Don't be fooled by cunning con artists
Options
Comments
-
I was trying to tease out from you what you actually mean by 'social purpose' - I asked twice but you still haven't answered in any meaningful way, preferring to come up with an odd little story about the Flintstones and then using the phrase 'social care' in a way that suggested that you saw that as synonymous or at least relevant.peterbaker wrote: »We may have got to the crux of it. We are actually talking about whether banks "care". eskbanker has tried to drive some point about whether in questioning the lack of affirmed social purpose of banks I really meant to drop in the phrase "social care" as if I couldn't make up my mind which was the right phrase. He offered that banks might have a "social conscience" which is a typical kind of commercial high-minded non-committal sop type phrase in my mind and dilutes any affirmation of purpose.
I said that I'd expect banks to echo other large organisations in having a social conscience (charitable/community activities, environmental awareness, etc) in the context of trying to find out what you were actually referring to - it's quite legitimate for you to say that it's not what you meant but conversely it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what you did mean!
The conversation has moved on anyway - it was originally all about whether banks should commit to reimbursing customers for any fraudulent activities but has now become all about the inherently woolly concept of whether banks should care about their customers. Of course at a superficial level then any organisation will say they should, and do, care for their customers, but the issue is how far they're prepared to go towards that aim....
I do get that many people feel happier with the traditional style of banking, where everything was done face-to-face in branches and the lack of easy switching capability meant that changing banks was difficult. What I would say is: if there is so much demand for this style of business, why hasn't a bank started up with a massive estate of high street branches and a vast staff of empathetic employees who are both able and willing to spend time getting to know their customers?0 -
I think it's interesting that you/the Banks remain focused on what to many customers will be peripheral gestures of social responsibility. I'm pretty clear that when Peterbaker talks about social responsibility he means in the context of providing banking services. Whilst I disgree with him on the relative importance of High St branches in that, I can see that they play an important part in the overall provision of services (though only if they are empowered to do the job).I said that I'd expect banks to echo other large organisations in having a social conscience (charitable/community activities, environmental awareness, etc) in the context of trying to find out what you were actually referring to - it's quite legitimate for you to say that it's not what you meant but conversely it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what you did mean!
The conversation has moved on anyway - it was originally all about whether banks should commit to reimbursing customers for any fraudulent activities but has now become all about the inherently woolly concept of whether banks should care about their customers. Of course at a superficial level then any organisation will say they should, and do, care for their customers, but the issue is how far they're prepared to go towards that aim....I do get that many people feel happier with the traditional style of banking, where everything was done face-to-face in branches and the lack of easy switching capability meant that changing banks was difficult. What I would say is: if there is so much demand for this style of business, why hasn't a bank started up with a massive estate of high street branches and a vast staff of empathetic employees who are both able and willing to spend time getting to know their customers?
I think you must know in making that suggestion that establishing a banking network on a national or regional scale is a massive undertaking. It would be great to see a new entrant with that scale, but I think it's unrealistic to claim that just because there isn't one, it means that customers don't want it. The reality is that in many parts of the country, customers are already well covered by branches of the 10 largest institutions. It's the smaller, more rural branches (and those of the Post Office) that are in question.0 -
I wouldn't say I remain focused on those activities - I asked if that's what he was referring to and he (and you) agree that it isn't. As I say, I'm happy to accept that this expectation for banks to "work together toward social purpose" doesn't relate to the social conscience stuff but am still anticipating someone being able to explain exactly what is meant by social purpose!Cornucopia wrote: »I think it's interesting that you/the Banks remain focused on what to many customers will be peripheral gestures of social responsibility. I'm pretty clear that when Peterbaker talks about social responsibility he means in the context of providing banking services. Whilst I disgree with him on the relative importance of High St branches in that, I can see that they play an important part in the overall provision of services (though only if they are empowered to do the job).
Yes, my question was largely rhetorical, but, accepting that it's beyond the reach of a startup, why wouldn't one of the established players commit to retaining all branches if the customer feedback is that this is felt desirable? Obviously this does all cost money and therefore reduce profits, but customers who expect personal service will presumably be prepared to pay for it one way or another (negligible interest on savings, monthly account fees, etc)?Cornucopia wrote: »I think you must know in making that suggestion that establishing a banking network on a national or regional scale is a massive undertaking. It would be great to see a new entrant with that scale, but I think it's unrealistic to claim that just because there isn't one, it means that customers don't want it. The reality is that in many parts of the country, customers are already well covered by branches of the 10 largest institutions. It's the smaller, more rural branches (and those of the Post Office) that are in question.0 -
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my mind, I mean these kind of things (it's not an exhaustive list):-I wouldn't say I remain focused on those activities - I asked if that's what he was referring to and he (and you) agree that it isn't. As I say, I'm happy to accept that this expectation for banks to "work together toward social purpose" doesn't relate to the social conscience stuff but am still anticipating someone being able to explain exactly what is meant by social purpose!
