How Do You Build/Grow A Business…By Growing Loyalty


You’re a community bank and your customers love you, right? So why do bankers worry that customers–and deposits–will flee to high-yield online accounts when rates rise? Or maybe it’s the possibility of disruptive technologies that has so many bankers nervous. In this session from Bank Director’s 2016 Growing the Bank Conference, Joe Bartolotta, executive vice president and director of strategic partnerships at Eastern Bank, headquartered in Boston, explains the activities that undermine customer loyalty and expose banks to startups and other institutions that could threaten their bottom line.

Highlights from this video:

  • The Value of Loyalty
  • Examples of “Banks Behaving Badly”
  • How Banks Create Loyalty

Presentation slides


A Better Way To Sell To Your Customers


Helping consumers meet the milestones in their lives could generate more revenue and loyalty for your institution. Tom White of iQuantifi explains why goal-based selling is a better way to connect your customer to the right product.

  • Why Goal-Based Selling Is an Effective Approach
  • Advantages for the Bank
  • Meeting the Needs of Millennials
  • Partnering With Fintech Firms

What Do Banks Need? More Loyalty


customer-loyalty-6-1-16.pngWhat do some of the great companies that have disrupted entire industries have in common? Think about companies such as Zappos.com, an online shoe retailer that has grown to be one of the world’s largest shoe retailers, now owned by Amazon. How about Uber and Lyft? They’ve crushed the taxi business. How about Apple, with its legions of customers more than happy to pay two or three times what competitors charge for their products? Not only have these companies simplified the buying process, but they have generated something many companies lack: customer loyalty.

As part of his speech last week at Bank Director’s Growing the Bank conference, Joseph Bartolotta, an executive vice president at $9.6 billion asset Eastern Bank in Boston, Massachusetts, talked about these companies and the importance of loyalty. Loyalty will generate increased spending from your customers, make them less sensitive to price and more likely to refer other customers. Loyalty will also lower your costs and reduce customer turnover, he said.

What have companies like Uber and Zappos done to generate loyalty? Zappos has a 365-day return policy and will pay the costs of return shipping. Not only are Uber and Lyft generally cheaper to use than taxis, they have a payments experience that is extremely smooth precisely because there is no payments experience, Bartolotta pointed out. The companies send you a receipt via email after your ride is over, and there is nothing to sign or approve. Apple creates products that are expensive, but their loyal customers swear they are better than anything else.

Banking, with a few exceptions, doesn’t necessarily generate a lot of loyalty. In a Gallup poll in 2015, only 25 percent rated the honesty and ethics of bankers high or very high—behind funeral directors, accountants and journalists. (But don’t despair, bankers rated higher than real estate agents, stockbrokers and members of Congress.)

Bartolotta listed a couple of practices that he thinks have hurt the customer experience in banking. A common industry practice of ordering check and debit transactions from the highest dollar amount to the lowest generated a high level of overdraft fees in the years leading up to the financial crisis, but it led to widespread customer dissatisfaction. Customers revolted and filed class action lawsuits. Another is the practice of a continuous overdraft fee that occurs until the customer comes out of a negative balance.

Bartolotta also tries to steer away from the use of asterisks and fine print in company marketing materials and brochures. Bankers may say, for example, “Yes sir, we disclosed this to you at the time of the account opening. It was in the document you received.” Communication, including in such documents, should be in plain language, avoiding acronyms and industry lingo, such as “RDC” for “remote deposit capture.”

In addition, banks should do everything they can to avoid making customers jump through hoops. If you are contemplating a new product or service, bring a literal chair into the room where the discussion is taking place and label it “customer,” he said. Make sure, in other words, the customer is always a part of the discussions about any products and services you provide.

What banks generate loyalty as described? Columbus, Ohio-based Huntington Bancshares does with its bank’s asterisk-free checking account. The checking account for The Huntington National Bank is free with no minimum balances. Anyone who overdrafts the account gets a notice and a 24-hour grace period to right the error before being charged a fee.

Bartolotta used his own mutual as another example. Eastern Bank had been sending emails to customers who closed accounts asking them why they were leaving. They got back several responses from customers who said, ‘I didn’t close my account. You did.’” It turned out that Eastern Bank, like a lot of banks, was charging a recurring fee on inactive accounts and then closing those accounts when they ran a zero balance. Many customers never opened their account statements and didn’t know what was going on. To change this, Eastern Bank began warning customers when they were about to be charged an inactivity fee, and giving them options to avoid the fee and even close the account, if they chose. The helpfulness was a huge improvement.

