Naming and shaming the banks

Banks have themselves to blame for some of the complaints - having made "products" too complicated and having put sales targets ahead of real customer value.

But the problem with the above is that banks are hate objects in virtually any market situation - by media, by politicians (who follow media), by customers who do not get loans, by customers who did get loans, by customers who invested with the hope to get high yield without risk, by depositing customers who believe that the banks set the base rates so low, by customers who do not want to pay visibly for services, by consumer ombudsmen who resist transparent pricing etc etc

So the complaint stream reflects too much of the this sentiment and is difficult to be handled. Probably it is still best to make it public so that the man on the street can judge for himself if it is worth to spend his money for it. He pays every cent and penny for it himself - and this should in all circumstances be made very clear.

I personally think the root cause of the problem for banks is even simpler than the explanation offered by Bo. Banks have for too long separated Sales & Marketing from Customer Service. The former being viewed as "good expenditure", the latter being viewed as "bad" and to be eliminated wherever possible. As long as banks see service as an expense to be reduced by setting productivity targets, outsourcing customer contact centres to developing countries (as part of a perverse labour arbitrage strategy) customer service will suffer. More fool them. One day some enlightened bankers might wake up and realise "Sales and Service" are viewed as two sides of the same coin by customers. Successful businesses realised this decades ago, without having to rely on customer inertia, compliance and apathy.  

Keith makes a good point in "Banks have for too long separated Sales & Marketing from Customer Service." I fully agree - and this is what has led to blind product pushing - seriously complicating things instead of dearly - both by customers and staff - needed simplification.

But then customer service yesterday is not the same as customer service today. Having had the experience of launching e-banking for private customers in -82 the counterarguments were often that it will take away personal service. For what? For paying bills over the counter, for checking balances over the phone, for cashing checks (eliminated with transparent pricing in -83) for withdrawing cash etc. Most of this "personal service" was a 30-45 second encounter.. But in the country side there was/is still a social dimension by swapping the latest on children and grandchildren.

When most over the counter and call center services were priced transparently most of this disappeared. Customers had of course paid for the service before - without knowing it (paralell case now: enterprises charging for sending paper invoices..). When the cost is shown - customers know how to behave in their very own interest. The cost of banking in Finland was cut in half - and most of the savings given back to customers in fierce price competition. Will consumer organization ever realize this opportunity to really serve cost cutting for customers?

Today it is a question of delivering good services over the Internet. And good services means that contact centres are not loaded down with routine tasks or people not understanding the offerings (simplification, simplification, simplification..). In stead of investing in handling the symptons (investing in outsourcing work that should be eliminated) it should by now be very clear that the disease needs full attention - investments in eliminating complexity and adding many logical and more holistic layers in - the by now dominating - e-banking channel.

Then as Keith says: "Sales and Service" are viewed as two sides of the same coin by customers."