- Offering services that represent reasonable value for money in a competitive market.
- Treating individual personal and business customers with due respect as having requirements and needs that may differ from other customers.
- For vulnerable customers, having a range of ways in which the Bank can assist them to both maintain their independence and minimise the risk of fraud. Being flexible and understanding that each vulnerable person is different, and may have unique needs.
- To moderate the inherently money-oriented nature of banking so that there is more of a human-human style of interaction. (As a customer of 6 or 7 institutions, I can see significant differences in communication style between them, and even between branches of the same bank).
- Innovation without leaving behind customers who cannot participate.Yes, my question was largely rhetorical, but, accepting that it's beyond the reach of a startup, why wouldn't one of the established players commit to retaining all branches if the customer feedback is that this is felt desirable? Obviously this does all cost money and therefore reduce profits, but customers who expect personal service will presumably be prepared to pay for it one way or another (negligible interest on savings, monthly account fees, etc)?
It's an interesting question. I think part of the issue is that Banks favour this "homogeneous" customer-base model. They offer the same products in a busy City-suburb branch and in the Rural threat-of-closure branch. I can see that it makes for easier marketing, and also that it might be difficult to justify telling Rural customers that particular accounts/services are not available to them on the same terms as everyone else.
I think that one aspect of "social responsibility" is for the bank to suffer that difference of profitability between customers rather than putting it onto rural customers. Maybe there is a middle way for smaller, more regionally-based institutions?0 -
There were times when some managers of local banks, who were involved in their communities and knew them, did help people out in times of need.
..and there was lots of complaints in those days of precisely this.
That bank managers would show favoritism and be open to inducement to give special flavors and give friends and businesses loans.
Indeed many saw this as a necessary cost of doing business - wining and dining the bank manager.
Those who lack the ability both financial and people skills to cultivate the bank manger fell by the wayside.
This sort of thing was all stopped with the rise of the computer based centrally controlled lending criterion and the downgrading of the bank manager0 -
Yes, my question was largely rhetorical, but, accepting that it's beyond the reach of a startup, why wouldn't one of the established players commit to retaining all branches if the customer feedback is that this is felt desirable? Obviously this does all cost money and therefore reduce profits, but customers who expect personal service will presumably be prepared to pay for it one way or another (negligible interest on savings, monthly account fees, etc)?
The issue here is that they're not, people expect the best and widest selection of services possible at as little direct or indirect cost as possible. The only way free banking is kept sustainable at all in the era we're in at the moment is to reduce costs, and branches are an increasingly unsustainable cost.
OP might talk fondly of the Mainwarings staffing their local banks on every street corner but neglects to mention that since that time free banking has become the norm, consumers are increasingly reluctant to pay anything for banking services for any reason and they're not even all that happy with banks making money in any way, shape or form. As with so many things, from the friendly local bank dying out to consumer goods manufacturing largely ceasing in the UK and instead being offshored, the basic reason is because people are unwilling to pay the going rate to maintain these things even if they stamp and scream about not having them.urs sinserly,
~~joosy jeezus~~0 -
I can certainly understand the desire for a more personalised service that recognises the varying requirements of individual customers but continue to question how viable it actually is. Even just in this thread, there has been mention of 'vulnerable' customers, with vulnerability in this context being expressed in terms of age, memory loss, dementia, etc, but in numerous other threads there are demands for accommodation of a very wide range of physical and mental conditions, each with their own unique characteristics, so I genuinely don't see banks (or indeed any other organisations) as being able to please all the people all the time.Cornucopia wrote: »I can't speak for anyone else, but in my mind, I mean these kind of things (it's not an exhaustive list):-
- Offering services that represent reasonable value for money in a competitive market.
- Treating individual personal and business customers with due respect as having requirements and needs that may differ from other customers.
- For vulnerable customers, having a range of ways in which the Bank can assist them to both maintain their independence and minimise the risk of fraud. Being flexible and understanding that each vulnerable person is different, and may have unique needs.
- To moderate the inherently money-oriented nature of banking so that there is more of a human-human style of interaction. (As a customer of 6 or 7 institutions, I can see significant differences in communication style between them, and even between branches of the same bank).
- Innovation without leaving behind customers who cannot participate.
