How should banks address customers by default?

blue.peter

When I was young, I was taught that, as a matter of courtesy, I should address others by their title and surname unless invited - by the person concerned -  to use their forename. As I've grown older, I've learnt that there are situations, such as when meeting someone in a purely social context, in which that rule is modified and it's appropriate to use someone's forename from outset. However, I remain of the view that the default form of address in most business contexts should be title and surname. (It may be appropriate for a cash-based service provider to address address customers by their forename. Prostitution comes to mind - I assume that prostitutes don't normally know their customers' surnames or, maybe, even their real forenames.*)

Banks seem to have started addressing their customers by foremame alone as the default. In my opinion, it's still wholly inappropriate for almost any business, and especially one in financial services. It's presumptive of a personal relationship that simply doesn't exist, and is therefore rude. They seem to have forgotten the difference between "customer" and "friend". Being polite by using a customer's title and surname doesn't preclude switching to forename if invited to do so by the customer, but it's very difficult to move in the other direction.

(As a side issue, not everyone uses their first name in their day-to-day lives, so the default use of a first name might actually demonstrate that they don't know their customer. For example, I have a former colleague who is always known as Mark. That's his second forename. He gets justifiably irritated when he receives letters addressed to him by his official first name.)

I was wondering what others think about this subject, and if there's an age-related difference in opinions.

* For the avoidance of doubt, I have never knowingly met a prostitute in any context, and have never engaged the services of one.

EssexExile

I can't say I've noticed this trend.

lozzy81

I'm always asked how I'd prefer to be addressed, but I think its old fashioned now especially as some don't wish to be known as Mr or Mrs or what ever and identify as MX or something else entirely 

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

I prefer the word Sir if it is the bank!

MovingForwards

My bank asks how I want to be greeted when I log in, so I set it to first name.

When I speak to people on the phone and they start calling me Mrs / Ms (I've still a few to update back to Ms), I always ask them to use my first name.

Most of the jobs I've had I was always told to address colleagues by first name, aside from one where the person was very old school and he was always Mr Surname.
In my previous career, I would always have clients call me by my first name, unless they came across as arrogant bum holes, then it would be Mrs Surname. The employed opposition I would go with first name as I would get to know the people and deal with them regularly for different clients.  
Clients would always say if they wanted first name or title and surname used. Even most of the retired clients were happy to be addressed by their first name.

For me using first name is about recognition that I'm not (or they are not) just a number, just a money maker, even though I (and they) were.

colsten

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth said:

I prefer the word Sir if it is the bank!

I would definitely not want to be addressed as Sir. Yourladyship would do 

IvanOpinion

My personal hatred is 'sir' or 'madam'.  We live in the 21st century, so what does it matter?  If somebody wants to be more formal and use my first name I have absolutely no issue, if they use 'Mr' then I usually tell them I am happy for them to use my first name - some do and some don't.

After an incident some 20-25 years ago during a monthly get together where everybody used first names one pompous old git demanded that he be referred to by 'Dr' (not medical).  I got onto one of those websites that sell dummy lord/laird titles.  During the next monthly meeting when he started insisting on being referred to as 'Dr' I informed him that he should refer to me as 'your lordship' or.  To be fair, while everyone else referred to me using my first name, he did refer to me by title for rest of the day.  The following month it was all first names.

quirkydeptless

IvanOpinion said:

After an incident some 20-25 years ago during a monthly get together where everybody used first names one pompous old git demanded that he be referred to by 'Dr' (not medical).  I got onto one of those websites that sell dummy lord/laird titles.  During the next monthly meeting when he started insisting on being referred to as 'Dr' I informed him that he should refer to me as 'your lordship' or.  To be fair, while everyone else referred to me using my first name, he did refer to me by title for rest of the day. 

"...and then he insisted I called him your Lordship, so I just got into my Tardis and left"

eskbanker

blue.peter said:

As a side issue, not everyone uses their first name in their day-to-day lives, so the default use of a first name might actually demonstrate that they don't know their customer. For example, I have a former colleague who is always known as Mark. That's his second forename. He gets justifiably irritated when he receives letters addressed to him by his official first name.

Doesn't sound justifiable to me - just because someone chooses to use a name other than their official first name, that doesn't count for anything when dealing with organisations who have to validate ID against legal documentation, i.e. Know Your Customer means 'know (validate) who your customer is', not 'get to know how they prefer to be addressed'.  I use an abbreviated form of my first name but if I objected to the full version being used on a formal letter, I'd expect the sender to laugh at me....

To be fair, some organisations do offer a 'known by' name facility, but being irritated by those that don't hardly seems 'justifiable', so if it bothers him that much, why doesn't he change his name by deed poll?

Grumpy_chap

Maybe the way the bank addresses an individual is dependent on how wealthy the individual is.  If you are on the breadline and desperately need the services of the bank, the bank gets to call you whatever they like.  If you are Elon Musk and the bank needs your money on deposit to fund the normal retail banking, the bank really better call you in a manner that confers suitable respect.

blue.peter

Well, I'm not at all surprised at the over-50 result - I always expected a clear majority there in favour of greater formality. But I am surprised by the under-50 numbers. I'd expected a clear majority there for less formality. Perhaps the cutoff is at a younger age than I guessed. Thanks to all who've voted.

Some interesting comments there. Thank you all.