Category Archives: Gen Y

Gen Yers Spend All Their Free Time Social Networking

At least, that’s what I would conclude after seeing the results of a survey which found that people under the age of 35 who use social networks (isn’t that all of them?) spend an average of 3.8 hours a day social networking.

I thought that number was huge, so I tried to estimate how people spend their day:

Activity       Hours spent
Sleeping          8.0
Working           8.0
Eating            1.5
Commuting         1.0
Prepping          1.0
Bathrooming       0.5
               -------
TOTAL            20.0

It’s quite possible your allocation is a bit different. Perhaps you eat your meals a bit more leisurely. Maybe your commute is longer. Maybe you put in more than 8 hours a day working (not readers of this blog). If you spend more time in the bathroom, there are other blogs you should be reading.

With 20 hours of the day accounted for by the listed activities, this leaves the average person with 4 hours of free time.

Of which Gen Yers spend 3.8 hours.

This means — if this is all correct — that Gen Yers spend 12 minutes, per day, of their free time doing something other than social networking.

I guess you can get a workout in in 12 minutes. Not sure you’ll get past the first hole on the golf course, though. With just 12 minutes, though, you’re not even catching half of Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.

—————

The reality, of course, is that social networking is not a separate activity from the activities listed above. Except for maybe sleeping. Sadly, many of you sickos actually sleep with your smartphone so you can text and post to Facebook the second you wake up.

But this reality is disturbing and troubling.

Disturbing: You better not be reading this blog post (a form of social networking) on the can. Or while driving on your way to or from work.

Troubling: How effective/productive can you really be at your job if you’re multi-tasking between your job and social networking?

I know that Gen Yers pride themselves on their so-called ability to multi-task. The bad news for them is that the key to being successful is FOCUS (you should read The Twitter Generation’s Delusions Of Productivity). 

I said, the key to being successful is FOCUS (I repeated myself because I know you were distracted by a tweet announcing that your buddy is now the mayor of some stupid store that no one else ever goes to).

—————

Some marketers will look at the research results and conclude that, if people spend this much time on social networking, that they should focus their marketing efforts on social networks in order to reach their customers and prospects. 

But they’re mistaken. People on social networks are doing a gazillion other things while they’re social networking. There’s no mental bandwidth left to notice or pay attention to ads. 

I, on the other hand, look at the research results and can only conclude this: Some of you really need to get a life, get your priorities straight, get back to work, and for G*d’s sake, get your hands back on the steering wheel.

And some of you may need to wash your hands after you finish reading this.

Mobile Banking Forecast: Transactions Vs. Management

Aite Group recently published my latest report Mobile Banking Forecast: Smartphone and Tablet Use in the United States. It forecasts the use of smartphones and tablets for a  variety of  banking transactions and uses.

If you’re an Aite Group client, you should check out the report, because the really important discussion isn’t about how many mobile banking users there will be, but how the use of smartphones and tablets will differ. (If you’re not an Aite Group client, then you’re a loser, and the only way to redeem yourself is by becoming an Aite Group client).

But, OK, since it’s part of the press release, I can give a little of the plot away: 

Tablets will become financial management devices, and smartphones will become financial transaction devices. Financial institutions should invest accordingly.

This might be a blow to bankers who operate under the delusion that they should “build out functionality in all channels and let customers which channels to use.”

What a load of nonsense. 

For years, I’ve been advocating the concept of right-channeling: That some channels (or in this case, devices) are better than others for certain kinds of transactions or interactions, and that you should build out what’s right for the channel (or device) and get customers to use that channel (device).

—————

Bank industry retention and attrition rates haven’t improved greatly over the past 15 years. Cross-sell rates have not improved. Loyalty measures have not improved. Cost structures have not been radically reduced.

So what has been the real benefit of the online channel to banking? The added convenience is clearly a benefit to consumers, but it’s hard to pinpoint the benefit to banks. The online channel has become a cost of doing business. 

This seems to be where the mobile channel is heading. Yet another customer contact channel, and a new cost of doing business.

—————

This time around is a little different, however.

It isn’t just about providing greater levels of convenience to customers.

It’s about providing a greater level of value.  Banks and credit unions think they add value today, but they really don’t add that much.  Sure, they provide a loan when it’s needed (assuming the customer qualifies). 

But where is that everyday help?

On Movenbank’s blog, some 20-something writes ~1000 words dispensing advice to other chidults (half-child, half- adult — hey, it was her description, not mine) about managing their finances. 

