According to the authors, to get retweeted, a brand should:

• Not ask questions, or use hashtags. Apparently, “Who’s tried dipping french fries in a Frosty? #yum” doesn’t get retweeted. The author do concede, however, that “the use of questions to provoke a response may create a sense of engagement and cause direct communication between the brand and individual followers.”
• Use attention words. WOW, LOOK!, and TODAY ONLY! can boost your retweetability by up to 40% according to the authors’ research.
• Not tweet (or do tweet) about contests. On one hand, the authors say that “promotional messages announcing contests did not increase retweetability.” However, later on in the article, they claim that asking to be retweeted is a good tactic, and they use the following example tweet from eBay: RT for a chance to win a $100 eBay Gift Card! On Mother’s Day diamonds can be mom’s best friend. #eBayMomHeroes
• Humanize your brand. The authors believe that “companies can make their brand appear to be a ‘living thing’ and signal that there is more to the brand than just making and selling products or services.
• Make it practical and relevant. In the authors’ words, “in the hypertransient environment of social media, it is imperative to associate brand messages with what is top in followers’ minds.”

My take: The MIT Sloan Management Journal should be ashamed to publish this kind of stuff. It might pass as publishable at a cheap marketing daily trade publication, but not at a legitimate journal like SMJ.

Why? Because it’s so “in-the-weeds” tactical that it ignores the bigger, and (arguably) more important issues regarding the use of Twitter from a brand perspective:

1. How important is getting retweeted in the scheme of things? Gurus keep hailing Twitter (and other forms of social media) as a way to better engage customers and prospects. And I buy into that.

But if your goal for using Twitter is getting retweeted, then aren’t you really admitting that all you’re trying to do is use the tool for broadcasting purposes? And…if your goal is to broadcast a certain message, then any marketer worth his or her salt will evaluate a range of channels to determine which is most effective (reach/cost) in order to decide how to broadcast that message. And…if a marketer actually does that, what are the odds that they will find that there are other channels better suited for effective broadcast than Twitter? Answer: Very high odds.

If, however, the purpose of using Twitter is to engage customers and prospects, then retweeting simply isn’t that big of an objective. Too bad the authors’ research didn’t look at how to improve engagement.

2. How does the composition of a brand’s followers impact retweetability — and overall Twitter strategy? OK, forget the whole engagement thing for a moment, and assume that retweetability is the brand’s primary Twitter objective. Different brands have different types of followers — types, as in demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral differences. Isn’t it conceivable that this composition will impact the likelihood that someone will RT? I’ve seen plenty of research that shows that younger consumers are more likely than older ones to refer products to their family and friends. Wouldn’t you think that that behavior extends to retweeting? So, a brand with a primarily younger follower group is probably to get their tweets retweeted — A PRIORI — than a brand with an older follower demographic.

And then, beyond retweeting, shouldn’t the composition of the follower group dictate overall Twitter strategy? Maybe your brand’s followers are predominantly younger consumers looking to participate in the brand community. Then retweeting may very well be an important Twitter objective for that brand. But that’s not necessarily the case.

3. What does humanizing the brand mean? It never ceases to amaze me how some marketing people can throw around the term “humanizing” as if it’s some universally understood and accepted term. The authors say that “[humanizing] content can be in the form of humor, a historical view of the brand or even an inspirational message such as a quote.” Oh really?

Is your brand humanized? Yes? Prove it. Not sure? Of course you’re not sure, because how would you know. Advertisers have used humor in ads for decades. Simply using humor doesn’t qualify as humanizing. Why doesn’t showing pain and suffering (e.g., starving children in Africa) qualify as “humanizing”?

Yet, the authors of the article don’t hesitate to tell marketers that they should use Twitter to “humanize” their brand, and even worse, do so in order to increase retweetability.

Bottom line: Resorting to tactics to get your tweets retweeted may cause you to overlook the more important questions about how to use Twitter.

“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. 

As American football is gripped by Tebowmania, a new “Tebow” will become prevalent in the world of financial services:

Total Benefits of Ownership (TBO)

TBO will be adopted by many banks and credit unions as a new approach to marketing bank accounts in 2012 and beyond.

