Tag Archives: Mashable

Why Don’t Banks Innovate?

There appears to be no shortage of opinions that banks don’t innovate (see here and here  and here  and…you can find the other 17 million references yourself). 

Rather than arguing whether or not this assertion is true, let’s assume for a moment that it is. The key question, then, is: Why don’t banks innovate (or why haven’t banks innovated)?

Is it because:

a) They’re too stupid to innovate

b) They don’t know how to innovate

c) They’re too risk averse to innovate

d) There’s been no need to innovate

If I were to take a poll, I’d bet that the majority of respondents would answer B, followed by C — even though many of you would like to select A.

I think the answer is D.

—————

When the Innovation Snobs talk about innovation I think what they’re really looking for is large-scale change in the industry. After all, there have been plenty of technology “innovations” in the industry like ATMs, online banking, online bill pay, PFM, mobile banking, remote deposit capture, etc., but none of these “innovations” seem to satisfy those that call for more innovation.

Despite these innovations, the industry has changed little in terms of power structure and business model (as it applies to the retail sector, that is). Even the sadly misguided Mashable article Can the Internet Replace Big Banks? recognizes this. 

So why haven’t we seen large-scale, transformational change — or innovation — in the industry, despite the advent of the Internet, the Web, and more recently, mobile technologies?

Because — until recently — there has been no need for the industry to change.

—————

For large scale change to happen in retail banking, three elements need to be in place: technology change, demographic change, and economic imperative.

There’s no formula, but if one of these elements isn’t sufficiently present, change isn’t going to happen. 

Since the mid-90s, the emergence of Internet technologies has created the technology change required to cause industry innovation or transformation. With the advent of mobile technologies, even more technological change is pushing the industry to change. 

Many Innovation Snobs think that this is sufficient to cause change, but it isn’t. And one reason why the technology change wasn’t enough was because we didn’t have sufficient demographic change. 

Ten, even five, years ago, Boomers and Seniors dominated the generational composition of the US population. While we were willing to try technologies like online banking and bill pay, and even willing to open online savings accounts with a firm like ING Direct, we still did our banking business the old-fashioned way: We opened up checking accounts with the same old providers we did 20 or 30 years ago (although many of them merged along the way, of course).

It’s only been more recently that the demographic shifts required to effect industry change have come about. The emergence of Gen Yers as a significant percentage of the US population is a recent phenomenon. What’s different about this generation (from a financial services perspective) is their willingness (or desire) to find an alternative to checking accounts. When Seniors, Boomers, and even Gen Xers became adults, we automatically opened up a checking account. Not so with Gen Yers.

Without this demographic shift, the simple development of online banking, bill pay, etc. was insufficient to bring about large-scale industry change.

—————

But even the demographic shift by itself isn’t — and hasn’t — been enough. There’s another reason why innovation hasn’t occurred, and I think the Innovation Snobs really miss this point: There has been (until recently) no economic imperative to change. 

Ten years ago I did some consumer research about the drivers of customer loyalty in banking. I went out to my bank clients to tell them the findings, and tell them what they had to do differently to improve customer loyalty. Their response was pretty underwhelming: “Why should we do anything differently when we’re making money hand over fist?”

They had a point. The chart below shows industry ROE from 1998 through 2009. From about 1993 through 2007, industry ROE fluctuated in a narrow band of about 13% to 15%, before falling off the cliff in 2008. 

20130325_ROE

With those kinds of returns, who’s got an incentive to change?

—————

This is why we haven’t seen the innovation that the snobs have called for. The elements of change haven’t sufficiently been in place. 

But with advent of mobile technologies, the shift in demographics, and the economic issues facing the industry, we might actually be on the cusp of some bigger change. 

Despite the rebound in industry profits since the worst of the financial crisis in 2009, ROE has not come back as fast, and is only at about half of the historical levels of 13%-15%. 