There’s room for improvement in the reputation that the banking industry enjoys. A lot of small, community banks already follow these customer-friendly practices. It would helpful if the entire industry did.

Some Banks Offer Digital Appointment Booking, But It’s Rare


mobile-appointment-3-18-16.pngIf a customer wants a haircut, chances are that individual can go online and schedule an appointment at a local salon. But if the same person wanted to schedule online a convenient time to sit down with a banker to discuss a loan, that customer likely can’t do the same. A bank’s website should be a strong prospecting tool for banks, but despite the drive to digital, many banks don’t offer a way to go online to schedule an appointment. Shouldn’t banks offer an easy way to direct the customer from the web to the branch?

Few banks offer digital appointment booking, according to the research firm Celent. According to a Celent survey conducted in October 2014, just 36 percent of North American financial institutions above $50 billion in assets offer online appointment booking to their customers. For institutions below $50 billion, online booking is even rarer, at less than 5 percent.

Bank of America was an early adopter of online appointment booking, starting with its mortgage lenders in 2008. The bank has since expanded to allow customers to book appointments within its mobile app as well, and customers can arrange appointments for a score of products, including checking and savings accounts, credit cards, investments, financial planning, small business banking and various loans. Prospective customers just choose a product area, select an in-person or phone meeting, and type in their zip code to find a nearby branch. From there, the client can select a date and time. “We do 21,000 appointment requests a week now through either smartphone or the website,” Bank of America’s head of digital banking, Michelle Moore, told the Associated Press in February 2016.

Users of digital appointment scheduling in the U.S. include Wells Fargo & Co., Regions Financial Corp. and PNC Financial Services, and small community banks such as Santa Barbara, California-based Montecito Bank & Trust, with in $1.2 billion in assets, and $577 million asset Paducah Bank & Trust Co., based in Paducah, Kentucky.

“You’ve got to figure out how to be smarter in engaging customers, and digital appointment booking is one way to do it,” says Celent Senior Analyst Bob Meara. “Make it easy to click to call, or have an online chat with somebody or to make an appointment in a branch.” Celent reports that Bank of America’s digital appointment features were developed in-house, but vendor solutions are available that can easily tie into a bank’s current infrastructure.

“We’re in this on-demand economy,” says Gary Ambrosino, president and CEO of TimeTrade, based in Tewksbury, Massachusetts. Clients that use TimeTrade’s online appointment scheduling technology include retail banks, healthcare companies, universities and retailers.

Prompting a potential customer to make an appointment online makes that person more likely to follow through with bringing their business to the bank. A customer may be looking for a loan late at night, and want more information. “It makes sense to have a link” for scheduling a time to come in to see a banker, says Meredith Deen, president of Alpharetta, Georgia-based FMSI, a branch performance technology provider serving the banking industry.

Bank marketing teams also gain valuable data—even if that customer skips the appointment. “They just handed you their name, their phone number, [and] their email,” along with information on the products and services that the customer is interested in, says Glenn Shoosmith, CEO of BookingBug, an online booking platform based in London, with offices in the United States. “That’s the marketer’s dream set of information, and you’re getting that for free.”

Scheduling appointments online means that bankers can meet at a time that’s convenient for the customer. By doing so, branches can better schedule their day, reducing traffic at peak times and instead creating a steady flow, so ideally even walk-in customers will have a better experience. Banks can also make better, more profitable use of specialized employees that float between branches, who can now potentially see more customers within a day, says Deen. And bankers can better prepare for their day, by knowing exactly why the customer is coming in, and the product that customer is interested in.

Adoption among Montecito Bank & Trust’s customers has been slow, according to Megan Orloff, director of marketing. However, she expects that to change when the bank improves its website. To ensure the success of such appointment platforms, bank marketing teams could advertise their availability to customers, and ensure that it’s easy to find and use on the bank’s website or app. The financial institutions that offer digital appointment booking now remain in rare company—which means newcomers easily will stand out in a competitive marketplace.

How Many Mobile Wallets Are Too Many?


mobile-wallet-12-22-15.pngFor many years, the mobile wallet landscape was filled with small niche offerings that tested some important ideas, but never really gained much national traction. However, over the past 15 months, four major players have introduced their wallets and the tipping point for widespread mobile wallet adoption appears close. Apple Pay, Android Pay, Samsung Pay and Chase Pay have extended the technology and functionality of those early wallets and have started to close the gap on a wallet that would deliver value to the trifecta of stakeholders: consumers, merchants and the wallet providers.

