Three Common Mistakes Banks Make

Three Common Mistakes Banks Make
In my work as a research analyst, I run into three particularly common mistakes. Banks aren’t the only ones that make these mistakes. I make them too and have to be vigilant to avoid them.
1. Failure to appreciate diversity of needs or preferences
2. Failure to appreciate the shrinking half-life of facts
3. Failure to skate to where the puck is going
Let’s look at each one briefly…

Failure to appreciate diversity of needs or preferences This is utterly common. You see it in headlines all the time. “Millennials this…”, “Small businesses that…”, Community banks are…”. The trap involves extrapolating limited data to an entire population. Two current examples illustrate: The Use of AI in Banking is About to Explode. Apart from confusing AI with predictive analytics (which is more broadly used), the article asserts “explosive” future adoption of AI right around the corner. I’ll just say that this assertion vastly overstates planned adoption of AI among North American banks based on recent Celent research. Bank on Changes. Among other things, this pleasant article states “Smaller community banks like Edison, which emphasize personal service, said they have no plans to scale back drive-through or other services at brick-and-mortar locations.” While referring to a small number of community banks interviewed for the article, it projects those results on the entire community bank population.

So, are community banks planning on maintaining their current brick-and-mortar services in their entirety – despite the growth in mobile banking utilization? Some are and some aren’t. the figure below displays results a very question posed in a December 2016 Celent survey of North American financial institutions. “Compared to your current branch count, how many branches do you expect your institution will operate five years from now?” The report is not yet published. The idea is simple: banks serve diverse markets and make a diversity of decisions as well. The diversity of expected response is glaring in this data! So as not to give away too much of the report’s contents, I refrain from graphing the results of that question by asset tier. Failure to Appreciate the Shrinking Half-Life of Facts Assertions abound about customers, what they do, want and value. Some data points supporting these assertions are dated. This is increasingly dangerous. Samuel Arbesman argues for a shrinking half-life of facts in his book, The Half-Life of Facts. Most substantive change takes a while to accomplish – particularly among large organizations. I think many banks are at risk by assuming the facts as they knew them at the beginning of a protracted initiative will remain after the initiative is finished. When it comes to mobile, for example, six months is a long time and a year is eternity.

Failure to Skate to Where the Puck is Going Even those of us who aren’t hockey fans are familiar with the famed Wayne Gretzky quote about skating to where the puck is going instead of where it has been. I saw this up close and personal as part of a research effort exploring the current and likely evolution of retail delivery channel technology. Omnichannel delivery clearly remains aspirational at most institutions (I’ll defend that assertion thoroughly in the upcoming report). Yet, even as most surveyed institutions concede the importance of omnichannel delivery, the significant majority are not yet meaningfully engaged in bringing it about. How could that be? Many banks – particularly those with below industry average mobile banking customer utilization – aren’t feeling the pain yet. They are skating to where the puck has been. When they do feel the pain, it will likely be the result of much damage already inflicted.

Taking the ‘Madness’ out of Customer Onboarding

Taking the ‘Madness’ out of Customer Onboarding

Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of moderating a panel discussion on the topic of omnichannel customer onboarding sponsored by Kofax. It was a heavyweight panel, including:

  • Jim Marous, Co-Publisher/Author, The Financial Brand
  • JP Nicols, Director, Next Bank
  • Brant Clark, Sr. Director, Mobile Solutions, Kofax, Inc.

March Madness

Kofax is making a recording of this informative panel here.

It’s worth a listen. Why?

Customer acquisition is obviously important because it is a prerequisite to top line sales growth. Offering a low-friction digital capability is increasingly important because customers are becoming increasingly digitally-driven. Omnichannel customer acquisition matters because multiple channels – digital channels in particular – are influencing consumer’s choice of banking relationship. Banks therefore need to close the deal whenever and wherever customers make the decision to onboard. To do otherwise is inconvenient for potentially profitable prospects, and disadvantageous for institutions wanting them as customers.

The problem is, omnichannel customer acquisition remains largely aspirational for most North American financial institutions.

I’m looking forward to sharing two forthcoming research reports devoted to this important topic in the coming weeks.

Cardless ATMs and disappointing mobile wallet adoption

Cardless ATMs and disappointing mobile wallet adoption
While I’m an outspoken advocate of financial services technology, I have been a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to mobile wallets. My skeptical attitude reached an apex when I dropped my smartphone in a glass of merlot several years ago and hasn’t recovered. Had my smartphone been my mobile wallet, embarrassment would have been the least of my problems. Said simply, I just don’t see a compelling use-case for most consumers. Until they arise, I expect industry press to continue to publish stories of lackluster adoption. There have been many. One in particular caught my eye. A recent article in Digital Transactions makes my point in its opening statement, “The introduction of cardless ATMs, which rely on a financial institution’s mobile wallet instead of a debit card to make an ATM withdrawal, could help further the adoption of mobile wallets and mobile payments.” Said another way, if the industry offers consumers enough reasons to configure and use a mobile wallet, adoption may eventually result. This doesn’t sound remotely compelling to me. I can hear the rebuttals now. In defense of Bank of America, BMO Harris, Chase, Peoples Bank and other institutions that have invested in cardless ATM access, physical debit card usage at the ATM could pose an annoyance to mobile wallet adopters, few that they are. With ATM usage roughly twice the customer penetration of mobile banking (below), the last thing banks need is a reason for customers to be dissatisfied with their ATM experience. In my opinion, that’s a more compelling rational for investment than some vein attempt to bolster mobile wallet adoption.

