Tuesday, 28 May 2013

Greedy and Disloyal Too


I refer to my previous Blog Nov 12 2012 Sloppy and Greedy Too, discussing the behaviour of the banks. While specific personal experience cannot be an objective driver of general observation a recent personal experience left me believing that in spite of the CEO of Barclays Bank, Antony Jenkins, declaring that there needs to be a radical culture change in their Bank my view is that across the industry these leopards will never change their spots, even at gunpoint. In spite of the amount of media and government investigation into their behaviour towards their customers they continue with the same dangerous mix of arrogance and complacency that could forebode another international financial drama.

So what is it that has triggered my response? I am normally loath to name names in my blogs as, in my view, the general point at issue should be enough to shine a light into the gloomy corners of service failure or point the spot light clearly on the kind of performance that delights the mere mortals that provide the revenue to our suppliers. In this case my disappointment overcomes such reluctance. The Bank in question is SG Hambros a subsidiary or similar of Societe Generale. A bank with whom I have had an account for well over 30 years.  I have remained an undemanding customer throughout that period. I retained a relatively substantial deposit balance with them for many years even when their interest rates were below market levels. When, due to the financial crisis in which it appears SG had a fairly well reported on stage role in the disaster, they stopped paying any interest on deposits and I was thereby forced by dint of common sense and impending poverty to place funds elsewhere, but I did not abandon them, conforming to their minimum account requirements of the time and continuing to make regular deposits with them.

When I telephoned them about a completely unrelated topic I was told I was to receive a letter from them telling me they no longer wanted my business and unless I deposited £250,000 (a quarter of a million!) pounds with them in the next two months my account of 30 years plus would be closed and my loyalty to them so repaid. On the telephone I pointed out that, apart from the fact that not many people have the odd £250k lying about, their bank’s lack of a competitive standing in the deposit account market made their policy disappointing. At this I was told that they, should I place the sum they required with them, would be happy to invest my £250,000 on a six month basis at 0.6%!! A mildly intelligent Orangutan could do better on the banana futures market and even the UK Post Office can show that a clean pair of heels by some margin to that proposition.

After 10 days the letter had not arrived. I rang them to be told it would go out soon(they were currently very busy with courses and visits to London) and then I would have 30 days to close the account. I pointed out that the arrangements I had to make with others also required 30 days. I was told that as the impending closure had been mentioned to me over the telephone they assumed I could go ahead. I pointed out that after thirty years a letter was the very least courtesy I would expect. They would try to email the letter to me within the next week!! I also discovered my account was now moved to the “ Privelege” team. What this clearly means is that I should be grateful for the privilege of being allowed to bank with them.

When the letter did arrive by email it was a delight to enjoy their skilled word craft and the caring way in which the news was communicated to me. I quote “ I wish to advise you that, following a strategic review, we will be closing the above account”
No apologies, thanks for your custom, compensation, help in re-arranging things ideas clearly not on their radar.
So what is the message here? To me primarily, that to people like SG Hambros, customer loyalty is an alien concept, secondly they clearly demonstrate that that the disruption and inconvenience their policy causes to their customers is a matter of supreme irrelevance to them and thirdly, in spite of the fact that their proposition is massively uncompetitive, they believe they are right. 

Sadly it doesn’t astonish me. Bank’s customers for one reason or another do place  a relationship value on those who manage their money, the response of the banks appears to be to conduct themselves in a way that puts that Value At Risk (VAR from another viewpoint).  As a general observation, and with remarkably few exceptions, the banks appear to see the duty of their customers (and governments) is to provide a service environment which meets their needs and not vice versa. In the meantime their leaders sail on unaffected unless deeply unfortunate enough to be forced to resign as a result of getting caught conducting shady or illegal dealings.

In The June 2013 edition of The Marketer (the journal of the Chartered Institute of Marketing) there is an article by Philip Graves on “ Cupboard Love” where he reveals his response to being ”downgraded” by his bank. He finishes by saying “It astonishes me that, 30 years on, some large organisations haven’t learnt how their customers’ brains work. Feel free to recommend and alternative bank in the comments section”. Not an easy thing to do! 

Philip Forrest
 

No comments:

Post a Comment