McKinsey did an analysis and estimated that industry profits could reach $154 billion by 2015, up 27% from its 2010 level. But for the industry to reach 12% ROE in 2015, profits would have to be roughly twice that amount — about $312 billion. 

How is the industry going to get there? For that, we can turn to another leading consulting firm, BCG. For the industry to reach historical levels of ROE, cost reduction could put 3 to 4 percentage points on the ROE level (that’s not 3%-4% cost reduction, you know). BCG believes another 2 to 4 points could come from pricing and growth.

20130325_BCG

With all the regulatory changes that have occurred in the past few years, I don’t see how price manipulation is going to help. The banks have been limited in their ability to alter interest rates and fees every step of the way. 

The demographic shift may help to fulfill the growth imperative as a new way of Gen Yers need mortgages and car loans. But the shift away from checking accounts (and the inability of banks to generate significant revenue and profits from these accounts) may inhibit the banks’ ability to put that 1 or 2 percentage points onto ROE through growth.

—————

So we may actually see some innovation in the industry over the next few years. It’s not like the banks are too stupid or don’t how to innovate. They haven’t had the economic imperative to innovate. Until now.

Five Not-So-Best Practices For Banks On Facebook

While researching an upcoming Aite Group report on What Bank Marketers Should Do With Twitter, I stumbled across an article on Mashable titled 5 Best Practices for Financial Institutions on Facebook (no link deserved). After stumbling across it, I fell face down in the pile of cow dung that the article is. The article list five best practices for FIs on Facebook:

1) Don’t just talk about banking; 2) Host contests; 3) Offer career advice; 4) Be cool; and 5) Show off your good work.

My take: To call something a “best practice” implies that it produces a positive, desirable business result. If you can’t prove that it does, you need solid reasoning and logic why it should. Unfortunately, the Mushable (intentional slur) article does neither.

—————

Let’s examine these so-called best practices one by one:

1. Why shouldn’t you just talk about banking? People have a million places to go online to interact on the millions of things that occupy their time. Why in the world would they go to a bank or credit union Facebook page to watch a soccer video? It’s not that it’s wrong to talk about things other than banking (which I would broadly define as things related to managing one’s financial life). But with the choices available, FIs need to train customers to expect certain kinds of content on their Facebook page. Random content about non-banking things won’t get people to come back often.

2. Hosting a contest can’t be bad, can it? For most FIs, hosting a contest on Facebook is like promising a friend you’re going to take her to a great party, then driving out to some god-forsaken barren, deserted place, dropping her off and leaving. So you’ve lured your customer to your Facebook with the promise of winning a contest (which, if they had a brain in their head, they would know they wouldn’t win), and then after they get there, you do nothing to keep them there, because the content on your Facebook is just a bunch of irrelevant drivel, rehashed from marketing messages dreamed up by some marketing intern. Nix the contests.

3. Bank of America is where I always turn for career advice. No better place to turn for career advice than to companies going through their own RIFs. If you take career advice from a bank, or ask a bank for career advice, I hope I’m never stuck in YOUR line at the cash registers at Frenchy’s Adult Book Store.

4. Be cool. Dear Mashable: Telling a bank to “be cool” is like telling Joe Biden to “be articulate.” And a bank does not qualify as cool just because it used the word “huzzah” on its Facebook page.

5. Show off your good work. I’m actually inclined to agree with this one. People who interact with their banks on Facebook are highly engaged in their financial lives.  They’re not their to chit chat, watch soccer videos, or talk about whether or not they should quit their jobs. They’re looking for a deeper connection with their chosen FI (I know that’s hard to believe, but they are the minority), and want reinforcement that they’ve made the right decision about who to do business with. So go ahead and toot your horn from time to time.