Banks’ and credit unions’ approach to marketing checking accounts has evolved over the past 10 to 15 years. FIs have evolved (if you want to call it that) from:

1. Rational marketing (“We have higher rates/lower fees!”) to…
2. Emotional marketing (“We help you achieve your dreams!”) to…
3. Hysterical marketing (“Move your money away from the evil big banks!”).

2012 will bring a return to a more rational (i.e., quantitative) approach to marketing: Competing on the total benefits of account ownership.

The formula for TBO is simple:

TBO = Interest earned + Rewards redeemed – Fees paid

FIs’ and consumers’ current ability to calculate TBO is practically impossible, however.

Until recently so-called free checking accounts promised no fees, but through overdraft fees, foreign ATM fees, stop payment fees, wire transfer fees (need I go on?), consumers paid out plenty for their checking accounts — but could barely forecast those fees in advance.

If interest was earned in checking accounts, or affiliated savings accounts, few consumers could tell you how much interest they earned in a given year, nor forecast that amount looking ahead.

And if you think debit rewards are dead, tell that to UnionBank who’s giving 5% back on debit card spending to new account applicants.

Looking ahead, merchant-funded incentives will become more prevalent. I admit that calling an offer for a discount a “reward” is a bit of a stretch. But if you earn a discount based on your spending, the amount saved should be attributed to the benefits of account ownership.

As FIs continue to re-price their checking account offerings to motivate consumers to hold more accounts or higher balances, demonstrating the total benefits of ownership will become the way banks and credit unions will attempt to differentiate themselves.

As consumer activism continues to rise, the way for financial institutions to respond is by demonstrating the value they provide — by quantifying it, and compete on the basis of it.

Executing on this won’t be easy, however. FIs will need technology offerings that deliver the essence of TBO:

Enabling prospects to model their behavior to forecast expected TBO, and enabling existing customers to calculate actual TBO on a real-time basis.

FIs will need the ability to aggregate accounts (internally), compile customer activity across channels and products, and track rewards and merchant-funded offers.

Sound too complicated? Think it’s too much effort for consumers? You’re underestimating the increased desire among consumers to make smarter decisions about their financial lives, their desire for more transparency, and the ability of technology — particularly mobile technology — to make this a reality.

You’ll have to read the report to see which technology firms we think will be the leaders in the development of these capabilities, how TBOmania will play out, and the other trends Aite Group is anticipating.

“Ron, I’ve been working in credit unions for more than 30 years. I know hundreds of C-level officials, and I disagree that there is a “meaningful number of young professionals involved with managing, leading, and running credit unions…..” There is indeed a cadre of outspoken young people on the blogosphere and around the watercooler, but from what I’ve observed, they are more junior level people from credit union marketing and training departments, and the numerous marketing agencies that want to sell them stuff. They are indeed a rah rah bunch, but they aren’t leading their organizations now, nor will they be leading them in the future. The path to the corner offices doesn’t go through the marketing departments of credit unions. Never has and never will.

I should add……..thankfully for us.”

What do you think? Is Hap right?

My take: The question of whether or not the future leaders of CUs will come from marketing can’t be answered without understanding why the past leaders haven’t come from marketing. Two reasons dominate:

1. Worn-rug syndrome. Is there a rug in your house or office that has a path worn-into it? And what do people do when there’s a path already worn-into the rug? They walk on it.  So when the path to the CEO position has always been filled with people from a particular part of the organization, not only does the incumbent CEO think the position should be filled by someone from that path, but so does the board. And what happens is that marketing isn’t considered a source for the job.

2. Poor reputation. Let’s face it. Marketing has a poor reputation in the eyes of many senior CU executives. This negative becomes ingrained and even a great potential future leader will suffer to overcome this if s/he is in marketing.

So, is Hap right? That it will “never” change?

No. 

But that’s not to say that marketers in credit unions will somehow magically be on the CEO track in the future. The ones who get on that track will have to redefine the role of marketing in their organizations. 

Needless to say, the tchotchke-marketers (those whose view of marketing is centered around giving out refrigerator magnets) won’t be on the leadership track.

But marketers who view the marketing function too narrowly — typically in advertising terms — won’t make the track either.

The marketers who infuse marketing into members’ channel experiences, and who influence overall corporate strategy will be the marketers who make it on the leadership track.