US P12M Channel Usage 2014Source: Consumers and Mobile Financial Services 2015, U.S. Federal Reserve, March 2015

In the article, one banker summed up the challenge associated with mobile cash access this way: “We found the biggest struggle is explaining what it is and the benefit it offers.” If the biggest struggle is communicating a compelling value proposition, then maybe the value proposition isn’t compelling. I don’t think it is – at least not yet. Please don’t misunderstand, I think cardless cash ATM access is a reasonable initiative, but not for the reason stated in the article. I applaud efforts to better integrate retail delivery channels, and ATM cash access is a baby step in that direction. Combine cardless ATM access with other capabilities such as broader P2P payment mechanisms, geo-location and a merchant-funded rewards program, and mobile wallets begin to look compelling. Until then, banks have a bevy of higher priority initiatives to deliver in my opinion. But, even if my bank enabled cardless cash access, I still wouldn’t abandon my physical wallet. In the event of another tragic merlot mishap, traditional ATM cash access might be a real life-saver.

Is your institution leading or lagging?

Is your institution leading or lagging?
This question comes up often. As a research and advisory firm, Celent fields ad-hoc research with regularity. No matter how well thought out our surveys, however, we nearly always wish we could have asked additional questions. This led us to launch two research panels focused on topics representing significant and growing interest among Celent clients. The purpose of the effort is to look deeply into the objectives, priorities, risks, barriers, and likely outcomes of two seminal retail banking topics in North America. Specifically: • Digital Banking • Branch Channel Transformation Both panels consist of bank and credit union leaders with significant interest and involvement in one or both of these topics, willing to invest in bi-monthly surveys and interactive webinars in return for complimentary access to the resulting Celent reports. Many are not Celent clients and would not otherwise have access to the research. Why are they doing this? We asked that question in a recent survey. Virtually all panel members are involved primarily as a benchmark to see how their institution is doing compared to the industry overall. It’s highly useful and timely insight for those involved (see below). Perhaps you’d like to join us. You could have compelling and timely benchmarks for your financial institution. Celent is accepting additional requests for membership in the Branch Transformation and Digital Banking Research Panels and expects to field ongoing research through 2016 at semi-monthly intervals. To request to be on one or both panels, apply Here.  
Why banks and credit unions participate in Celent's research panels

Why banks and credit unions participate in Celent’s research panels

Banks are asking the wrong customer engagement question

Banks are asking the wrong customer engagement question
I have heard banks ask, “How to we use digital channels to bring traffic into the branch?” The rational is straightforward. After years of promoting self-service channels, branch foot traffic is declining – along with the sales opportunities that foot traffic represents. It’s a logical question, but the wrong question. A better question would be, “How do we enable effective customer engagement on their terms regardless of the channels involved? Rather than seeking to influence customer channel preferences, banks should be all about maximizing the effectiveness of each and every engagement opportunity, regardless of channel. They don’t seem to be. One no-brainer example is digital appointment booking – the ability for customers to book an appointment with a banker at a time and place of their convenience – using the bank’s online or mobile platform. Doing so represents convenience for the customer, a logical indicated action as part of online product research and an opportunity to improve branch channel capacity planning (because of the added visibility the mechanism provides). But, the most compelling reason to offer digital appointment booking in my opinion is because doing so maximizes the effectiveness of branch engagement. How so? Done well, frontline staff know who is coming and for what purpose. Consequently, they’re better prepared for the conversation. Banks that have implemented digital appointment booking are seeing significant improvements in sales results. Digital appointment booking should be commonplace – but isn’t. In a October 2014 survey of NA financial institutions, just 8% of respondents offered this capability. Most were large banks. OAB adoptionSource: Celent survey of North American financial institutions, October 2014, n=156 Even better would be to extend the appointment booking option to digital channels, as a phone or telepresence conversation. Engagement doesn’t have to be limited to face-to-face interactions – but is, in all but the largest banks. In the same survey referenced earlier, just 20% offered text based chat online, 12% offered click-to-call and 2% offered video chat. Online Channel Engagement CapabilitySource: Celent survey of North American financial institutions, October 2014, n=156 So, while banks offer abundant digital transactional capabilities, engagement remains largely something only offered at the branch. That dog won’t hunt for long!

The quest for Omnichannel continues

The quest for Omnichannel continues
Earlier this month, Celent published a report providing an analysis of an October 2014 survey among North American banks and credit unions. The effort sought to understand the state of retail banking channel systems. It should be no surprise to find that revenue growth broadly remains bank’s #1 strategic priority. Or, that digital banking channel development and omnichannel delivery are statistically tied with customer analytics in being considered the most important technologies in delivering revenue growth. What may come as a surprise is how far most banks have to go in terms of actually delivering what they say is important. Here’s one example; mobile banking. Everyone knows mobile is so hot right now, yet many institutions have difficulty monetizing those investments. That’s because precious few sales are closed in the mobile channel (at present) and institutions struggle with proper attribution when multiple channels are involved. What seems clear is that institutions find several compelling reasons for the mobile channel’s high priority, and cost reduction is the least likely reason. Institutions across the asset tiers have a similar strategic basis for mobile banking. However, valuing mobile for its ability to attract new customers is a sentiment largely held among large banks.
Source: Celent survey of North American financial institutions, October 2014, n=156

Source: Celent survey of North American financial institutions, October 2014, n=156

Customer engagement and upselling customers through the mobile channel? That’s a tall order for most banks when historic mobile channel development investment has been all about migrating “low-value” transactions. Even if consumers would be disposed to enroll in products or services on their device (a reasonably fast growing trend) precious few banks even offer that ability.
Source: Celent survey of North American financial institutions, October 2014, n=156

Source: Celent survey of North American financial institutions, October 2014, n=156

Moreover, simply having the ability means little if the user experience is less than satisfactory. A future Celent report will explore digital account opening experiences among large US banks. The quest for omnichannel continues indeed – and will be continuing for some time.