Santander stopping alerts - why would they do that?

Section62

GeoffTF said:

Section62 said:

boingy said:

They might be doing it from a software maintenance viewpoint. Every bit of functionality you can remove from a software product makes that software quicker, easier and cheaper to maintain and test going forwards. Or maybe it's not working well enough for some customers and attracting complaints about alerts being delayed or not arriving sometimes - email and texts are not guaranteed to get through. There could be loads of other reasons too. 

As has been mentioned a few times now, Santander aren't getting rid of these alerts completely, they are just reducing the options available - so if "software maintenance" is the excuse, and true, then that would imply they have two different alert systems (one for the types being retained, one for the types being stopped) - which is possible, but would mean they bizarrely developed two different alert systems providing virtually identical functionality.

Santander’s IT system may consist of a variety of legacy systems sewn together, and that nobody fully understands how everything works. It is possible that the transaction alerts come via a different route to the balance alerts. It is also possible that upgrading the alerts that they have to provide is cheaper than upgrading all of them.

Of course anything is possible, but a brief check on what is being removed and what is being kept shows no such division between 'transaction' and 'balance' alerts.

The need for any kind of upgrade is conjecture as far as I know... Santander haven't said anything that indicates there's a technology reason why they cannot continue providing the full range of alerts.

UncleK

Why would they tell us the truth? They haven't told us any "why"

danny13579

I found these text alerts really useful. I only use Santander for the Edge Saver so I set it up to receive an alert when the interest is paid every month, so I could go in there and move it.
It was one feature that Santander offered that many others don't.

It reminds me of the widget they used to have which offered a similar function, and which they scrapped last year prior to the release of the updated app.

Will I survive without this alert? Yes.
Will I keep using Santander? Yes, as long as they offer a decent interest rate on the Edge Saver, if that goes then it's bye bye Santander.

Ergates

I've worked on a transaction processing system that provided essentially the same functionality as here (balance and transaction alerts) - not for Santander.   These types of even processors need software and hardware to be put into place and maintained.  The more moving parts a system has, the harder it is to maintain.  This all costs money.

Furthermore, every feature you implement adds complexity to the landscape for future changes - making it more costly and slower to change other parts of their systems.

Which is all fine if the functionality they provide is useful/necessary.   What we found though was that after a short burst of interest when the features first introduced, very few customers actually ever use them.  Several years down the line and less than 1% of customer were using the balance alerts and I know that the idea of just switching them off has been raised a few times.

I imagine It's probably similar with Santander - they've decided that it's simply not worth the cost and effort of maintaining systems that very few people use.

UncleK

Well I guess that is a perspective that makes sense, even if we don't like it

GeoffTF

"Santander the latest major bank to axe its handy text message alert service":

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-14464269/Santander-latest-major-bank-axe-handy-text-message-alert-service.html

"Santander says less than 1 per cent of its 14million customers rely on its text alert service, amounting to around 140,000 people."

Those customers are likely to be the security conscious ones, who less likely to be hit by fraud anyway. Santander seems to have decided that extra cost of mainlining the alerts will be more than the cost of compensating customers for the increased fraud that results from removing them.

UncleK

.........................missing the whole point of the concept of "alert"

Ergates

GeoffTF said:

"Santander the latest major bank to axe its handy text message alert service":

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-14464269/Santander-latest-major-bank-axe-handy-text-message-alert-service.html

"Santander says less than 1 per cent of its 14million customers rely on its text alert service, amounting to around 140,000 people."

Those customers are likely to be the security conscious ones, who less likely to be hit by fraud anyway. Santander seems to have decided that extra cost of mainlining the alerts will be more than the cost of compensating customers for the increased fraud that results from removing them.

Balance alerts don't prevent fraud - they'd be triggered after the fraud took place.  They might alert you to it having happened sooner.

GeoffTF

Ergates said:

GeoffTF said:

"Santander the latest major bank to axe its handy text message alert service":

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-14464269/Santander-latest-major-bank-axe-handy-text-message-alert-service.html

"Santander says less than 1 per cent of its 14million customers rely on its text alert service, amounting to around 140,000 people."

Those customers are likely to be the security conscious ones, who less likely to be hit by fraud anyway. Santander seems to have decided that extra cost of mainlining the alerts will be more than the cost of compensating customers for the increased fraud that results from removing them.

Balance alerts don't prevent fraud - they'd be triggered after the fraud took place.  They might alert you to it having happened sooner.

We have had at least on poster saying that he was able to prevent his account from being drained entirely because he was alerted that money had been withdrawn from his account, when he had not requested that withdrawal. Fraud was prevented for the remaining balance on his account. Alerts are an extra layer of defence. It is also useful to receive an alert when a large sum has arrived in my account so that I can whisk it out immediately.

uk1

Ergates said:

I've worked on a transaction processing system that provided essentially the same functionality as here (balance and transaction alerts) - not for Santander.   These types of even processors need software and hardware to be put into place and maintained.  The more moving parts a system has, the harder it is to maintain.  This all costs money.

Furthermore, every feature you implement adds complexity to the landscape for future changes - making it more costly and slower to change other parts of their systems.

Which is all fine if the functionality they provide is useful/necessary.   What we found though was that after a short burst of interest when the features first introduced, very few customers actually ever use them.  Several years down the line and less than 1% of customer were using the balance alerts and I know that the idea of just switching them off has been raised a few times.

I imagine It's probably similar with Santander - they've decided that it's simply not worth the cost and effort of maintaining systems that very few people use.

An alternative view to your perspective is that I was a main-frame salesman for a (“the”) large American corporation and I was specialising in banking industry in the late ‘70’s and ‘80’s.    

The systems that were sold even then were not bespoke or tailored but almost exclusively large pre-packaged monthly-fee based systems that covered both front and back office.  

Most - if not all - of the maintenance was carried out by us as manufacturer and the role of the customers IT department was largely to specify needs and alert urgent systems problems or failures rather than carry out changes directly.  We had systems engineers that “lived” permanently imbedded into clients locations working alongside their own user facing staff.

Virtually all banks that were computerised wherever they were in world used the packages offered by one single manufacturer that had a monopoly. That monopoly in that industry and other industries led to anti-trust activity. 

There was a smaller system using mid-range computers for “county banks” and the larger suites for large mainframe operations. American Banks use the same hardware and software which was modular in nature as European and Asian banks.   Banks selected the features they wanted  from a rich rsange of options which were switched on or off or added if bespoke for a fee.  I organised for UK banks considering computerisation in those earlier days visits to American banks to see exactly what they would be buying “live”.   I think many people would be surprised how similar if not identical banks needs are too each other. 

I believe that since those days, ease of maintenance has improved considerably and software is increasingly maintained and developed with an increasing use of AI.  

I really do not see the obstacles that some are speculating as being the reasons for this decision .  Maintaining a stable low usage system that in however a small way to help customers avoid financial surprise implies to me that the issue is instead that more effort should be expended in increasing rollout to more customers rather than making facile dumb excuses and cancelling it for those sensible enough to use it. 

Just my opinion.