Declining Saturation Reopens Competitive Call Center Markets
by Brett Bayduss, on Oct 8, 2026, 9:29:59 AM
For more than 30 years, Site Selection Group has tracked call center employers and estimated call center employment across U.S. metropolitan areas. This long-term perspective shows how markets expand, contract, and move through different stages of labor-market competitiveness.
One of the most useful measures in that analysis is call center saturation—the percentage of the local labor force employed in call center operations. Historically, markets with saturation rates above 3% were considered saturated. At that level, employers often faced greater risk of wage pressure, employee turnover, recruiting difficulty, and competition for experienced customer service talent.
That landscape is changing. The contraction of site-based call center employment, combined with the growth of remote and hybrid work, has reduced measured saturation across many U.S. markets. Metro areas once screened out as overly competitive may now offer a healthier balance of talent supply and direct employer competition, creating renewed opportunities for expansion and new investment.
Saturation Is Declining Across the United States
Site Selection Group estimates that the average call center saturation rate across U.S. markets exceeded 1.4% before the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, the average is below 1.3%. The shift is even more pronounced among larger metropolitan areas with populations over 500,000, where the average saturation has declined from approximately 2.15% to 1.9%.
A decline of a few tenths of a percentage point can be meaningful when applied to a large labor force. It may represent thousands of workers no longer tied to local call center facilities and fewer large employers competing for the same customer service, sales, technical support, and back-office talent.
Several forces are contributing to the change. Some companies have consolidated facilities, reduced headcount, automated portions of customer interactions, or moved work to lower-cost domestic and offshore locations. Others have shifted employees to remote or hybrid models, reducing the concentration of workers attached to a specific facility or metro area. Together, these trends have loosened conditions in many markets that historically carried a saturation warning.
Fifteen Larger Metros Have Moved Below the Historical Saturation Threshold
Site Selection Group identified 15 metropolitan areas with populations over 500,000 that historically had saturation rates above 3% but now fall below that threshold. The table ranks the markets by the decline in saturation, measured in percentage points.
Rank |
Metro Area |
Population |
Previous Rate |
Current Rate |
Decline (pts.) |
| 1 | Boise, ID | 867,813 | 3.33% | 1.08% | 2.25 |
| 2 | Greensboro, NC | 791,171 | 4.16% | 2.57% | 1.59 |
| 3 | Scranton–Wilkes-Barre, PA | 562,060 | 3.68% | 2.14% | 1.54 |
| 4 | Provo, UT | 768,993 | 3.73% | 2.39% | 1.34 |
| 5 | Columbus, OH | 2,192,417 | 3.61% | 2.44% | 1.17 |
| 6 | Albuquerque, NM | 915,359 | 3.25% | 2.17% | 1.08 |
| 7 | Tucson, AZ | 1,068,038 | 3.26% | 2.26% | 1.00 |
| 8 | Jacksonville, FL | 1,762,416 | 3.55% | 2.70% | 0.85 |
| 9 | Nashville, TN | 2,225,968 | 3.29% | 2.60% | 0.69 |
| 10 | Orlando, FL | 2,879,008 | 3.14% | 2.66% | 0.48 |
| 11 | Rochester, NY | 1,056,981 | 3.29% | 2.89% | 0.40 |
| 12 | Columbia, SC | 867,768 | 3.28% | 2.90% | 0.38 |
| 13 | Louisville, KY | 1,378,766 | 3.18% | 2.91% | 0.27 |
| 14 | Dallas-Fort Worth, TX | 8,174,389 | 3.01% | 2.94% | 0.07 |
| 15 | Tulsa, OK | 1,042,919 | 3.03% | 2.98% | 0.05 |
Source: Site Selection Group analysis. Rates reflect estimated call center employment as a percentage of the local labor force. Decline is shown in percentage points.
The Largest Declines Create Notable Repositioning Opportunities
Boise, Idaho, recorded the largest change among the 15 metros, declining from 3.33% to 1.08%—a 2.25-percentage-point reduction. That shift moves Boise from clearly above the historical saturation threshold to a level well below the current average for larger metros. The market may therefore warrant a fresh review by companies that previously eliminated it because of direct call center competition.
