Bank branches closing - whose fault is it?

Ergates

aj23 wrote: »

You mean like any other businesses rates, expenses wage bills and methods of generating profit. Ha. That is called business. Banks are businesses. As with any business, no customers = no business. Banks are rolling in it, don't be fooled.

Except the premises of other business (like shops) *generate* money, whereas few of a banks profit generating activities are initiated in a branch - they're mostly just a cost.

Ergates

aj23 wrote: »

But that's your opinion. I can't remember the last time I went to an empty branch.

If it was true that branches were constantly full of people using them then they wouldn't be being closed - as they'd be providing a service that lots of people wanted and it would be in the banks interest in keeping them open. The majority of a banks customers will not step into a branch from one month to the next - probably from one year to the next.

aj23 wrote: »

Same with the high street. Don't want them to fail and go, then stop buying your food online and delivered and stop buying everything else on Amazon. Go out, walk, get fresh air, interact with others instead of sitting at home on your phone or laptop being a mute.

aj23 wrote: »

I still see my friends most days/evenings and weekends and go to Tesco and Santander.

So, you're going to scold people for doing their banking online rather that going into a branch, but you do your shopping in a supermarket. There's a name for that, it's not a nice one.

When you go shopping, why don't you go to your nearest butchers, then to you nearest bakers, then to your nearest greengrocers, then to you nearest...etc? Is it, perhaps, because that would be massively inconvenient and would take ages?

If I need to transfer some money, or pay a bill, or whatever, I could wait until lunchtime (during the week - at the weekend I'd have to drive to the nearest town first), leave the office, walk 10 minutes or so to the nearest branch, stand in a queue for a few minutes and carry out whatever task it was over the counter.
But why the hell would I want to do that, when I can do it in 30 seconds using a mobile my phone/computer? It would be a ridiculous waste of time.

aj23_2

Ergates wrote: »

If it was true that branches were constantly full of people using them then they wouldn't be being closed - as they'd be providing a service that lots of people wanted and it would be in the banks interest in keeping them open. The majority of a banks customers will not step into a branch from one month to the next - probably from one year to the next.





So, you're going to scold people for doing their banking online rather that going into a branch, but you do your shopping in a supermarket. There's a name for that, it's not a nice one.

When you go shopping, why don't you go to your nearest butchers, then to you nearest bakers, then to your nearest greengrocers, then to you nearest...etc? Is it, perhaps, because that would be massively inconvenient and would take ages?

If I need to transfer some money, or pay a bill, or whatever, I could wait until lunchtime (during the week - at the weekend I'd have to drive to the nearest town first), leave the office, walk 10 minutes or so to the nearest branch, stand in a queue for a few minutes and carry out whatever task it was over the counter.
But why the hell would I want to do that, when I can do it in 30 seconds using a mobile my phone/computer? It would be a ridiculous waste of time.

I agree that the amount of branches is questionable, I think RBS group has something like 700 mainly in Scotland and has closed about 300. But branches in both sparse and densely populated areas do serve a purpose for different reasons.

I'm not scolding anyone. Do what you like. But it's usually the same people who say about unemployment caused as a result and they directly contribute to it. Same with house building; we all agree we need more houses, but no one ever wants a development near them.

What is a waste of time to you may not be to others for differing reasons. That's the point you're missing. I don't see why people like you are opposed to choice. It's only ever electronic banking exclusive people who think everyone should be too.

"The majority of a banks customers will not step into a branch from one month to the next - probably from one year to the next." - Categorically not true. I go in pretty much every week (once a week before you start, I don't go everyday) and often see the same faces. If you're drawing on a survey, that is not representative of the majority of people who wouldn't have taken part. Most people I know go at the very, very least a monthly basis. You'll find business owners will be going very frequently.

aj23_2

Ergates wrote: »

Except the premises of other business (like shops) *generate* money, whereas few of a banks profit generating activities are initiated in a branch - they're mostly just a cost.

Which is outweighed by the profit, so it's worth it.

aj23_2

mgdavid wrote: »

of course you do, all the luddites are gathered together in the same place... but as the generations pass so the number of luddites reduces. Once critical mass in a given location is lost, the branch will be ripe for closure. Increased efficiency and reduced costs are good for shareholders including me.

You don't need to be opposed to technology to not want to bank online.

You mean good for you because you only care about yourself. Rhetorical, no answer needed.

aj23_2

takman wrote: »

But it's a fact that you can do everything apart from paying in cash without having to visit a branch, that's not an opinion. If that wasn't true then there wouldn't be banks like first direct, tesco etc that have no branches.

So if a bank wants to close branches because they are an unnecessary expense then i don't see a problem with that. The fact that people will loose jobs is something that has happened time and time again over the years as progress is made and new jobs are created to replace them.

I'm sure you wouldn't suggest we go back to having oil street lights instead of electric to bring back the jobs for people who light them at night or get rid of computers and bring back typewriters to bring back all the jobs of the typists that were lost etc...



But carrying out banking and shopping on a phone takes hardly any time at all and certainly much less time than going into a branch or looking around shops.
I'm not saying that going to a physical branch takes up all your time but it still wastes valuable time that i would much rather spend doing things i want to.
What other activities do you suggest that people should go to a physical location for that can be done online/telephone?. Should we all go to physical insurance brokers instead of comparing online?, should we all go to a shop to top up gas and electric instead of paying by direct debit/topping up online?.