Should every bank be preparing to support one or more of the existing mobile wallets? CG sees five prerequisites for widespread adoption of mobile wallets.

  1. Better security. Consumers have well documented doubts about the security of mobile payments versus more traditional payment methods. Mobile wallets must implement improved authentication processes (e.g., biometrics, account number tokenization) to allay these fears as the price of admission.
  2. More large-scale mobile wallet providers. The recent addition of providers (including Chase Pay) offers the market a wide range of mobile wallet options and a key move toward critical mass for merchant acceptance.
  3. More smartphones. By 2020, there will be 6.1 billion smartphones in the global market (most with biometric security features). That’s a stark difference from the 2.6 billion smartphones in today’s market—most of which do not have biometric capabilities.
  4. More merchant acceptance of contactless payments. Many of the new terminals that merchants are implementing support both contactless payments and the EMV chip.
  5. A good reason to keep using the mobile wallet. The new wallets either have or are planning to implement rewards programs into their product, which will give consumers a compelling reason to habitually use their mobile wallets.

Each of these prerequisites to mass adoption is trending in the right direction, which means every bank should be working to support one or more of the large mobile wallets as part of their future strategy.

Many banks seem content to support the provisioning of their card accounts into Apple, Android and Samsung. The announcement of Chase Pay at the payments-focused conference Money20/20 in Las Vegas in October sent shock waves through the 10,000 conference participants. If Chase felt it needed its own proprietary wallet, will other large banks follow?

The decision to invest in a proprietary wallet should be based on three key elements in each bank’s strategic direction.

  1. Does the bank have a customer profile that wants a mobile wallet offering and would that group prefer a proprietary wallet over a large national wallet like Apple or Android?
  2. Does the bank have the internal resources or external partnerships required to develop and sustain a wallet in a very dynamic environment? (The wallet of 2020 is likely to be very different from the wallet of 2016).
  3. What are the banks’ competitors inclined to do and how will their actions affect the banks’ customers?

Each bank must consider its own strategic differentiation when determining whether to build or borrow. What distinguishes it in the marketplace and how might that change in the future? What will draw new customers to the bank in the next five or ten years?

One feasible strategy is to let others pave the way in developing new products and then figure out when and how to offer them to your own customers. It’s an approach that can minimize risk without necessarily jeopardizing the reward.

The bottom line is, mobile wallets are coming. (We really mean it this time.) Most banks must allow their card accounts to be provisioned into at least some of them. Some banks (but not most) should offer a proprietary wallet, but only if it fits into their larger strategy. Add the wallet to fit your strategy; don’t change your strategy to fit the wallet. Focus on your strategic differentiator and ensure that most of your future effort and investment are focused on the differentiator and not spread across all the possible initiatives in which you could invest (including wallets).

CFPB Takes Aim at Class Action Waivers in Arbitration


arbitration-11-30-15.pngOn October 7, 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced that it is considering proposing rules that would prohibit companies from including arbitration clauses in contracts with consumers. This would effectively open up the gates to more class action lawsuits in consumer financial products such as credit cards and checking accounts.

In March 2015, the CFPB released its Arbitration Study: Report to Congress 2015, which evaluated the impact of arbitration provisions on consumers. The CFPB conducted the study as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Among other things, the study concluded that:

  • arbitration clauses “restrict consumers’ relief for disputes with financial service providers by allowing companies to block group lawsuits;”
  • most arbitration provisions include a prohibition against consumers bringing class actions;
  • very few consumers individually pursue relief against businesses through arbitration or federal courts; and
  • more than 75 percent of consumers in the credit card market did not know if they had agreed to arbitration in their credit card contracts.

The advantages and disadvantages of pre-dispute arbitration provisions in connection with consumer financial products or services—whether to consumers or to companies—are fiercely contested. Consumer advocates generally see pre-dispute arbitration as unfairly restricting consumer rights and remedies. Industry representatives, by contrast, generally argue that pre-dispute arbitration represents a better, more cost-effective means of resolving disputes that serves consumers well. With limited exceptions, however, this debate has not been informed by empirical analysis. Much of the empirical work on arbitration that has been carried out has not had a consumer financial focus.