Sorry for the political incorrectness, but a lot of older CMOs won’t get there. Their narrow view of marketing is too ingrained. The younger marketers are starting from a different mindset of what marketing is, and what it could be.

I hope you’re still around credit unions for the next 30 years, Hap, for these young CU leaders to prove you wrong. 

For more on this topic, see this post on The Mojo Company blog.

Snooze. 

Banks and credit unions are missing a huge opportunity here. Namely, to transform those legacy physical structures into financial “spas.”

You know, the place where you go to get into “financial shape”. Kinda gives new meaning to the term “loan workout”, no?

Seriously though (OK, not too seriously), instead of trying to get people to hang out and drink coffee, if banks transformed their branches into spas, while women were getting their mani/pedis, they could be having meaningful conversations with financial reps about their financial lives. 

Open an account (or maintain a certain balance, number of accounts, etc., you get the picture), get the manicure for free. 

Think I’m being sexist? Screw that, everybody knows it’s women making the financial decisions in an incredibly high percentage of households.  It’s certainly no more sexist than slapping some pink colors on something and calling it “marketing to women” (and you know that there are banks and other types of companies that do that).

You don’t think this idea will fly, do you? That’s OK. Because cafes and high-tech, self-service gizmos aren’t the “branches of the future” either. 

Among the nation’s largest stand-alone direct banks, deposits have increased by 70% since the first quarter of 2008 to a combined $330 billion as of Sept. 30, or roughly four times the industrywide pace. Even for ING Direct, the largest and most established Internet deposit business, deposit growth of 27% since the first quarter of 2008 to $82 billion at Sept. 30 was far ahead of industrywide growth of 17% to about $10 trillion.

My take: The online banks may have grown far faster than other FIs (70% vs. 17%), but given the smaller base of deposits, that’s not very hard to do. In fact, if AB wanted to further sweeten the online banks’ story, it could have mentioned that their market share of deposits grew from 2.3% in 2008 to 3.3% in 2011 — a 43% jump in market share.

Ah, but now I’m the one quantipulating.

There is another side to this story, however.

Based on the numbers presented by the article, the online banks captured just 9% of the industry’s total deposit growth from 2008 to 2011. Meanwhile the top 5 banks (JPMC, C, BofA, WF, USBank) captured 40% of the deposit growth (my estimate is based on adding Wachovia into the WF numbers, and Wamu into the JPMC total).

While AB points out that the online banks’ growth rate is four times greater than the industry pace, it fails to mention that the top 5 banks’ deposit growth ($, not %) is four times greater than the online banks’ increase. In addition, as the online banks’ share of the total market grew from 2.3% to 3.3%, the top 5 banks’ share remained constant at 41%.

What it means: 1) Despite the “safety scare” of 2008-2009, and the “move your money” and other negative sentiment toward large banks in 2011, the top 5 banks are weathering the industry’s storm, at least from a deposits perspective; and 2) The online banks’ gains would appear to come at the expense of credit unions and community banks.

Oh, and the other thing it means is that, if you’re going to quantipulate, remember that there’s probably another side to the story. 

If you work for one of a handful of large banks, you probably won’t like what you see, and will probably stop reading half way through. If you work for a credit union, then enjoy this cup of kool-aid.

I’m not disparaging the study with that last statement. The study is well executed, the sample size is more than adequate. But as with much of the market research in financial services — and I am as guilty of this as anybody — data about credit unions is reported at the overall level, which obscures the differences in individual institutions.

Instead, I’m taking a playful swipe at the credit union folks who will see that credit unions are rated highest in every category tracked except for one, and pat themselves on the back, as they do every time a survey comes out that shows that they’re superior to the big banks.

There are, however, two things credit union people should take away from the survey results:

1. There is some halo effect going on here. I’m not surprised in the least to see higher satisfaction and higher advocacy (“Doing What is in Your Best Interest”) scores for credit unions. But significantly higher scores for “reps offer higher quality advice”, “reps have the expertise to handle your financial needs”, and “satisfaction with Internet banking”? OK, maybe I can give in a little on the first two of those criteria, but there are a lot of credit unions out there whose public Web sites are atrocities and whose authenticated site design and functionality is serious lacking. I suspect that many respondents are just giving their credit union a high score across the board regardless of their actual experience, as well as the opposite for some of the large banks.

