The Finextra Fun Badge Buzzword Bingo Game

Ah, 'paradigm shift' - an oldie, but a goodie

Liz,

I appreciate that this is largely tongue in cheek, but thankfully FinExtra gives me the ability to defend snarky slights against my verbose character :)

In my defense the comment you dissected was made with the severe transmission limitations of Twitter's 140 characters. So calling me out for not giving clarity to a statement via the Twitter medium is a little tough. It was a provactive statement, I'll grant you. It may even require further explanation if you've never heard my ideas in that respect before. However, Twitter as a medium, is not articulate enough to provide that which you say you are looking for in a serious discussion about the industry.

I do often talk about disruptive behavioral shifts, for example, and I believe I've explained my thoughts on that via numerous forums with abundant clarity - I'm sure no one is unsure of what my views on the matter are and why I classify it as such. The fact is, disrupted by dramatic consumer behaviour shifts is exactly the right term to describe what is happening in the retail FI space. Water it down with less dramatic language and you might let a banker think that he has plenty of time before he has to change the way he does business - he does not.

Just ask Borders and Blockbuster if consumer behavioral changes have been disruptive to their businesses or dramatic?

I stand by the emphatic nature of my language, if only because we are in desparate times and need a big change in our approach and thinking. Being soft on this, or pulling punches because it may be seen as a little dramatic, isn't going to help anyone - consumers or industry pundits alike. 

And don't worry... I have plenty left to talk about :)

Brett King
BANK 2.0 

OK, fair enough. I take your point about Twitter (I did grab the latest quote, which happened to come via Twitter)

However, I disagree with you that using simple, easy to understand language and spelling out exactly what you mean, without relying on jargon, buzzwords or vague statements makes your argument 'soft'. I would argue - it makes an argument stronger. 

Which statement is stronger?

• Retail banking customer behaviour is changing
• 'X-percentage of retail banking customer aged between 18 and 29 have not entered a branch in the past three years - according to [very expensive research house that looks into these things]'

Guess which one would be covered by Finextra?

Not to go off-topic. But I think your comparison to the decline of Borders et all is a bit 'apples & oranges'. Amazon didn't partner with Barnes & Nobel and Borders when it launched - it partnered with the book publishers and depositories - much like your own cardless, paperless, mobile start-up and the 'Simple personal finance site formerly known as Bank...' will need to partner with that four-letter B word.

What brought down Borders has as much to do with it being saddled with massive amounts of suburban real estate it couldn't shift as it has with changes in customer buying habits. But that is another discussion...

You still haven't convinced me that explaining exactly what you mean in simple language doesn't trump a buzzword every time. 

Actually Liz, Amazon did exactly that which you say they didn't with Borders. In 2001, Borders - fearing the dot com bubble collapse - wrote off their online business. They outsourced it to Amazon.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/59638/Borders_Turns_to_Amazon_for_Outsourcing

By 2006, Amazon was doing $170m through the Borders.com website. 

Why did Borders go the way of the Dodo? Maybe because they had no alternative revenue...

The analogy fits.

BK