As a result of the study, which allegedly contains the first empirical data ever undertaken on the subject of arbitration clauses, the CFPB is currently considering rule proposals that would:

  • ban companies from including arbitration clauses that block class action lawsuits in their consumer contracts, unless and until the class certification is denied by the court or class claims are dismissed by the court;
  • require companies that use arbitration clauses for individual disputes to submit to the CFPB all arbitration claims and awards (which the CFPB may publish on its website for the public to view) so that the CFPB can ensure that the process is fair to consumers and determine whether further restrictions on arbitrations should be undertaken; and
  • apply to nearly all consumer financial products and services that the CFPB regulates, including credit cards, checking and deposit accounts, prepaid cards, money transfer services, certain auto loans, auto title loans, small dollar or payday loans, private student loans, and installment loans.

Critics have found the CFPB’s data and conclusions leave something to be desired. An abstract of a report authored by researchers at the University of Virginia School of Law and Mercatus Center at George Mason University finds that the CFPB report “contains no data on the typical arbitration outcome—a settlement—and it is these arbitral settlements, and not arbitral awards, that should be compared to class action settlements. It does not address the public policy question of whether, by resolving disputes more accurately on the merits, arbitration may prevent class action settlements induced solely by defendants’ incentive to avoid massive discovery costs. It shows that in arbitration, consumers often get settlements or awards, are typically represented by counsel, and achieve good results even when they are unrepresented. In class action settlements, CFPB reports surprisingly high payout rates to class members and low attorneys’ fees relative to total class payout. These aggregated average numbers reflect the results in a very small number of massive class action settlements. Many class action settlements have much lower payout rates and higher attorneys’ fees.”

Needless to say, businesses with arbitration clauses prohibiting class actions wait anxiously for CFPB’s final rules on this subject matter. Is there any doubt what the final rules will contain? We think there will be restrictions on the use of arbitration clauses that prevent consumers from initiating class action lawsuits in contracts for consumer financial products or services.

The Battle Is Back On for Checking Customers


As I was driving to a meeting the other week listening to the radio, I heard back-to-back commercials from two different banks about checking accounts. The first was a super-regional bank promoting that they would pay me $250 to move my checking account to them. The second, one of the mega banks (a top five bank in asset size) promoted a similar message but upped the incentive to $300 to switch.

When I got home later that day, I found a direct mail offer from another mega bank upping the incentive to $500.

CHASE500_card2.jpg

I looked closer at the conditions of these incentives and found a similar nuanced strategic objective. These banks (and a few others I found online making similar offers) are clearly not returning to the days of “open a free account, get a free gift.” They aren’t looking for just consumers willing to switch their account to a free account with no commitment other than the minimum balance to open requirement (usually less than $50).

Rather, they are looking for those willing to switch their relationships that require a certain level of funding and banking activity (direct deposit, mobile banking activation, etc.) to earn part or all of the cash incentive. And these banks aren’t offering a totally free checking account.

Recognizing this as the objective, I perused a major online marketing research company to look for competitive responses from community financial institutions and found hardly any similar monetary offers. Those that were similar were mainly promoted just on their respective websites.

So what do these large banks know about these types of offers that community financial institutions don’t know (or deem important enough) to mount a credible competitive response? Reading and listening to presentations made to stock analysts by big bank management reveal that they know they can simply out market smaller community financial institutions, which don’t have or want to devote the financial resources for incentives at these levels.

They also know these smaller institutions’ customers, namely millennials, have grown disenchanted with inferior mobile banking products, and are looking for superior mobile products that the larger banks typically have. They are capitalizing on a growing attitude taking place in the market regarding consumers who switch accounts — 65 percent of switchers say mobile banking was extremely important or important to their switching decision, according to a survey by Alix Partners.

So by out-marketing and out-innovating retail products, larger banks know the battle is on to attract profitable or quick to be profitable customers, traditional ones right down to millennials who never set foot in a branch, by offering an attractive “earned” incentive to move and providing better mobile products along with a wider variety of other retail products and services.

Now community bankers reading this may be thinking, “That’s not happening at my bank.” Well, you better double-check. Last year, 78 percent of account switchers nationally were picked off by the 10 largest U.S. banks (and 82 percent of younger switchers) at the expense of community banks. Community banks lost 5 percent of switcher market share and credit unions lost 6 percent, according to Alix Partners.

