing service
Conversational dispute intake with evidence capture, status grounded in the card system, proactive lifecycle updates, provisional-credit rules applied consistently.
Disputes are the highest-stakes, most SLA-bound contact class in the bank's biggest retail engine.
Friction today: Dispute intake via forms and branch visits; chargeback status opaque; customers call repeatedly through a 45-day lifecycle.
In-app chatMessengerViberVoice
Fraud-alert response & card controls
Two-way fraud confirmation in-channel, instant block/reissue execution within policy, suspicious-pattern escalation to fraud teams with context.
Scam pressure in the Philippines is intense and regulator-visible; fast two-way fraud confirmation prevents losses and panic calls alike.
Friction today: One-way SMS alerts drive inbound spikes; blocking and reissue require queue time exactly when customers are panicking.
SMSMessengerIn-app chatVoice
Retail account servicing
Grounded answers and in-conversation actions (statement requests, limit changes within policy) with warm handoff for complex cases.
Balance, statement, branch, and product questions are the bulk volume floor a top-tier bank should serve at self-service economics.
Friction today: IVR trees and branch queues absorb questions the app almost answers; context is lost across channels.
MessengerViberIn-app chatVoice
Watch the change

Cards service & dispute resolution: today vs the agentic model

Scenario: A cardholder in Cebu gets a suspicious-transaction alert at dinner, confirms it wasn't her in Messenger, and the card is blocked and reissue scheduled inside the same thread — dispute filed, status updates promised and kept.
Today
same interaction, two worlds
Agentic layer
First-contact resolution
deferred via tickets
in-conversation actions
Platform capability
Cost per contact
$13.50 median assisted
$1.84 median self-service
Benchmark
QA coverage
1–2% sampled
100% scored
Platform capability
Sources & assumptions
  • · First-contact resolution: Process design: agent acts in systems of record
  • · Cost per contact: Gartner customer service cost benchmarks, 2024
  • · QA coverage: Platform capability: every interaction logged and evaluated
  • · Gartner, customer service cost benchmarks (2024): $13.50 median assisted vs $1.84 self-service per contact
  • · McKinsey, digital-first collections research: 20–25% NPL reduction among leaders; up to 40% opex reduction with gen AI
  • · Baymard Institute: ~70% average cart abandonment (meta-analysis)
  • · IAMAI–Kantar via IBEF (2025): 900M+ Indian internet users; 98% consume Indic-language content
  • · LeadSquared and vendor funnel studies: 78% of students choose the first institution to respond (directional, vendor data)
  • · HDI / ITSM operator benchmarks: $15–25 per L1 ticket; 40–60% of L1 volume is resets/status (validate per customer)
  • · Conventional-flow wait times and volumes are typical operator patterns — assumptions to replace with the customer's own baseline
  • · Agentic-flow behaviors (context retention, 100% logging, in-line policy checks) are platform capabilities, not projections
Recommended solution

One integrated stack, opinionated for this account

Channels · Tilicho Labs
In-app chatMessengerViberVoiceSMS

Voice & channel orchestration, telephony, conversational execution, session/state, routing, integration build. Capability coverage validated during implementation.

Intelligence · Google Cloud
Gemini reasoningEnterprise groundingWorkflow agentsMulti-agent orchestrationGoverned actionsEvaluation & analytics
Systems · Metrobank
Card managementDispute/chargeback platformCore bankingFraud monitoringCRM

API access to these systems is the critical-path dependency.

Trust & languages
Filipino/TagalogEnglishCebuano

Identity-bound sessions, policy-bounded actions, 100% audit logging, human approvals at defined points, in-tenant intelligence.

Business case

The economics, with your numbers

Addressable monthly interactions2.5M
Seller assumption — replace in discovery
Current cost per interaction ($)$1.0
Industry benchmark scale — validate
Automation / assistance rate (%)55%
Seller assumption — pilot proves this
$2.5M
Current operating cost / mo
$10.7M
Modelled gross benefit / yr
0.1 mo
Payback on Scale
184%
3-yr ROI (modelled)
Automated/assisted interactions per month1.4M
Modelled AI run-cost per month (usage + cloud, system estimate)$481K
New monthly operating cost$1.6M

All figures are modelling estimates from the labeled inputs above — nothing here is customer-provided yet. The pilot's first job is replacing these assumptions with Metrobank's measured baseline. Package price covers implementation only; recurring usage billed separately.