2. Mobile banking scores. In the scheme of things, credit unions’ scores on mobile banking are hardly a cause for concern — 68% of respondents are satisfied, 12% dissatisfied. But in comparison to the scores on the criteria — where the percentage dissatisfied average between 2% and 3%, and the percentage are often in the mid- to high-80s — mobile banking might be a cause for concern.

Is mobile banking credit unions’ Achilles heel?

I’m coming to the conclusion that channels are segmentation tools. Sure, Seniors may use the Internet, but they still rely on branches — and the branch is probably the most influential channel impacting their satisfaction. Boomers are big users of the call center (as well as the Internet), and Gen Xers are big users of their banks’ and CUs’ web sites.

Gen Yers? Well, the mobile channel is becoming — if it isn’t already — their primary access channel. As (pretty much) every credit union in the US goes about trying to lower the average age of their member base by attracting Gen Yers, the mobile channel will likely be — if it isn’t already — the competitive battleground and point of differentiation. 

The challenge for credit unions is to look beyond mobile banking. Looking up account balances, transferring money between accounts, an even getting alerts are basic features. Every institution will have those capabilities before too long. 

What credit unions should be exploring and experimenting with are what I like to call “purely mobile” apps — capabilities like location awareness, augmented reality, and mobile payments that are available only through the mobile channel.

Public villains come and go. You don’t see too many articles about BP anymore. With time, banks won’t be the whipping boys they are today. 

Developing innovative mobile capabilities may very well be one way in which they get back into their customers’ — and the public’s — good graces. Not to mention a way for start-ups like Movenbank and Simple, or even firms like Google and Facebook , to offer banking-like products that compete with established banks and credit unions. 

—————

I hope the mobile banking scores in the Prime Performance study raise some discussions in credit unionland. In the meantime, congrats to CUs for kicking bank butt on the Prime Performance satisfaction survey.

JAN 10 UPDATE: Well, at least I now know that CUs aren’t ignoring the mobile opportunity. Check out this article titled Credit Unions Gear Up for Mobile Banking Explosion on the Credit Unions Online site. 

1. It’s taken me 30 years to become a….senior analyst? That’s it? That’s all I’ve done? Other analyst firms have “senior” analysts who aren’t even 30 years old, let alone have been working for 30 years.
2. Management fads come and go. At their peak, true believers think it’s the fad to end all fads. But they end. Every management fad has a half-life. And the half-life of most management fads is about three years, maybe four.

The first observation reflects an issue I should take up with my shrink. (Or my dope dealer, cuz’ he helps take care of a LOT of issues).

The second observation I’m going to deal with here.

Over the past ~30 years, I’ve seen five management fads:

1. Client/server. The advent of PCs in the early to mid 80s led to the client/server fad (a term that Forrester claims to have coined) that proclaimed that PCs were taking over the world, and would lead to the decentralization and democratization of businesses everywhere.

2. Reengineering. The reengineering boom came in the early 90s as firms woke up to the realization that the business functions they were organized in performed business processes that cut across those functions. By redesigning those processes — reengineering them, that is — they would achieve step function improvements in efficiency and effectiveness that would drive profitability to astronomical levels.

3. Knowledge management. The late 90s brought on the knowledge management craze as companies became concerned that their “organizational knowledge” was walking out the door each night at 5pm each night, and could get hit by a truck walking across the street. It was the only period in the history of mankind where companies cared whether employees lived or died.

4. Digital business. The early part of this century brought with it the rise of the digital business as everything companies did would be done over the Internet alleviating the need for physical presence like stores, bank branches, etc.

Which brings us to the fifth, and current management fad of my long, not-so-illustrious career:

5. Social media.

The most annoying thing about each of the fads that have proceeded the current one is that, for some inexplicable reason, business people can’t seem to do anything that isn’t related to the current fad.

Case in point: Weather.com

There’s simply no reason why Weather.com needs this feature. It’s not even really being “social” — the page simply picks up weather-related tweets from people who are supposedly in my geographic region. I say “supposedly” because one of the tweets listed above talks about the weather in Dubuque. Where the hell is Dubuque? Iowa? I’m in the Boston area, for chrissakes.