Greensboro, North Carolina, declined from 4.16% to 2.57%, the largest drop after Boise and a meaningful repositioning for a market that once had one of the highest rates in the group. Provo, Utah, fell from 3.73% to 2.39%, while Columbus, Ohio, declined from 3.61% to 2.44%. These metros now combine larger labor pools with materially less site-based call center concentration than in prior years.
Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Scranton–Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, also experienced declines of more than one percentage point. Albuquerque moved from 3.25% to 2.17%, and Scranton–Wilkes-Barre declined from 3.68% to 2.14%. Tucson, Arizona, posted a 1.00-point decline, from 3.26% to 2.26%. Each market now sits comfortably below the 3% historical threshold.
Other metros crossed the threshold by narrower margins. Tulsa, Oklahoma; Dallas–Fort Worth and Louisville, Kentucky, currently remain close to 3%, so they may still present more direct competition than the metros with the largest declines. Even so, their movement below the threshold is important and demonstrates why companies should update market assumptions rather than rely on studies completed several years ago.
Larger Labor Pools With Less Direct Competition
The decline creates a potentially attractive combination for new or expanding operations. Larger metropolitan areas generally offer deeper occupational talent pools, more experienced supervisors and managers, broader recruiting reach, greater industry diversity, stronger infrastructure, and more real estate options. Historically, many of those advantages were offset by heavy call center competition.
As saturation falls, companies may be able to access the scale and amenities of a larger metro without accepting the same level of direct labor pressure that existed before the pandemic. This can expand the list of viable locations for customer service centers, sales operations, technical support teams, shared services, and other labor-intensive functions.
The opportunity is not limited to new facilities. Existing employers can use updated saturation trends to reassess expansion capacity, recruiting strategies, compensation positioning, facility consolidation, and the appropriate balance between on-site, hybrid, and remote work.
Saturation Is Important, but It's Only One Metric
Saturation remains a valuable screening metric, but it should not be interpreted in isolation. A lower rate does not automatically mean that a market has enough qualified and accessible talent or favorable wages. It indicates that direct call center employment represents a smaller share of the local labor force than it did historically.
Companies should still identify current competitors, determine which occupations and skill levels they employ, evaluate recent expansions and contractions, and benchmark market wages. This is especially important in a remote-work environment because an employer located outside the metro may still recruit local residents. Measured local saturation can decline while broader competition for work-from-home talent remains active.
A complete site selection analysis should also evaluate:
- Occupational labor supply and the depth of relevant customer service, sales, technical support, and supervisory skills
- Population and labor force growth, migration patterns, unemployment and workforce participation
- Current wages, compensation expectations, wage escalation and employee turnover risk
- Air service and accessibility for leadership, training and client travel
- Weather, natural-disaster exposure, utility reliability and business continuity risk
- Business climate, taxes, economic incentives and regulatory considerations
- Available real estate, speed to occupancy, occupancy costs and suitability for hybrid operations
The strongest location decisions combine these variables with detailed employer intelligence and updated labor-market evidence. Saturation helps show where competition has changed; the broader analysis determines whether a market can support the specific workforce, cost, and operating requirements of the project.
Conclusion
The U.S. call center landscape has changed substantially since the pandemic. Average saturation is lower nationwide, and the decline among larger metros is reopening markets that many companies once considered too competitive.
The 15 metros in this analysis demonstrate why older assumptions should be retested. Boise, Greensboro, Provo, Columbus, Albuquerque, and Scranton–Wilkes-Barre have experienced particularly meaningful declines, while several other large markets have moved just below the historical 3% threshold. These changes may allow companies to benefit from larger talent pools and established infrastructure with less direct site-based competition than in previous years.
Site Selection Group helps organizations evaluate call center labor markets through employer mapping, workforce supply analysis, compensation benchmarking, saturation analysis, operating cost modeling, real estate services, and location strategy. The objective is not simply to find the market with the lowest saturation rate, but to identify the location that offers the strongest combination of talent availability, competitive conditions, cost, scalability, and long-term operating stability.