I could’ve written the post in 5 words: Stop sending so much, chidults.

The important point here is that these chidults are forced to turn to other clueless chidults because banks (and yes, credit unions) don’t do it. Your cute little “safe to spend” chart doesn’t really cut it, banker-boy. We’re talking about a much deeper level of spend management here.

Every chidult has a smartphone. And before long, they’ll all own a tablet. 

If all you’re going to do is give them the ability to check their balances, get an alert, or pay a bill, you lose. It’s “Online Channel” all over again.

You need to make the smartphone the financial transaction device, and the tablet the financial management device. Figure it out. I can’t give you all the answers here. 

The Real Underserved Market In Banking: Gen WHY

An article titled The Credit Union World Attracting Gen Y to Ensure Its Bright Future contains the following passage:

“Every day since January 1, 2011, more than 10,000 Baby Boomers reach age 65, and that is going to continue every single day for the next 19 years. That adds up to about 64 million skilled workers who will be able to retire in the near future. What does this mean for the American workforce and nearly every business or company, large and small? The future of the workforce will depend on the next generation of young workers and professionals – Generation Y. Companies, businesses, non-profits, and other organizations with an employee base (including credit unions) must learn to successfully market to Gen Y in order to attract and retain them, and ultimately ensure their own existence and growth.”

My take: If you believe this, you need a serious reality check. 

I’m not disputing the Boomer numbers. Yes, (on average) 10k boomers reach the age of 65 every day. With 77 million boomers, 10k is pretty small number, though. 

What I am disputing is this: “That adds up to about 64 million skilled workers who will be able to retire in the near future.”

Here’s reality: Many boomers — I won’t quantify it here — will not be able to retire in the near future OR do not want to retire in the near future. 

Are there really people out there who cling to the out-dated notion that on people’s 65th birthday, they go into work, get their gold watch, eat a piece of cake at their going-away party, then go home to pack up the house for the move to Florida next day?

What this really means for “nearly every business or company” is that older employees will be sticking around a whole lot longer than they did in the past. 

—————

What this really means for banks and credit unions goes way beyond having to “learn to successfully market to Gen Y in order to attract and retain them.”

Let me share with you a data snippet or two from a recent study conducted by Aite Group. Compared to older consumers, Gen Yers are more likely to do household budgeting, to categorize and forecast their expenses, and to seek out advice on how to make better financial decisions. Even though they’re only in their 20s (or maybe early 30s), many are already concerned about, and saving for retirement. 

People over the age of 65 are the least likely to budget, to categorize and forecast their expenses, to access financial education material, and to analyze the allocation of their investments.

Is that because they already have this stuff nailed down, and it’s no longer a problem or issue to manage their financial lives because they’re swimming in dough, and don’t have to worry about it on a day-to-day basis? Yeah, sure. 

—————

The real underserved market in banking isn’t Gen Y — it’s Gen WHY: Gen We Haven’t-stopped-working Yet (sorry, feel free to come up with a better label and I’ll go with it). 

What Gen WHY needs is help managing their financial lives: Understanding how much they’ll need in retirement, how to manage their money in retirement, how to pass down their money after their retirement is over. 

But the banking industry doesn’t have a product for that. Financial advisors (some of whom work for banks or credit unions) can provide a service to fill that need. 

But many people have never paid for financial advice. They’re used to paying for financial products: A checking account, a savings account, a CD, etc. And what banks and CUs have learned to do (in varying degrees of effectiveness) is sell financial products, not financial services.

Bottom line: The bottom line here is two-fold: 1) The bigger short-term opportunity presented by the 10k of boomers who reach 65 every day is not selling to Gen Yers, but providing better support and help to those boomers who aren’t retiring, can’t retire, but might want to; and 2) The real challenge to the industry is not “learning how to market to Gen Yers,” but how to transition from selling financial products to financial services.

Gen Y Truisms I’m Freaking Sick And Tired Of Hearing

Groucho Marx once said:

“I’ve read so much about the dangers of smoking, that I’ve decided to give up reading.”

That’s how I feel about Gen Yers. I gotta stop reading about them. It’s driving me nuts.

First off, most of the commentary, at this point, is redundant. I haven’t read or seen anything really new about Gen Y in at least a year now.

Second, some of it is such meaningless, platitudinal bullshit that it drives me up a wall.

—————

I’ll give you some examples, but before I do, let me apologize to those I’m quoting and citing. It does pain me (slightly) to think that the people I’m criticizing for perpetuating Gen Y bullshit are people I like and respect. But don’t worry. I’ll get over it.