Quantipulation In Action: Inbound Vs. Outbound Marketing

Mashable (that highly reputable source of marketing theory and research) recently published an article called Inbound Marketing Vs. Outbound Marketing, which claimed:

“Thanks to the Internet, marketing has evolved over the years. Consumers no longer rely on billboards and TV spots — a.k.a. outbound marketing — to learn about new products, because the web has empowered them. It’s given them alternative methods for finding, buying and researching brands and products. The new marketing communication — inbound marketing — has become a two-way dialogue, much of which is facilitated by social media.

Another reason why inbound marketing is winning is because it costs less than traditional marketing. Why try to buy your way in when consumers aren’t even paying attention? Here are some stats from the infographic below.

–44% of direct mail is never opened. 
–84% of 25 to 34 year olds have clicked out of a website because of an “irrelevant or intrusive ad.”
–The cost per lead in outbound marketing is more than for inbound marketing.”

My take: Total garbage. This attempt on the part of people looking to differentiate the “new” marketing from “old” marketing completely misses the boat. 

Let’s look at this point by point:

“Consumers no longer rely on billboards and TV spots — a.k.a. outbound marketing — to learn about new products.” Who said that consumers relied on billboards and TV spots to learn about new products? Marketers relied on billboards and TV spots to make consumers aware of their products, to increase recall of their products, and create positive affinity. As long as people continue to drive along the highway (how’s the commute in your city? Yeah, sucks in mine, too) and watch TV, marketers will find that billboards and TV spots to be at least somewhat effective at those objectives. 

The new marketing communication — inbound marketing — has become a two-way dialogue, much of which is facilitated by social media. Got news for all the inbound marketing alarmists out there: Marketing has always been a two-way dialogue. It just wasn’t as easy to execute as it is today. Marketers have relied on various mechanisms — postcards, focus groups, toll-free phone numbers — to encourage feedback from consumers. Claiming that the “old” marketing was “one-way” is false.

44% of direct mail is never opened. First off, how do they know that? Think about how much direct mail you get. I challenge you to come up with even a reasonably accurate estimate of how much of it you open and how much you throw away before opening. Second, even if this were true, then I’d say: WOW! More than half of direct mail is opened. That’s pretty damn good in this marketing environment!

84% of 25 to 34 year olds have clicked out of a website because of an “irrelevant or intrusive ad.” What the hell is wrong with the other 16%?

The cost per lead in outbound is more than for inbound marketing. Stupidest claim I’ve heard all month. Just because there is no measurable media cost associated with this thing you call “inbound” marketing doesn’t mean there aren’t costs associated with the efforts. Somebody has to create and manage the social media site, right? Or, if the inbound marketing channel is the phone, do the costs of staffing the call center not count as part of inbound marketing efforts? And given the incredibly inexact science of attribution in the marketing world, how does anyone really determine that a generated “inbound’ lead wasn’t influenced by outbound marketing efforts?

———-

The infographic included in the Mashable goes on to claim that in the “old” way of marketing, marketers rarely sought to “entertain or educate.” Seriously? The ad industry has a RICH history of attempts at being funny and entertaining. Print ads have LONG been focused on education. 

The article also tries to differentiate “new” marketing from “old” marketing by claiming that in the new marketing, “customers come to you”, while in the old marketing, marketers sought out customers. 

Customers come to you? Really? And how do they find out about you? Simply by word-of-mouth? Good luck with that. Listen to what Groupon had t say:

“After a two-year holdout, we finally decided to run real television ads. In the past, we’ve depended mostly on word-of-mouth and limited our advertising to online search. This year, we realized that in spite of how much we’d grown, a ton of people still hadn’t heard of Groupon, so we decided to give in to our Napoleon complex and invade the rest of the world with a proper Super Bowl commercial.”

Bottom line: Trying to make inbound marketing sound like something superior and new is total BS. Marketing is a complex process. There are parts of the process that are inherently outbound and parts that are inherently inbound. There are new channels of communication that create new opportunities for both outbound and inbound communication.  Oh, and real marketers don’t take marketing advice from Mashable.