Community

The full list is on the IFTTT website. https://ifttt.com/search/categories/Finance%20&%20payments - I think Monzo is the first retail bank on the list.

Hi Andrei - great to hear from you - and thanks for the comment!

I agree that many users of $20 smartphones will be on low incomes. However, I believe that there are certainly benefits to banks. First of all is the revenue from money transmission. Banks have been disintermediated by telcos and have lost this revenue, which they can now win back. It also leaves them less exposed to USSD service providers.

Further to this, you make a point that mobile banking apps do not offer revenue generation opportunities. Without mentioning brand names (!), some leading products do offer product sales via mobile. There are a number of 'one-touch' sales processes which can be rendered very effectively on mobile devices - e.g. credit cards, overdrafts, insurance etc.

Based on the feedback I have had from banks in a number of markets, there is huge interest in growing mobile banking volumes. I believe that the $20 smartphone will move customers off featurephones and will lead to the demise of USSD, SMS and browser based mobile banking - as well as opening up mobile banking to entirely new users. However, I would love to hear more opinions...

I think this research is extremely timely. To paraphrase a line I used in a white paper on multi-channel banking in 2011, trying to deliver a multi-channel experience across all channels and processes is like eating an elephant in one bite. Banks need to break it down into small pieces. They also need to be more focussed on value. Why are they enabling a specific customer journey to be multi-channel?

Mortgage applications are a great example of a process ripe for multi-channel enablement. They are high value transactions which run over a period of weeks. We know customers will want advice and to be able to track the progress of their application. They may want to do this on the phone, in a branch or over the internet. That means that multi-channel enabling long running sales processes like this is very sensible. Not only will a mortgage sale be made – but a relationship will be deepened. Buying a house could not be more important to a customer. Providing a good experience at this time is critical. So in this case, the cost of multi-channel would be justifiable.

However, a bank should not multi-channel enable a process when the benefits case doesn’t stack up. Multi-channel enabling low value sales and transactions will increase costs for a bank without providing a meaningful return. Nor should multi-channel strategies distract from the fact that most customer needs should be fulfilled with a single touch. Most non-sales transactions and many sales process should not require to be multi-channel enabled at all. Instead banks should focus on making it easier for a customer to complete their transaction without needing to move channels.

Multi-channel banking is still an important goal for banks – but it should be implemented judiciously, where it will add value.