While there are many of these truisms to draw from, I found a whole pile of them in one particular article on The Cooperative Trust’s blog.

—————

The first pile of Gen Y BS I’ll highlight is this one (and I know you’ve heard this a million times before):

“Gen Y doesn’t want to be marketed to, they want to be communicated WITH.” 

Oh for chrissakes, really? Gen Y doesn’t want to be marketed to? I suppose the author thinks that Boomers and Gen Xers DO want to be marketed to, and that Seniors are just too old and senile to even notice marketing. NOBODY wants to be marketed to, NOBODY wants to be talked down to, NOBODY wants to be disrespected.

—————

Here’s another misguided statement, regarding the communication of messages to Gen Yers:

“If you have a fifty year old relaying the message, I can assure you it is falling on deaf ears.”

Nonsense. By this false logic, only members of a particular generation could possibly communicate with that generation. Good luck to Fisher-Price as they try to hire 3 year-old marketing people.

I hope I didn’t offend the author of the article, but since I’m a “fifty year old”, I imagine my criticism fell on deaf ears and he didn’t hear it.

—————

The third offending statement was this one:

“As we prepare for 20% of [credit union] CEOs to retire in the next five years, we’d be best served to start grooming young talent now. Make them an active part of strategic planning and decision making. Why not make a commitment to finding a board member under 35 in the next year…”

The board of directors — in any organization, not just credit unions — is to ensure the prosperity of the entity. It’s NOT a body designed to be a representative sample of the membership base, or (even worse) the desired membership base.

I would bet that most credit union CEOs are tactful enough to say that they would welcome the voice of Gen Y on their board of directors, blah, blah, blah.

But the reality is this: CU CEOs need directors who can help make critical business decisions — not people who can “talk the language” of their target market.

—————

If you thought that was enough BS for one article, you were wrong. Here’s another one:

“We have a pool of talent with insight into what Gen Y wants and needs from a primary financial institution…”

This is closely related to the “if 50-year-olds relay the message…” comment from above, but it’s not the same thing. This statement presumes that ONE Gen Yer knows what OTHER Gen Yers want and need.

In the business, we call this bully-button research. It’s a terrible basis on which to make important business decisions.

I recently completed a consumer study about how consumers manage their financial lives, and in analyzing the results, looked closely at Gen Yers. I found many differences in attitudes and behaviors regarding financial services between Gen Yers born between 1978 and 1986, and those born between 1987 and 1994. So how can one 29-year-old credit union marketer (or board member) presume to know what “Gen Y wants and needs”? Answer: S/he can’t.

—————

Bottom line: I imagine that some of you reading this will think “I hate these generational stereotypes, regardless of the generation they apply to.”

But I’ve got to tell you, from doing consumer research in this space for the past 15 years, there are generational differences, in aggregate. Of course, not all members of a generation fit the stereotype or persona, and that any one member of a generation won’t fit the mold on every attribute. Understood and accepted. But there are behavioral and attitudinal trends that are statistically different the generations. 

What’s driving me nuts is that much of the “conversation” about Gen Yers isn’t really designed to uncover and discuss insights into how Gen Yers might be different from older consumers and how marketing or management efforts should be designed or changed.

Instead, much of the commentary is little more than a rehashing of meaningless platitudes designed to further a viewpoint that holds that Gen Yers should be given more attention, and more management and leadership responsibility.

The problem with this is two-fold: 1) Meaningless platitudes are poor supporting evidence for any viewpoint, and 2) Arguing that you should change management and leadership approaches because of a changing customer base is a non-sequitur.

Do Credit Unions Need A Bank Transfer Day 2012?

Credit Union Times recently reported that Bank Transfer Day (BTD) creator Kristen Christian “came in for sharp criticism from a Vermont Occupy contingent which made headlines this week by electing one of its own to the board of the $346 million Vermont Federal Credit Union of Burlington.” According to the article:

“Christian has taken undue credit away from the broader Occupy movement in starting BTD as well as ignoring the phenomenon’s umbrella mission of hitting hard on bank practices. [Occupy Burlington activist Matt] Cropp accused Christian of promoting “a misleading and self-serving narrative of why BTD unfolded as it did, attributing its success to her marketing skills and understanding of Gen Y.”

Personally, I have no clue whether Cropp’s claims are accurate or not, nor do I care. The two questions that I’m more concerned with are: 1) Was Bank Transfer Day 2011 successful? and 2) Should CUs create a Bank Transfer Day 2012?

