Nationwide rebranding

[Deleted User]

I find it hard to believe people have the time and energy to comment so extensively on something as simple as a rebrand.

Why do people get so worked up about something so inconsequential? I suppose its because current thinking seems to deem it necessary to to have an opinion or say something about nearly everything. How sad!

If you don't like the way Nationwide operate or their new look simply don't bank with them. No need for all the angst!

I have my Nationwide accounts simply because they are a mutual. I do not use normal banks as such except for one back up cash minder current account with the co-op.

TheElectricCow

[Deleted User] said:

I find it hard to believe people have the time and energy to comment so extensively on something as simple as a rebrand.

Why do people get so worked up about something so inconsequential? I suppose its because current thinking seems to deem it necessary to to have an opinion or say something about nearly everything. How sad!

If you don't like the way Nationwide operate or their new look simply don't bank with them. No need for all the angst!

I have my Nationwide accounts simply because they are a mutual. I do not use normal banks as such except for one back up cash minder current account with the co-op.

With respect, you’re now commenting to share your opinion on the people who are commenting on the rebrand, which is arguably no better.

Nationwide themselves have been making quite a big deal of the rebranding, and also appear to be using it as an opportunity to make themselves look like the normal banks that you don’t use while moving away from the mutual building society brand image they’ve spent many years creating. 

With that I’d say it seems like a topic worthy of some discussion, even more so for anyone who does actually care about the mutual aspect of Nationwide.

Ultimately, what the logo looks like probably isn’t all that important in the grand scheme of things, but what builds a brand is far more than just the aesthetics.

[Deleted User]

Section62 said:

WillPS said:

2010 said:

If it`s in the directors interest, they would soon demutualise and turn it into a bank.
I expect at the moment they`re making more money leaving it the way it is and wasting 38 million (if that figure is true) on rebranding.
NW has never been known for top paying saving rates.
Although they did give a member`s loyalty bonus earlier this year, the first time ever.
Even that was a bit of a fiasco. 
                                         

The directors would need the support of a majority of members, and members who joined since the late 90s would receive no benefit from demutualisation thanks to charitable assignment.

Good luck getting that passed. (This is why enforced charitable assignment was brought in!)

The charitable assignment scheme was introduced to fend off hostile activities. It contains a clause which permits the society to remove the assignment requirement where it is "no longer in the best interests of the Society to do so" (albeit not retrospective).

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that if the Board, Society and the Foundation all agreed that demutualisation was in the interests of the membership, the effect of the scheme could be amended so that members who have assigned their rights could still benefit from demutualisation (and therefore might be encouraged to vote in favour of it)

The original idea was to stop the activities of the Society being disrupted by outsiders... it wasn't to prevent demutualisation ever happening, nor to deliberately create a class of members who couldn't benefit if Nationwide did demutualise.

But given Nationwide can hand out £100 'dividend' to members selected through arbitrary condidtions (aka 'fairer share') - without that being put to a member vote (or apparently appearing in the Memorandum and Rules) - then presumably Nationwide could make a similar ex-gratia payment to a select group of members (i.e. those who joined after 02/11/1997 ) which just happens to be equivalent to the amount they would otherwise get from conversion benefits.

I'm fairly sure there is a way the Board could swing it if they felt demutualisation was the right thing to do.

If the membership backed a rule change then it would go - end of story as it's owned by it's members. There is also a lingering question mark over the enforceability of the clause anyway given that it has effectively created two classes of membership since the 1990s - with post 1990s members facing the forced deprivation of their 'share' by the society.

Look at the Nationwide today, it's virtually indistinguishable from a retail bank. So it you're not getting better products, better rates (or even dividends that a bank would produce) the only people who appear to benefit from it's mutual status now appear be the staff...

WillPS

I don't doubt that there is a route to doing these things if all parties were aligned, but that ignores the fact that charitable assignment was introduced in the wake of a failed demutualisation proposal.

If it didn't pass then (when straightforward carpetbagging was possible) why would it pass now, with 20+ years worth of members who have joined the society having provided their specific say-so that they would not benefit (and 20+ years worth of attrition of legacy pre-charitable assignment members)?

It isn't going to happen.

WillPS

[Deleted User] said:

Look at the Nationwide today, it's virtually indistinguishable from a retail bank. So it you're not getting better products, better rates (or even dividends that a bank would produce) the only people who appear to benefit from it's mutual status now appear be the staff...

Please point me in the direction of a higher interest regular saver, or a better value packaged bank account which includes full-family mobile phone insurance and AA cover with onward travel.

Nationwide are far from perfect but it's a total mischaracterisation to suggest they are behind the market in terms of their product offer.

Bazzalona13295

Rob5342 said:

robatwork said:

Firstly I like Nationwide - the bank and the app.

I genuinely didn't realise the pacman was a "rising sun". Not sure if it's because I'm thick, or I could only see pacman, or it's just a laughable logo.

