Community

The article makes a strong case for fintech having a dearth of women founders. But "suffering"? In what way is fintech suffering from this?

Will this help JPMC crack the Holy Grail of Loyalty Programs?

How Blockchain Can Crack The Holy Grail Of Loyalty Programs

Banks have faced many of these touted threats during the last decade. They have stuck to their legacy stack. That hasn't stopped them from laughing all the way to the - ahem - bank during this period.  

In 2013, I outlined six hurdles erected by tech to explain Why Banks Can't Transform Legacy Applications? . Keen to know how many of those hurdles have been removed by tech industry in the meanwhile.

With Fintechs changing their tune to Bank Partnership instead of chanting the Disrupt Banks mantra during the last couple of years, the threat to banks has receded. Therefore, if anything, tech companies have to try even harder to drive legacy transformation by banks than before.

Great move. MSV is a full time and a half job. Doesn't leave employees with time to get diverted into all this "purpose" BS.

As I highlighted in Winners Don't Let Security Screw Up User Experience, even when it's well implemented, 3DS v2 risks causing inconsistent UX, which is a big conversion killer.

It's easy to make motherhood statements. PSPs have been trying - and failing - to ensure high UX and low Fraud for decades. Enough damage has been done by security measures to conversion and sales already. It's high time we shed foolhardy notions of being able to strike a tradeoff between UX / Revenues on the one side and Security on the other, and decided to get behind one or the other. Since Revenues can pay for Security but Security can't pay for Revenues, it's obvious what the right choice is.

More like train wreck!

My comment on Thought GDPR was complex? Get ready for SCA! last year is equally relevant here.

LOL almost everything predicted for 2028 was predicted for 2018, if not also 2008. Plastic cards have been predicted to die next year for the last 10 years. Hope they really die soon so that we can be spared from these tiresome predictions year after year or, worse still, decade after decade.

The coronavirus-driven digitization opportunities are equally avalable to banks and fintechs. Banks have 5 Products / Customer versus Fintechs (1.5), according to Finextra article entitled Fintech sector faces "existential crisis" says McKinsey. So there's every reason to believe that banks will benefit much more than fintechs from the new opportunities. Which is why very few fintechs have been able to attract VC funding now. I expect that trend to continue, if not intensify, going forward, which will indeed cause existential crisis for most fintechs, as predicted by McKinsey. 

I've heard a different reasoning for "Nobody got fired for buying IBM". It has to do with integrity, not tech chops. IBM had several competitors who were equally competent as IBM. But, as the legend goes, IBM never used to bribe customers to win deals, unlike most of its competitors. Tech projects fail for a lot of reasons, including challenges on the customer-side. When customer bought from non-IBM, and the project failed, automatically aspersion would be cast that CIO took a bribe and CIO would get fired automatically without any post-mortem on whether CIO really took a bribe or not and investigation into other potential sources of project failure. Whereas, when customer bought from IBM, and the project failed, bribery was completely ruled out, CIO got the benefit of a "fair trial", and didn't get fired automatically.

And that's still very much true in IT, where many projects still keep failing.

According to common wisdom, (a) If you have better UX / CX and give better service resulting in higher CSAT, you'd be able to cross-sell more products to your existing customers, AND (b) Neobanks have better UX / CX / CSAT compared to Traditional Banks. The Products / Customer metric reported in this article - 5 for Traditional Banks versus 1.5 for Neobanks - totally contradicts the common wisdom. 

From this, it follows that (1) The reported metric is wrong OR (2) Traditional Banks have better UX / CX / CSAT than presumed OR (3) UX / CX / CSAT have nothing to do with cross-selling success rates.