If it was a success, then regardless of who gets (or takes) credit for it, credit unions should figure out how to recreate the efforts again this year. If it wasn’t successful, then credit unions shouldn’t care less who gets the “credit” for what happened last year.

So, was BTD 2012 a success?

My take: The results are inconclusive.

Aite Group research found that 10% of banked consumers switched primary FIs in 2011. When asked what factors influenced their decision to switch, 8% cited BTD transfer day.

Taken by itself, that statistic isn’t very impressive.

But of those that switched primary providers, about half were Gen Yers. And of switching Gen Yers, 12% said that they were influenced by BTD (if you want to quantipulate, you could say that 12% is 50% higher than 8%).

Before dismissing BTD as…well, not as a failure, but as a “less-than-rousing success”….we should keep in mind that, for the most part, credit unions themselves did diddly-squat to create or promote BTD. Which means that their ROI on BTD with a 8% influence rate was huge. (It’s always a great marketing tactic when you can get someone else to do all the work while you reap the benefits).

If 10% of households switch primary FIs again this year, and if  BTD 2012 influences 8% of them to switch to a credit union, is it worth CUs’ investment? We are talking about 1 million credit union members here.

But it seems highly unlikely that someone else is going to pick up the ball and tab for a BTD 2012. Credit unions will need to make a concerted, well-planned effort to pull off a BTD 2012.

Could CUs Pull Off a BTD 2012?

The credit union blogosphere has forever debated the merits of a national branding campaign for CUs, without coming to many conclusions, little agreement, and no action (I think). So how will they pull off a BTD 2012?

And is consumer sentiment the same in 2012 as it was in 2011? I don’t think so. That’s the problem with these “movements”: Short shelf-life.

We Americans like to have our villains to blame all the evils of society on, but those villains come and go. Are banks still the Satan-incarnate?

Maybe, but the hatred is winding down (as it always does. Anybody remember BP?) BTD 2011 needed a trigger, which it got in the form of new fees introduced by the big banks. This year hasn’t produced that trigger.

Bottom line: The parties involved can argue all they want over who gets credit for BTD 2011′s success. Credit union executives would be wise to focus on the future, and determine if a BTD 2012 is in their best interest. 

As far as I’m concerned, BTD 2011 was a passing phenomenon. A one-time shot. The pieces came together at a moment in time in 2011, and those pieces aren’t there for 2012. 

Which Consumers Prefer Credit Unions?

Ever notice how happy a pig in shit is? That’s probably how that saying came about. Well, give me survey data, and I’m happier than a pig in shit.

And I’m really happy right now, because the results of a survey of 1,115 US consumers, conducted by Aite Group and BancVue, is sitting on my PC providing me with hours of analytical fun. In the next few weeks, we will be publishing a report on PFM (which you might be able to get from BancVue if you’re really nice to them). 

With permission from BancVue, I wanted to share a couple of data points (which have nothing to do with PFM, so I’m not giving away the PFM punchline here).

My take: Both banks and credit unions should take note of these data points as I believe they’re cause for concern on the part of both types of financial institutions.

We asked consumers to assume that they were in the market for a new financial product, and that the providers they were considering offered similar rates, fees, terms, etc. We then asked them if they would prefer a large bank, a community bank or credit union, or if they had no preference.

Below are the results by the respondents’ generation affiliation:

Credit unions should not be happy to see this. Gen Yers — the generation that practically all CUs are dying to court in order to lower the average age of their member base — are just as likely to consider a credit union or community bank as they are a large bank.

Who’s the most likely to prefer a CU or community bank? Seniors, who, it would seem, are discarded and ignored by so many industry observers as not being profitable or providing the engine for growth.

Bottom line: Credit unions should stop patting themselves on the back every time a survey comes out showing that consumers trust credit unions more than large banks. 

It’s great that the 20% of consumers who consider a CU their primary FI trust CUs more than the 60% of consumers who call a big bank their primary FI trust those big banks.

I don’t want to downplay the importance of trust in developing customer relationships, but the data shown above (as well as other data points that will be published later) point to two concerns CUs should be worried about:

1. Preference. More than half of Seniors would prefer a CU or community bank, but just over a third of Gen Yers express the same preference. Not a good metric for CUs.

2. Conversion. Nearly half of Gen Xers — who, while not a particularly large generation in overall numbers, are critical because many are in the peak of their financial service need years — said they’d prefer a community bank or credit union. But do 45% of Gen Xers who open up a new financial account or apply for a new financial product do so with a community bank or CU? I don’t think so. Conclusion: CUs have a conversion problem.

