Is ICICI an Indian Bank… do xenophobic overtones hurt its custom? Blog Discussion

Former_MSE_Archna

This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.

Read Martin's "Is ICICI an Indian Bank… do xenophobic overtones hurt its custom?" Blog.

Click reply to discuss below.

Paul_Herring

do xenophobic overtones hurt its custom?

No. Its poor customer service, when something goes wrong, does.

beer_tins

There could be a number of reasons other than what Martin mentioned. For example, if the parent bank is percieved to be in trouble, people would prefer to go elsewhere. Your savings may be safe, but they may be tied up for months without you being able to access them.

MagicBurd29

Paul_Herring wrote: »

No. Its poor customer service, when something goes wrong, does.

Absolutely agree. I was *very* relieved when I finally extracted my savings from them. Poor systems, poor customer service, and most worryingly, poor attitude to security.

So maybe the ICICI link got fewer clicks because folk are checking the forum before clicking links.

Or not. Sadly, it's probably more down to the word "Indian", even if it shouldn't be.

dancingfairy

Perhaps it's because Rothschild is a private bank and very famous. There could be a snob factor about it. I always thought Rothschild was only for rich or famous people - so maybe that has something to do with it and the fact it's a private bank - it has always sounded so glamorous and so upmarket to me- no wonder people are clamouring to open accounts there.
Not that that's how I choose my bank accounts but people can be swayed by names and image.
It's a bit like supermarket food and the perceived quality of the premium ranges when it's got fancy packing and a higher price and better marketing - it's the power of the brand isn't it - you know that the product is not always better (or not that much better to make it worth all the extra money) but you are led to believe it is.
Well that's my theory anyway and if it was combined with people being dubious about ICICI because of it's foreigness (either because people were xenophobic or perhaps because they didn't understand the protection scheme and the fact it is a uk subsiduary) then that would explain things.
dancingfairy

ajbaker

No, it is not xenophobic to state the bank is a subsidiary of an Indian bank. You must allow the public to make informed decisions. If a member of public decides to be xenophobic and disregard this bank PURELY because they are a subsidiary of an Indian bank, they are free to do so.

I would like to see you continue to state this.

I would however prefer to see more transparency in the media about the hierarchy of companies. I'm not suggesting you mention the Spanish parent of the Abbey in every sentence, but knowing company x is owned by company y would enable many people to make far better informed decisions.

JCB_Digger

Perhaps some are still smarting after Kaupthing and Icesave - I know my better half and I are trying to stick to UK based banks (even though we know we're covered to the same £50k), it still doesn't mean that I want to go through all that again...

esuhl

ajbaker wrote: »

You must allow the public to make informed decisions.

I think Martin's point is that the public very rarely make informed decisions. Most people make opinions based on emotional associations rather than information and logic.

Why else do chemists sell premium-branded drugs, when identical "cheapo" brand ones are available for a fraction of the price?

And in any case, why would the public be prevented from making an informed decision if Martin were to omit the "Indian bank" description? Martin never claimed to publish every known fact about the bank, and I doubt many people would critisise him for that fact - it's simply unfeasible.

My mother has also failed to create a webpage advising people that ICICI's parent company is Indian. Has she prevented anyone from making an informed decision?

Just playing devil's advocate here... :-)

light

earwig1928 wrote: »

Absolutely agree. I was *very* relieved when I finally extracted my savings from them. Poor systems, poor customer service, and most worryingly, poor attitude to security.

So maybe the ICICI link got fewer clicks because folk are checking the forum before clicking links.

Or not. Sadly, it's probably more down to the word "Indian", even if it shouldn't be.

When was the last time you used there services ? I opened a fixed rate bond 2 weeks ago no problems at all. There log in system is similar to ING.

I do agree on one thing there websites needs a overhaul !!:rolleyes:

sabretoothtigger

India isnt perceived as a rich or stable country. Not sure I'd call it xenophobic exactly more a case of general ignorance as to how international banks operate, in this case their origins dont matter a bit (below 50k)

Theres probably no mention of india when you buy a Jaguar but it seems a similar thing to me and image is everything when buying a car so it'd totally ruin their advertising probably.
Its just how people think in rough images instead of logically assessing investing by percentage influence or whatever.

Rothschild sounds like a brand of jewellery or something but it could be teetering on the brink of collapse for all I know or care to investigate

Paul_Herring

light wrote: »

earwig1928 wrote:

Paul_Herring wrote:

do xenophobic overtones hurt its custom?

No. Its poor customer service, when something goes wrong, does.

Absolutely agree. I was *very* relieved when I finally extracted my savings from them. Poor systems, poor customer service, and most worryingly, poor attitude to security.

When was the last time you used there services ?

Personally? Not long enough to make me even consider going back.