What is it that you like about them and their app? Their app is the worst I've seen and they never seem to offer products of any note - their instant access saver is 3.25% and you need a.current account for that, but Cynergy offer 5.15%.

I can think of a few banking apps much worse than the Nationwide, certainly for usability.

Rob5342

[Deleted User] said:

I find it hard to believe people have the time and energy to comment so extensively on something as simple as a rebrand.

That's a bit of a circular argument - if people take enough notice of branding to spend time discussing it then NationWest were right in putting effort into updating theirs.

Albermarle

[Deleted User] said:

Section62 said:

WillPS said:

2010 said:

If it`s in the directors interest, they would soon demutualise and turn it into a bank.
I expect at the moment they`re making more money leaving it the way it is and wasting 38 million (if that figure is true) on rebranding.
NW has never been known for top paying saving rates.
Although they did give a member`s loyalty bonus earlier this year, the first time ever.
Even that was a bit of a fiasco. 
                                         

The directors would need the support of a majority of members, and members who joined since the late 90s would receive no benefit from demutualisation thanks to charitable assignment.

Good luck getting that passed. (This is why enforced charitable assignment was brought in!)

The charitable assignment scheme was introduced to fend off hostile activities. It contains a clause which permits the society to remove the assignment requirement where it is "no longer in the best interests of the Society to do so" (albeit not retrospective).

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that if the Board, Society and the Foundation all agreed that demutualisation was in the interests of the membership, the effect of the scheme could be amended so that members who have assigned their rights could still benefit from demutualisation (and therefore might be encouraged to vote in favour of it)

The original idea was to stop the activities of the Society being disrupted by outsiders... it wasn't to prevent demutualisation ever happening, nor to deliberately create a class of members who couldn't benefit if Nationwide did demutualise.

But given Nationwide can hand out £100 'dividend' to members selected through arbitrary condidtions (aka 'fairer share') - without that being put to a member vote (or apparently appearing in the Memorandum and Rules) - then presumably Nationwide could make a similar ex-gratia payment to a select group of members (i.e. those who joined after 02/11/1997 ) which just happens to be equivalent to the amount they would otherwise get from conversion benefits.

I'm fairly sure there is a way the Board could swing it if they felt demutualisation was the right thing to do.

If the membership backed a rule change then it would go - end of story as it's owned by it's members. There is also a lingering question mark over the enforceability of the clause anyway given that it has effectively created two classes of membership since the 1990s - with post 1990s members facing the forced deprivation of their 'share' by the society.

Look at the Nationwide today, it's virtually indistinguishable from a retail bank. So it you're not getting better products, better rates (or even dividends that a bank would produce) the only people who appear to benefit from it's mutual status now appear be the staff...

It is distinguishable in our small town, as it is the only bank with a branch still open.

xylophone

It is distinguishable in our small town, as it is the only bank with a branch still open.

At least until 2026.......

https://www.nationwidemediacentre.co.uk/news/nationwide-renews-promise-to-keep-branches-open-until-2026#:~:text=Nationwide today announces the renewal,based until at least 2026.

Section62

WillPS said:

I don't doubt that there is a route to doing these things if all parties were aligned, but that ignores the fact that charitable assignment was introduced in the wake of a failed demutualisation proposal.

Nothing was ignored.

The intent of the charitable assignment was not to prevent demutualisation ever, it was to put a stop to the disruption caused to the business of the society "from persons seeking to make short term gains from a demutualisation of the Society".

The fact was that almost all mutual building societies were facing the same kind of attempts to force demutualisation by carpetbaggers who were seeking a quick gain, with no thought to the longer-term impact on members.

That differs from a situation where it may be in the long-term interests of the society and the membership to demutualise, for example if the regulatory framework prevented the society doing something beneficial.

WillPS said:

If it didn't pass then (when straightforward carpetbagging was possible) why would it pass now, with 20+ years worth of members who have joined the society having provided their specific say-so that they would not benefit (and 20+ years worth of attrition of legacy pre-charitable assignment members)?

Because at that time the Board were strongly opposed to demutualisation.

What we are discussing here is a hypothetical situation where the Board told the membership that demutualisation was the right thing to do.  Nationwide members in general are happy to do what the Board proposes - the AGM voting bears this out.  Furthermore, I would think it likely a decent proportion of members joining in the last 20 years have no real idea what mutualism is, and would wave it goodbye in a flash if it meant getting an extra few hundred quid in their account.

The point I made in my previous post was that the 20+ years worth of members "having provided their specific say-so that they would not benefit" are not necessarily excluded from benefitting - if the Board thought it was necessary to get them onside to win a demutualisation vote. In that respect the "attrition" of legacy members works to the benefit of post-1997 members.

The barriers to demutualisation are not as concrete as some people seem to believe.

WillPS said:

It isn't going to happen.

For the reasons previously given, nobody can say that for sure.