From a business perspective, I don’t get this, either. Is Weather.com driving deeper engagement with the site enabling it to sell more advertising space? Seems like a stretch to me.

While the innovation junkies and gurus yell and scream that we need more innovation! to improve the economy and restore profitability to businesses, it’s stuff like the above from Weather.com that companies are coming up with.

———-

The current social media mania fad has produced a behavior commonly found in past fads: The relabeling of existing tools and technologies under the banner of the current fad.

When I started at Forrester Research in 1997, the first report I did was on knowledge management. It was truly a piece of shit report. What I couldn’t fathom, while doing the research for that report, was why every technology project that companies were proposing to do were labeled “knowledge management” projects.

Well, I understand why now. It’s how you get your project funded.

The relabeling of technologies is prevalent today, as well. Take a look at this comment from a Forbes blog (which references an outstanding report from Aite Group that…hey!…that I wrote!):

“Also interestingly, of all of the social media sites followed by Aite Group, only LinkedIn increased its overall use between 2009 and 2011. LinkedIn does not, however, address the client servicing side of the social media question. What about e-mail marketing systems such as Constant Contact? To me, this is one of the easiest and most efficient ways to enter the social media game, and it allows you to not only provide clients with information, but also in a branded way!”

(my emphasis)

Email is a social media tool? I thought social media caused the death of email?

———-

There’s no doubt in my mind that we are smack in the middle — the high point (or low point, depending on your perspective) — of the social media fad. 

If past business history is any guide — that the half-life of a management fad is 3-4 years — then we have another year, or maybe two, of dealing with this hysteria. 

But what worries me is that the past may be not be a good predictor in this case. Here’s why: This is the first management fad that has transcended the business world to the consumer world. 

Consumers, for the most part, were oblivious to the previous management fads. Oh sure, they might have experienced changes in the customer experience resulting from initiatives spawned by the fad, but they weren’t really conscious of the management fad itself.

Not so this time around. 

Consumers and businesses are partners in driving this new fad. 

This fad could go on for 10 years. 

I hope my shrink and dope dealer are ready to help me through it.

Writing on the topic of social business, one guru recently wrote:

Companies of all sizes will need to transform their business and existing infrastructure, and reverse engineer the impact of business objectives and metrics. Businesses will have to embrace all of the disruptive elements, such as mobile and social technology, in a new, cohesive organization that is focused outward and inward.

My take: What a load of nonsense. Reverse engineer the impact of business and metrics? What the hell does that mean?

Writing about big data, the same guru said:

Companies will need to centralize BI to feed every aspect of the business – marketing, product, innovation and customer service. Only then will BI help companies transform themselves into true social businesses.

My take: Demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the dynamics of organizational structure. Centralizing BI to feed “every” aspect of the business is a prescription for failure as very few — if any — organizations have the resources to do this, let alone the ability to prioritize the competing demands of those functions. Nothing will stifle the innovative use of analytics and data like centralizing BI.

For my money, Esteban Kolsky said it best:

Big Data is nothing new. We have had tons of data to manage for very long times. If you really think it through, the problem is not Big Data. The greater challenge to organizations is not how to manage Big Data, rather how to separate data from noise and just handle data and discard noise. You don’t need a new analytics strategy, you need a new filtering strategy.

Despite  all the predictions and advice around social business and big data, there are two areas that get short shrift in the press and blogosphere. While there are certainly other imperatives for marketers in 2012, these two are getting overlooked:

1. Customer Advocacy. No, no, no, no. I do NOT mean “having your customers advocate on your behalf.” I mean “being perceived as doing what’s right for your customers and not just your own bottom line.”

For years, I’ve been fighting a losing battle to have marketers view customer advocacy my way. It started with research I did in 2004 where I found that bank (and credit union) customers who rated their FI highly as doing what’s right for their customers and not just their own bottom line were more loyal to their FI, more likely to recommend their FI, and more likely to grow their relationship with their FI than other customers. Customer advocacy isn’t some airy-fairy concept. It’s comprised of:

• Simplicity. Firms that simplify their customers’ lives — as opposed to making things more complicated than they need to be — are viewed as customer advocates.
• Benevolence. Firms that are seen as always on their customers’ side for problems and concerns and that are willing and able to assist customers get high marks for benevolence.
• Trust. Doing what’s right, even if not regulated; Always honoring promises; and Going out of the way to protect customers’ privacy.
• Transparency. Transparent firms show fair rate and performance comparisons and make their rates and fees crystal clear.