This is what CUs should be worried about. Not their trust numbers.  

Gen Y And Bank Branches: A Message For Branchaholics

CU Times reported on a study conducted by Fiserv which found that:

“Gen Y members do not limit themselves to online and mobile banking — they’re more likely than any other age segment to visit a branch, drive up to an ATM or phone a call center.”

My take: This is not a cause for Branchaholic celebration.

Not to denigrate the Fiserv study, but this is hardly the first survey to find that — lo and behold! — Gen Yers go into bank and credit union branches.

Branchaholics — i.e., delusionary people in financial services who fail to admit to the reality that branches are dying out, and worse, want to invest tons of money to make bank branches look like something that would be featured in a Star Wars movie, or worse, look like Starbucks — take these data points, and say “See!? Branches aren’t dead.”

But what the Branchaholics aren’t acknowledging is what these studies (often) fail to ask: Why did Gen Yers use bank/credit union branches?

I don’t have research data to back up my assertion, but here it is anyway: 99% of the time, Gen Yers use branches because they can’t get their problem resolved in any other channel. Simply put, Gen Yers use branches not because they want to, but because they have to.

And it’s painful for them. I mean, really, have you seen this sub-species of human? They don’t know how to talk with their mouths. But they sure can type faster than Nicki Minaj can rap (or whatever you call that).

Bottom line: Don’t use Gen Y branch usage data as a sign that branches aren’t dead, or are coming back to life. It’s actually a sign that the other channels — the digital channels — aren’t doing a good enough job. 

The Quantipulation Of Bank Transfer Day

An article on GOOD News suggests that “with 5.6 million people and counting, the Move Your Money campaign worked.” According to an analyst quoted in the article:

“if we assume that the average American family has $3,800 in the bank, and we assume that only 300,000 of the 5.6 million people who moved had even that much, that’s more than a billion dollars divested from big banks. In the end, it won’t stop them from chugging along, but it proves that a concerted effort to change the status quo can be worth a lot, literally and figuratively.”

My take: There are a few statements here that might not stand up to scrutiny.

1.To say that the number of people that have switched account is 5.6 million and counting, suggests the “movement” is still active. It’s certainly true that people switch banks everyday, but there’s no evidence that the rate of switching is anywhere near the rate it was in the month leading up to BTD.

2. I’m having a little trouble with the claim that it was the Move Your Money campaign that worked. My understanding is that the MYM was started long before Q3 2011. Attributing the success of the late 2011 switches to this campaign seems disingenuous to me.

3. The comment that a billion dollars divested from big banks is “worth a lot, literally and figuratively” doesn’t hold water. As of the end of September 2011, the 5 largest U.S banks — or what the article despicably calls the “predatory” banks — had a little more than $4 trillion in deposits. A billion dollars is 0.03% of that. Let me put that in perspective for you: As a percentage of my annual salary, I spend more than 0.02% when I take my family out for dinner.  Even if $10 billion came out of the top 5 banks, we’re still not even talking a quarter of one percent of the deposits they have.

Why is this important?

Because credit unions are deluding themselves, and missing the more important picture.

While they obsess over painting large banks as Doofenshmirtz Evil Incorporated, the $1 billion leaving the big banks pales in comparison to the $30-40 billion leaving the system.

In an Aite Group report that I’ll be publishing next week, I’ll define a segment of consumers I call the Debanked: Mainstream consumers who willingly opt out of the traditional banking system, taking their $30-40 billion with them to alternative financial services providers.

These people aren’t just leaving big banks, they’re leaving all banks and credit unions behind. And these are not disadvantaged, uneducated consumers. They’re highly educated, employed, make decent money, and they’re young.

I don’t have the data to prove it,but I’m betting many of the Debanked aren’t aware of credit unions and the alternative they provide.

CU professionals can go on patting themselves on their backs for a supposed “job well done” regarding Bank Transfer Day (even though most credit unions didn’t actually do anything), but it’s all quantipulation as far as I’m concerned.

Comscore’s 2011 State of Online and Mobile Banking

Comscore published its annual State of Online and Mobile Banking for 2011. Anyone in financial services with an interest in the online or mobile channels, payments, or marketing should check it out.