Recommended package

Scale — $100K implementation

Scale · $100K · A multi-channel production deployment10–14 weeks to production across priority workflows

Why this package for Metrobank: Cards service, fraud-alert response, and general retail servicing across app chat, Messenger, Viber, and voice constitute a multi-channel, multi-workflow deployment appropriate to a top-tier bank's volume.

Included
  • 4–6 channels
  • 2–3 priority workflows
  • Multiple enterprise integrations
  • API credential & security setup
  • Advanced orchestration
  • Multilingual support
  • Agent Assist / human escalation
  • Production analytics
  • Expansion roadmap
Not included
  • ✕Usage & consumption (billed separately)
  • ✕Enterprise-wide governance build-out
  • ✕Multi-BU rollout
Recurring costs (separate from the package)

Packages cover implementation and integration only. Recurring costs are billed separately: Tilicho Labs platform usage (~$0.15/call-min indicative, usage only), Google Cloud consumption, telephony/carrier charges, managed operations, and support & optimization. No package includes unlimited usage.

Customer resources required
  • · API access + credentials for: Card management, Dispute/chargeback platform, Core banking
  • · A named business owner for cards service & dispute resolution
  • · Security review counterpart and policy sign-off (Card management scope)
  • · Baseline metrics for the pilot's success thresholds
Executive messages

What to say to whom

CEO / President

“Metrobank's brand is 'You're in good hands' — meaningful trust. Agentic service makes that trust operational at every 2am fraud alert, with the discipline and auditability this institution is known for.”

CIO / CTO

“One integration into card management, fraud monitoring, and core banking powers the three highest-volume workflows — a partner-delivered deployment that doesn't compete with the core-modernization agenda.”

COO

“Dispute intake, fraud response, and bulk servicing stop being queue-capacity problems; your officers work investigations and exceptions with full context instead of taking first reports.”

Head of Cards / Retail Banking

“The cards P&L keeps its growth trajectory while dispute handling gets faster and provably consistent — lifecycle updates pushed proactively, call-backs eliminated as a metric you report.”

Chief Risk / Compliance Officer

“BSP consumer-protection timelines and AFASA expectations become enforced configuration: documented intake, consistent provisional-credit application, 100% logged interactions.”

CFO / Procurement

“Cards volume growth shouldn't mean linear service-cost growth: implementation plus usage pricing, with deflection and dispute-cycle-time economics measured against your current cost per contact.”

Outreach

Pre-built offer emails for Metrobank

Written from this account's own research — the strategic signal, the capability gap, the entry workflow, and the modelled economics — not a mail-merge template. Pick the moment and the persona, edit anything, then copy or open in your mail client.

Moment in the deal
Cold outreach — no prior conversation
Who it's addressed to
Cares about: The workflow itself and its daily failure modes
Register
Length
Draft — edit freely before sending
Open in mail client

Customer-safe by construction: drafts are composed only from customer-facing fields. Account tier, build-vs-buy classification, priority score, internal routing, and partner-commercial detail are not inputs to the composer, so they cannot appear in a draft. Money figures are always framed as modelled from the customer's own volumes. Read before sending — you own what goes out.

The pursuit

Tier 2 — high-potential incubation

Why this tier

One of the Philippines' largest private banks (GT Capital / Ty family) with a leading cards franchise, a trust and wealth business, and a conservative, execution-focused culture — high service volume, cards-dispute intensity, and a bank that procures proven platforms rather than experimenting.

Recommended next step

Baseline dispute-lifecycle contact volume and fraud-alert inbound spikes with the cards team, then scope a Messenger-first cards-service pilot.

Entry: Cards service & dispute resolution · Scale package · 10–14 weeks to production across priority workflows. Human fallback throughout; success thresholds agreed before build.

Start the pursuit

Research-based priority-account universe assembled from public information, market scale, communication volume, and solution fit. This is NOT an authoritative list of top Google Cloud customers; existing Google Cloud relationships are noted only where publicly reported. Validate every account with the account team before outreach.