I would rather spend 5-10 minutes on my phone/computer when i have some spare time to carry out mundane tasks like banking, shopping and buying insurance etc to get it out the way. I then have the rest of my spare time to do the stuff i want to.

You must have a pretty boring life if going to a bank branch to carry out some banking is at the top of the list of things to do at that particular time.

First, you can bank in select Tesco stores, and FD is basically HSBC's telephone banking division, and you can use HSBC counters, so you're wrong there.

You're taking everything so literal. You're the one talking about oil lights. Branches that were not getting the footfall have closed. I don't have an issue with that.

Thing is people like you don't respect choices of others. I don't really care how you bank, I'm not telling what to do. But you are telling me.

I don't want to look at food on a screen. I want to look at in my hands and pick out what looks the nicest with the best date. I want to be able to go back an aisle if I forget something. I want to be able to buy something I hadn't planned on because I want to. What's your issue with that?

"You must have a pretty boring life if going to a bank branch to carry out some banking is at the top of the list of things to do at that particular time." Your wrong assumption, not my reality. No excuse for your rudeness, proves my point about your way or no way.

aj23_2

EarthBoy wrote: »

None of what you say negates what Takman said. Just because people use branches, it doesn't mean the branches are necessary, it only means that people like to use them, for whatever reason. On the rare occasions I use branches, -usually to pay cheques in, most people in front of me in the queue are carrying out transactions they could do online.



What will you do when there are no convenient branches to use?

"most people in front of me in the queue are carrying out transactions they could do online. " - Yeah, and? There's no point to this. It's their CHOICE. That is my point. Why do none you get that?

"What will you do when there are no convenient branches to use?" Hypothetical as there a lot near me and I live in a large town.

takman

aj23 wrote: »

First, you can bank in select Tesco stores, and FD is basically HSBC's telephone banking division, and you can use HSBC counters, so you're wrong there.

I haven't seen a Tesco Bank "branch" in store so can't comment on that but First Direct does not have branches, it may be the same company as HSBC but it certainly isn't "HSBC's telephone banking division". Just like you wouldn't say that Pizza Hut is KFC's Pizza Division.

But maybe i should have used the examples of Monzo and Starling to prove that no branches are required, but you obviously get the point i'm making.

aj23 wrote: »

You're taking everything so literal. You're the one talking about oil lights. Branches that were not getting the footfall have closed. I don't have an issue with that.

Thing is people like you don't respect choices of others. I don't really care how you bank, I'm not telling what to do. But you are telling me.

Of course you can choose to waste time using a branch if the bank your with decide to offer one. But no matter how busy a branch is the bank can justify closing it if they want to because branches are simply not required for everyday banking.

aj23 wrote: »

I don't want to look at food on a screen. I want to look at in my hands and pick out what looks the nicest with the best date. What's your issue with that?

I don't disagree with that and by shopping i mean everything bar food shopping.

aj23 wrote: »

"You must have a pretty boring life if going to a bank branch to carry out some banking is at the top of the list of things to do at that particular time." Your wrong assumption, not my reality. No excuse for your rudeness, proves my point about your way or no way.

That comment isn't really aimed at you specifically but it is my opinion in general. If your taking all that time going to the branch when you could do it online much quicker you must not have much going on in your life.

But why do you want to go to the branch and spend so much time doing something that is much quicker online if you have better things you can be doing?

Ergates

aj23 wrote: »

"The majority of a banks customers will not step into a branch from one month to the next - probably from one year to the next." - Categorically not true. I go in pretty much every week (once a week before you start, I don't go everyday) and often see the same faces. If you're drawing on a survey, that is not representative of the majority of people who wouldn't have taken part. Most people I know go at the very, very least a monthly basis. You'll find business owners will be going very frequently.

You are not the majority of the banks customers and neither are the people you see week on week in the branches. This logically derivable from your own observations: If it is always the same people you see in your branch each week - to the extent that you can actually recognize a significant proportion of them - then that indicates that it is a relatively small subset of customers. Otherwise it would be a different group of faceless strangers each time.

aj23 wrote: »

Which is outweighed by the profit, so it's worth it.

Except it isn't otherwise banks wouldn't be closing their branches. Or are you suggesting that banks are deliberately closing branches that make profit? Why would they do that? Like all other businesses, banks like making money - if something is profitable they will do more of it, not less.

aj23 wrote: »

I'm not scolding anyone.

We are to blame. When I say we, I mean those who do all their banking online and do everything electronically, who see it as an absolute chore to go into a branch. If you don't use their branches, they will close. Simple. Then the very same people will say 'oh isn't it bad that X amount of people (in the thousands) have lost their job' despite them being the ones who directly caused it.
[/QUOTE]

aj23 wrote: »

No one seems to have time for anything anymore. We've become very arrogant, selfish and bothered by perceived inconvenience as a society.

This is scolding.

JuicyJesus

The idea that banks make profit from the vast majority of branches is ridiculous. Things like cash and cheques in and out are simply not revenue-generating activities.

If that's all a branch is being used for it's going to close. The end.