Lots of interesting data points and trends in this report. Here’s what caught my eye:

1. PNC is kicking @ss. The bank’s satisfaction level jumped from 57% in Q1 2010 to 79% in Q1 2011. The 57% number was down from 70% in Q1 2009. My guess is that these changes reflect two things: 1) The drop in 2010 reflected PNC/Nat City merger fallout, and 2) The bump in 2011 reflected the great job PNC did with the merger and the bank’s success with its Virtual Wallet product. The 79% level is 9 percentage points higher than Chase or Wells Fargo, 16 points higher than Citi, and 17 points higher than BofA. Kudos to PNC.

2. PFM interest and use is anemic. This might reflect the blending of the demographic segments. In other words, it might be too late to get Boomers, and maybe Gen Xers, interested in PFM. Would love to see the numbers for Gen Yers. But the Comscore numbers are not reassuring for PFM vendors, nor for online channel execs at banks looking for ways to use the online channel to add value to the customer relationship. (Side note: I’ve got an Aite Group report on PFM coming out in late Feb/early March that will define strategies for addressing the issues banks and CUs are having with PFM). Just half of BofA and Wells Fargo customers are aware of those banks’ PFM tools. In contrast, 60% of PNC customers know about Virtual Wallet, and 63% of USAA members know about the Money Manager tool. Both BofA and WF have had their PFM offering a lot longer than PNC and USAA has had theirs.

3. Nobody knows about P2P payments. And of those that do, few use it. This is a cause for concern because a number of the core apps providers I’ve talked to recently are expecting P2P payments to be big, and become a revenue generator for both themselves and the banks that offer it. Personally, I think banks go about marketing P2P payments all wrong, and Comscore’s numbers give me some proof for my contention.

4. Social media efforts go unnoticed. I’m sure you’re tired of hearing me bash social media gurus and zealots regarding their baseless claims about the miracles of social media, but Comscore’s stats really tell a story. Less than one in five consumers are even aware that their FI has a presence in the social networking space.

5. Email is an effective communication channel. Email sure takes a beating in the blogo- and twitter-sphere. According to the Comscore report:

“…the impact of receiving emails to new account opening activity is on the rise. While the response rate on offers to open a new account is still modest at 6%, it represents a doubling of last year’s rate. In fact, email is highly effective in increasing customer awareness and engagement in other offerings, with 17% of recipients visiting the site to get information on other products.”

6. Remote deposit capture awareness is low. Just 29% of smartphone owners are aware of  the ability deposit checks remotely (I know of an 8 year-old who knows about this feature). This surprised me considering the importance so many bankers place on RDC as a way to differentiate their organization, and attract younger consumers.

Overall, lots of good stuff in this report. Nice work, Comscore.

The Tooth Fairy Opportunity

@cuhomepage (Tammy Holtzmeier) tweeted the following recently:

“Tooth Fairy forgot to visit. ‘I bet she remote deposited the money,’ says our eight-year-old. Extra quarters tonight for the #smartkid.”

If you know Tammy, then you’re not surprised in the least that her kid would be bright enough to know what remote deposit capture is at eight years old.

But (sorry Tammy) that’s not the point of this post. The purpose is to point out a potential opportunity for banks and credit unions.

When I was an eight year-old, the tooth fairy came when I lost a tooth, and left a quarter under my pillow. Do you mean to tell me that, in the intervening hundred years, this tradition hasn’t changed?

I don’t know exactly at what age kids today start texting and emailing, but I am willing to bet that the first thing my two older daughters do upon waking up each morning is to check their smartphones to see who texted them overnight, and to check their friends’ Facebook status.

My younger daughter (getting close to the end of her tooth-losing years) doesn’t have a smartphone, so when she gets up she immediately turns on her iPod touch to play games, and — much to the chagrin of her mother and I — to text with her friends who have figured out how to use the device for that purpose.

My point: At a very young age, today’s kids are tied to their technology.

But you knew that already.

Despite knowing that, however, it appears that few financial institutions have figured out how to do anything about it.

Enter the Tooth Fairy Opportunity.

Why don’t banks and credit unions give their customers (members) the ability to transfer money into their tooth-losing kid’s account with a “tooth fairy” option — an option that would trigger a text or email message from “the Tooth Fairy” to the child letting them know the Tooth Fairy “gave” them money, and a message that the parents could personalize about how the kid should use the money wisely (i.e., not on candy) or to save the money, etc.?

Is eight years old too soon to teach a kid about smart money management? Tammy’s kid might be a little ahead of the game, but even 10- and 11-year-olds are still losing their teeth, and they’re definitely not too young.

The Tooth Fairy opportunity is a low-cost way to engage customers — and their children.