And once these larger banks get these relationships, they aren’t losing them. Take a look at JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chase Bank has driven down its attrition rate from over 14 percent in 2011 to just 9 percent in 2014 (an industry benchmark attrition rate is 18 percent). Also from 2010 to 2014, it has increased its cross-sell ratio by nearly 10 percent and average checking account balances have doubled.

With this kind of financial performance (not only by Chase but nearly all the top 10 largest banks), a negligible competitive marketing response from community institutions and a tentativeness to prioritize enhancing mobile checking related products, their cash offers from $250 to $500 to get consumers to switch accounts is a small price to pay.

Combining this with well-financed and marketing savvy fintech competitors also joining the battle to get customers to switch, the competitive heat will only get hotter as they attack the retail checking market share held by community institutions slow to respond or unwilling to do so.

So community banks and credit unions, what’s your next move?

Where the CFPB’s Faster Payment Vision Falls Short


NACHA-8-24-15.pngOn July 9, 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released its “vision” for faster payment systems, consisting of nine “consumer protection principles.”  The principles build on concerns about payment systems raised by CFPB Director Richard Cordray in a speech last year. These well intentioned principles pose a number of practical problems and ignore the inherent interdependence of consumer and commercial benefits as payment systems evolve.

Background
The CFPB’s nine principles stake out a bold policy stance aimed at ensuring that faster payment systems primarily benefit consumers. The principles are:

  • Consumer control over payments;
  • Data and privacy;
  • Fraud and error resolution protections;
  • Transparency;
  • Cost;
  • Access;
  • Funds availability;
  • Security and payment credential value; and
  • Strong accountability mechanisms that effectively curtail system misuse.

Release of these principles follows initiatives by the Federal Reserve System, The Clearing House, and most recently NACHA, through its same-day ACH rule approved in May, to promote the development of faster payment systems.

Practical Concerns with the CFPB’s Faster Payment Systems Principles
The CFPB’s principles undoubtedly deserve consideration, and few industry participants would disagree with them at a high level. Though reasonable in theory, certain goals articulated by the CFPB may prove impractical, counterproductive, or unduly optimistic in practice. Here are four examples:

Data and Privacy
The CFPB generally wants consumers to be “informed of how their data are being transferred through any new payment system, including what data are being transferred, who has access to them, how that data can be used, and potential risks[,]” and wants systems to “allow consumers to specify what data can be transferred and whether third parties can access that data.”

This amount of disclosure and degree of consumer control is unrealistic for routine payment transactions, unnecessary in light of current and evolving security measures and fraud and error resolution protections, and likely to thwart the goal of faster payment processing.

Transparency and Funds Availability
The CFPB expects faster payments systems to provide “real-time access to information about the status of transactions, including confirmations of payment and receipt of funds” and to give consumers “faster guaranteed access to funds” to decrease the risk of overdrafts and non-sufficient funds (NSF) transactions.

Here and throughout its principles, the CFPB expresses its desire for faster payment systems to benefit consumers immediately. Implicit in this goal is a rejection of staged implementation of consumer protections, as in NACHA’s same-day ACH rule where same-day funds availability for consumers follows same-day settlement of debit and credit transactions. Additionally, real-time access to information about transaction status seems costly and unhelpful until consumers can act upon such information in real time.

Cost
The CFPB envisions affordable payment systems with fees disclosed to allow consumers to compare costs of different payment options.

The CFPB’s vision of comparative cost disclosures across the ecosystem of available payment options is unrealistic given the existence of competing independent payment systems, multiple payment channels and devices, and varying degrees of intermediation. The total cost to consumers of using different payment systems depends upon many unpredictable variables, making comparative cost disclosures little more than rough, imprecise estimates.

Access
The CFPB expects faster payment systems to be “broadly accessible to consumers,” including “through qualified intermediaries and other non-depositories.”

This principle focuses on unbanked and underbanked consumers. Although broad accessibility should be encouraged, it is difficult to imagine a safe and widely accepted payment system evolving in which banks would not be heavily involved in the origination and receipt of transactions. Indeed, payment systems that have evolved independent of banks—such as virtual currencies—pose substantial consumer protection concerns.