When I first started talking about this in 2004, many banks dismissed the idea. And why not? They were making money hand over fist, why should they care. But in 2012, the situation is very different. Banks are struggling to grow. There’s something else that’s different today: Popular sentiment.

Have you listened to an Obama speech lately? Every other word out of this mouth is “fair” — calls for more “fairness” in just about everything. Why does he do this? No, not because he cares about fairness, but because he knows that it resonates.

Most of us have grown up hearing “life’s not fair.” Maybe. But we will live in a point of time where people are saying: “It doesn’t have to be that way.”

Companies that are viewed as Customer Advocates are viewed as being “fair.” And this is critical, because firms that aren’t viewed as advocates, or as “fair” can’t get away with raising prices or levying fees.

Reading the popular press, you would think that credit unions didn’t charge any fees for anything. That’s not true, of course. But because credit unions are seen — on the whole — as customer (member) advocates, they’re not vilified like the banks (particularly the large ones) who don’t enjoy those perceptions on the part of their customers.

There are a number of things that bank marketers can do to improve their customer advocacy scores in 2012. Going into those details is outside the scope of this post, though.

2. Political Tightroping. Like it or not, this is a very polarized time in our history. Maybe not more so in the past, but it sure seems like it to me. Unfortunately for marketers, they can’t afford to be on the “wrong” side of the fence.

When Donald Trump was in the news for considering a presidency run, firms that advertised on his show were badmouthed and boycotted. More recently, there was an attempt (that was met with at least some success) to get GoDaddy customers to leave the firm because of their support for the proposed SOPA regulations.

Marketers have to be extremely careful in 2012 who their firm supports in political races and which proposed policies and regulations they support or oppose.

This notion of “tightroping” goes beyond politics. Marketers need to re-evaluate who they use as spokespeople, in order to avoid embarrassing situations like having idiots like Alec Baldwin bite the hands that feed them.

——-

Social business is just another in a long line of aspirational ideas (re-engineered business, knowledge-based business, digital business). Big Data, as Esteban Kolsky says, is nothing new, and isn’t the problem.

Marketers would be better served to focus on customer advocacy and political tightroping in 2012.

With one working day left in the year, Verizon Wireless announced that it would impose a $2 “convenience” fee on customers who make a one-time payment using a debit or credit card, online or by telephone. The company claimed that the fee was:

“… designed to address costs incurred by us for only those customers who choose to make single bill payments.”

Given the events of 2011, it’s hardly surprising that consumer advocate groups and the press jumped all over this, creating a ton of bad press for Verizon Wireless. The company’s attempt to justify the fee because of “costs incurred” is indefensible.  

The bad PR could have been avoided had Verizon Wireless been a graduate of the Snarketing School of Public Relations.

If Verizon Wireless were a certified snarketer, its press release would have looked like the following:

Verizon Wireless Announces A $2 "One-Percenter" Fee

Starting January 15, 2012, Verizon will impose a $2 fee on
customers who make one-time payments using credit (and debit)
cards online and over the phone.

An analysis of customer records indicates that customers who
use their credit card to make one-time payments are predominantly
wealthy millionaires working in the financial services industry. 
For the vast majority of Verizon Wireless customers who pay their
bills by check, cash, online through their bank site or through
recurring payments on the Verizon Wireless web site, no additional
fee will be charged.

PR problem solved. 

Ironically, I’m only half joking. In a 2008 Aite Group report that I wrote, I found that:

“Consumers that earn more than US$100k are more than twice as likely as those who earn less than US$50k to pay monthly bills with a debit or credit card.”

Not-so-ironically, however, is that the purpose of the report was to demonstrate to marketers (specifically those who bill customers monthly or frequently) that card-based payers were an attractive segment of customers because of their demographics and attitudes (e.g., they’re more likely than other customers to want to receive marketing communications from the firms they do business with). 

Of course, there’s no better way to shoot yourself in the foot than to impose a fee on the customers who may be your best customers.