Community

There's only one problem with this story, Japan has been using NFC technology in the same applications (trains/buses) since 2004 with much higher volumes and has had no issues with read speed. 

It sounds like the problem is not NFC, but the UK implementation.

All,

I appreciate the sentiment expressed in support of the poor old checking/cheque/current account, but the very fact that there is so much confusion around the difference between a current account and a savings account, for instance, is in itself proof of why the nomenclature is a bad idea.

Right now if you want to onboard new customers you'll have to EDUCATE them first before they can discern the difference between these accounts. That is all the proof you need that this is a bad idea.

I'm not saying get rid of cheque accounts. I'm saying call an account an account and savings ... savings. But checking or cheque or current requires you to explain - that means unnecessary complications, friction and complexity. 

We should be making our customer's lives simpler should we not?

BK

Tim,

If we use that logic then why not just simply a "bank account"? What does 'current' even mean? Isn't it redundant?

BK

Realistically the majority of customers are already mainstream on online banking and use it with far greater frequency than any other channel. So security concerns aren't preventing wider adoption - I think that is a poor representation of the data.

That doesn't mean, however, that banks shouldn't be taking active steps to combat and prevent MITB and MITM fraud. It's just that security is not really a factor in adoption these days. 

Tim,

I hear what you are saying, and that's largely why I wrote the blog - so that it's not cold turkey turning off all the branches. However, make no mistake - someone has to pay for all these branches and when customers don't visit branches, then they're just a cost. 

What we're learning now through observational and behavioral data is that people say they want a branch, but that doesn't change the fact that they only visit a branch twice a year. When you do the maths, even the most profitable retail banks won't be able to operate on that basis for another decade. 

I get your illustration, but I'm also willing to bet that you withdraw cash from an ATM machine. Using your logic I should only withdraw cash from a teller - because of the human touch. Why don't I? Because it's a total and utter waste of time. Convenience drives me to more efficient means. Today, the branch simply is no longer the most convenient way to bank, so the majority of us time poor individuals make a trade off. While we'd like the option of human touch/face-to-face, we don't have the luxury of driving down the high street, waiting in line and seeing a real banker, when we can get the same utility on our mobile phone, tablet or via internet.

It's a trade off. Ask record stores and travel agents - they'll tell you how it works...

BK

To those of you that haven't realized yet, yesterday was April 1st and we thought it opportune to poke fun at ourselves and the industry.

For those of you out looking for the new Movenbank branch in Central Park, we apologize, but you're not likely to find us launching a branch at anytime in the future...

Brett King

Finextra stated "Whether consumers want to communicate with financial providers through social media is moot though" citing issues with whether consumers want to talk to Financial Service providers via social media.

The research referenced focuses on whether customers would engage financial service providers to discuss a product via social media. However, this is not how social media works, so the answer is predictable. 

Research that focuses on customers trusting the brand or engaging for customer support, shows a mass adoption willingness. Which is exactly the opposite of what the editor is trying to imply here i.e. that FIs don't need to worry about social meda "it is moot"...

FIs do need to be very concerned about openly engaging with the customers through whichever channel the customer chooses. If you don't support social media properly already today, you are at a significant disadvantage from a brand engagement and credibility perspective.

So could this link. Doesn't mean all links or URLs are evil...

With the rapid rate of technology adoption diffusion today, fast following is no longer viable. By the time ROI from a new consumer behavior or technology is apparent, you're too far behind to follow and make any real margin and the competition has taken market share.

The only way to stay competitive is to iterate further on the change in distribution model, but that would suppose you have an innovative organization that is a leader, not a follower.

Interesting. Although, you could make the argument that anyone with an iTunes account that has a positive value, is already banking with Apple.

Let's ask the question a slightly different way. Would you buy a bank product through an iTunes store? Or would you make a payment using an iTunes account linked to a iPhone wallet?

The answers might be very different.