Implications of the CFPB’s Principles
CFPB Director Cordray emphasized that “the primary beneficiaries” of faster payment systems should be consumers and the CFPB’s principles reflect this view. Creating faster payment systems is an enormously complicated industry-driven undertaking, the cost of which is borne by industry participants. As such, faster payment systems must offer tangible benefits to industry participants, not just to consumers, if they are to succeed. The CFPB’s principles would be more effective if they expressly recognized the need to balance consumer and commercial benefits.

Further, the CFPB may intend to use its principles as a chokepoint for policing consumer protection features in evolving payment systems. We hope the CFPB’s adherence to these principles does not become rigid and overzealous or threaten to derail useful payment system improvements before they get off the ground.

Creating a Sales Culture in Today’s Banks



Why does your bank need a sales culture? Challenges from other institutions—both traditional banks and nontraditional competitors—are putting a lot of pressure on the bottom line. Banks with a defined plan and direction will stay relevant amid the competition.

In this informative video, Mitchell Orlowsky of Ignite Sales discusses a successful sales culture and how good executive leadership can lead to success by addressing these questions:

  • What is the number one challenge banks have today when it comes to their sales culture?
  • What are the costs if they don’t address these challenges?
  • What are the steps to creating a better sales culture?
  • What results should you expect?

Making Interest Checking More Interesting


Retail-banking-6-26-15.pngFor consumers, having an interest checking account these days is, well, uninteresting.

Financial institutions only pay a few basis points of an interest rate at most, which requires a significant balance to generate meaningful interest income to customers. Even high-yield checking accounts average just 1-2 percent, but with qualifying balances capped around $10,000, customers annually make barely enough to go out for a nice dinner for two.

What can your financial institution do to make interest checking more interesting? In most cases, you can’t afford to pay a lot more interest than you’re paying today. And while you understand that, many customers don’t (just ask them).

So you have to think differently about what a checking account that pays interest delivers to customers. 

The essence of interest checking is that it lets your customers experience “making money on their money.” When this happens, it increases personal net worth. With increased net worth, customers now have more effective purchasing power (in terms of reinvesting and spending capacity).

When you think of interest checking as just “making money,” here’s a typical case of what your customer experiences today: The average balance of an interest checking account from StrategyCorps’ CheckingScore database tracking nearly four million checking accounts is almost $12,546. Earning two basis points of annual interest, the account makes the customer a whopping income of about $2.50. Not a great financial or emotional experience for your customer.

However, when you think of extending the essence of an interest checking account to include providing money-saving benefits, the financial and emotional experience a $12,546  average  balance checking customer has is much more relevant and meaningful.

So what are these money-saving benefits that can be offered in a checking account and how much can they typically save? Our experience in providing in-store local merchant discounts easily generates at least $10 per month for places everyone spends money—the dry cleaners, auto maintenance shops, restaurants and grocery stores. Offer travel-related discounts on hotels, rental cars and theme parks for an annual trip, and at least $100 can be saved. Add discounts for prescriptions and vision care, and saving another $50 is not difficult. And providing in-demand services like cell phone insurance ($120), roadside assistance ($70) and identity theft protection ($120) to replace what nearly one in three consumers already pay directly to companies providing these services, and that’s another $310 in total savings.

Now let’s compare customer experiences. A traditional interest checking account rewards a $12,546 DDA customer $2.50 in interest income. A modernized interest checking rewards the same customer with $2.50 in interest income and $580 in easily realized savings on things that a customer spends his/her hard-earned money on every day, resulting in $582.50 of effective yield or about 4.6 percent instead of .02 percent.

Said another way, to earn $582.50 with a .02 percent interest rate would require an average balance of just over $2.9 million, which isn’t realistic except for very few customers per financial institution. But wouldn’t it be a positive experience if many more of your customers could feel like they were being offered a product that provided the potential reward to be treated like a multi-million dollar relationship customer.

Granted, a customer has to use these benefits to earn the savings yield, but all of these benefits have mass market appeal with spending situations that are frequent and common. They also are delivered via a mobile app or a website, which are the preferred channels that your customers want to bank with you anyway.

If you’re wondering how to improve the user experience of your interest checking customer, pay them as much interest as you can afford so they’re able to make as much money as possible, but also provide the tools to let them save as much money as possible on things they have to buy. Until interest rates recover to levels to generate material amounts of interest income, the money-saving ability of these kinds of benefits will make interest checking more interesting.

Smart, top performing financial institutions are already successfully employing this to retain and grow interest checking customers. If you want to keep your interest checking uninteresting, then keep paying your $12,546 checking balance customer $2.50 in interest.