I'm not sure that homogeneity is a matter of what banks favour, but more a function of what can realistically be achieved within the ever-tightening regulatory regime. The increasingly interconnected nature of banking effectively precludes regional operators, in that any bank that has an online presence would be foolish to restrict access in this way, when access to the entire national market is inherently available at no extra cost.Cornucopia wrote: »It's an interesting question. I think part of the issue is that Banks favour this "homogeneous" customer-base model. They offer the same products in a busy City-suburb branch and in the Rural threat-of-closure branch. I can see that it makes for easier marketing, and also that it might be difficult to justify telling Rural customers that particular accounts/services are not available to them on the same terms as everyone else.
I think that one aspect of "social responsibility" is for the bank to suffer that difference of profitability between customers rather than putting it onto rural customers. Maybe there is a middle way for smaller, more regionally-based institutions?
Having said that, there is a swathe of local building societies and credit unions who may be more suited to those who are looking for something more personal than the faceless corporates?0 -
Ideally, they would provide reasonable adjustments to suit the needs of all customers with disabilities or vulnerabilities. In fact, doesn't the Equality Act require that of them?I can certainly understand the desire for a more personalised service that recognises the varying requirements of individual customers but continue to question how viable it actually is. Even just in this thread, there has been mention of 'vulnerable' customers, with vulnerability in this context being expressed in terms of age, memory loss, dementia, etc, but in numerous other threads there are demands for accommodation of a very wide range of physical and mental conditions, each with their own unique characteristics, so I genuinely don't see banks (or indeed any other organisations) as being able to please all the people all the time.I'm not sure that homogeneity is a matter of what banks favour, but more a function of what can realistically be achieved within the ever-tightening regulatory regime. The increasingly interconnected nature of banking effectively precludes regional operators, in that any bank that has an online presence would be foolish to restrict access in this way, when access to the entire national market is inherently available at no extra cost.
Having said that, there is a swathe of local building societies and credit unions who may be more suited to those who are looking for something more personal than the faceless corporates?
Indeed, and I've been using the word institution at times, by which I mean the entire range of bodies that provided retail financial services to the general public.
Are you saying that Banks are somehow more constrained by regulation than Building Societies?0 -
This is another view I feel that reflects "we are where we are" as opposed to where we should really be.JuicyJesus wrote: »The issue here is that they're not, people expect the best and widest selection of services possible at as little direct or indirect cost as possible. The only way free banking is kept sustainable at all in the era we're in at the moment is to reduce costs, and branches are an increasingly unsustainable cost.
OP might talk fondly of the Mainwarings staffing their local banks on every street corner but neglects to mention that since that time free banking has become the norm, consumers are increasingly reluctant to pay anything for banking services for any reason and they're not even all that happy with banks making money in any way, shape or form. As with so many things, from the friendly local bank dying out to consumer goods manufacturing largely ceasing in the UK and instead being offshored, the basic reason is because people are unwilling to pay the going rate to maintain these things even if they stamp and scream about not having them.
I keep getting criticised about what I might mean by social purpose of financial services companies (in particular banks) when all I did (I feel) was to understand the simple meaning of what the 17 Chairmen/CEOs tried to signpost when they first used the phrase in their joint letter in 2010 which fell on so many deaf ears. Most of the 17 may now be retired from the fray without getting anything done! I pointed to that letter because it seemed to be a deliberate acknowledgement that the industry had got lost in its social purpose,and that they'd do something to find it again.
My Flintstones story about the first bank in Bedrock was to try to offer what the first social purpose of the first bank in time would likely have been (a new service offering "money safety" - to stop Fred, Barney Wilma and Co.s worries about money being nicked from under straw mattresses and to stop Dino the dogasaurus from chewing it to pieces
)
I then started to develop it a little further, light-heartedly to show how the social purpose might have developed into slightly more modern times, emphasising the "money safety" social purpose, but not developing that right up to date. Instead I then left it to readers to add to the history of that development of social purpose over eons or just decades if you like, and to try to describe what the social purpose might be today.
All I was doing I hope, was effectively highlighting the same challenge as Marcus Agius and Co set themselves in 2010.
But that letter is being dismissed like it was just the banks in a bit of a corner paying lip service - like so many banks website security help pages do today
0 -
Yes let us put aside contentious phrases like "Human Rights" and even "Treating Customers Fairly". Equality - that's where it is at - equality of delivery of quality banking service, not just equality of access to cheap-to-provide digital channels.Cornucopia wrote: »Ideally, they would provide reasonable adjustments to suit the needs of all customers with disabilities or vulnerabilities. In fact, doesn't the Equality Act require that of them?
Once more you may have got to the crux of it and thank you for guiding this thread.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards