Bank branch closures
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
As long as customers want and need branches, they should be thereprepared to pay for them.
Banks have no loyalty or notion of service to anyone, except themselves.
Cutomers and staff can go hang.
FTFY.Banks have no loyalty or notion of service to anyone, except themselves.
Cutomers and staff can go hang.
And nope, banking is a largely customer driven business, and a bank who doesn't do what the critical mass of their customers want will go out of business because those customers will go elsewhere. A bank who doesn't cut their costs in line with what other banks are doing will be uncompetitive and not being able to function as a viable business.
When I worked for a bank the conditions of employment and the way we were treated were much better than any other place I'd worked, short of the big IT consulting companies. They are desperate to hang onto decent staff, why would they tell them to go hang?
But this has been done to death on this thread already.
bad company said:
ScotHill said:
The majority of people want cashless transactions - .
Do you have any evidence to back that up?But no, I have no evidence.
Eric Mc said:
Banks are pushing this too as it means they can cut staff and other premises related costs. As long as customers want and need branches, they should be there.
Banks have no loyalty or notion of service to anyone, except themselves.
Cutomers and staff can go hang.
If you ran a business would you keep providing a service at a loss to keep a number of largely unprofitable customers happy or would you look to do what your competitors were doing and provide an alternative profitable services that the majority of customers are happy to use and many are indeed pushing for? If you would keep serving the unprofitable customers where would you draw the line, when it was 70% happy with or accepting the alternative services, 80%, 90%, the very last customer using a branch etc. etc. There are always going to be some people unhappy with the changes but banks are commercial shareholder owned organisations. If there was a profitable market for one to keep branches open one would be doing so. The Williams & Glyn proposed spin-off from RBS did have a branch based business model, that had many issues one of these was that the branch cost base could not be made to work with the revenue that was anticipated. Basically, the business model didn't work. The mutuals that some are saying are sticking with the branch model will ultimately find the same issue, maybe not in the short term but certainly in the next 3-5 years.Banks have no loyalty or notion of service to anyone, except themselves.
Cutomers and staff can go hang.
As I explain above, customers are not voting with their feet as branches close. It reminds me of the 80s when people were complaining about the supermarkets opening up and killing the small independent shops, it was not the supermarkets killing the shops it was the customers, often including those who complained, choosing to shop in the supermarkets ahead of the independents. The market is simply reacting to a change in consumer behaviour. In the supermarket example there were customers who stayed loyal to the independents, but not enough to keep these viable. It is exactly the same with bank branches (and ATMs). As more people choose to use the alternatives e.g. mobile apps and card payments, the cost of providing the original service to a declining number of customers becomes prohibitive.
HappySilver said:
If you ran a business would you keep providing a service at a loss to keep a number of largely unprofitable customers happy or would you look to do what your competitors were doing and provide an alternative profitable services that the majority of customers are happy to use and many are indeed pushing for? If you would keep serving the unprofitable customers where would you draw the line, when it was 70% happy with or accepting the alternative services, 80%, 90%, the very last customer using a branch etc. etc. There are always going to be some people unhappy with the changes but banks are commercial shareholder owned organisations. If there was a profitable market for one to keep branches open one would be doing so. The Williams & Glyn proposed spin-off from RBS did have a branch based business model, that had many issues one of these was that the branch cost base could not be made to work with the revenue that was anticipated. Basically, the business model didn't work. The mutuals that some are saying are sticking with the branch model will ultimately find the same issue, maybe not in the short term but certainly in the next 3-5 years.
As I explain above, customers are not voting with their feet as branches close. It reminds me of the 80s when people were complaining about the supermarkets opening up and killing the small independent shops, it was not the supermarkets killing the shops it was the customers, often including those who complained, choosing to shop in the supermarkets ahead of the independents. The market is simply reacting to a change in consumer behaviour. In the supermarket example there were customers who stayed loyal to the independents, but not enough to keep these viable. It is exactly the same with bank branches (and ATMs). As more people choose to use the alternatives e.g. mobile apps and card payments, the cost of providing the original service to a declining number of customers becomes prohibitive.
Banks are not just "a business". They have other responsibilities above and beyond providing for their chief execs and shareholders.They have never run at a loss - except when they have gambled with their investors funds or got involved in areas they shouldn't have.As I explain above, customers are not voting with their feet as branches close. It reminds me of the 80s when people were complaining about the supermarkets opening up and killing the small independent shops, it was not the supermarkets killing the shops it was the customers, often including those who complained, choosing to shop in the supermarkets ahead of the independents. The market is simply reacting to a change in consumer behaviour. In the supermarket example there were customers who stayed loyal to the independents, but not enough to keep these viable. It is exactly the same with bank branches (and ATMs). As more people choose to use the alternatives e.g. mobile apps and card payments, the cost of providing the original service to a declining number of customers becomes prohibitive.
If they stuck to their core service of providing banking facilities to the public, they would be fine.
Unfortunately "fine" is never enough - they must have more, and as a result, they take risks and end up making losses.
Eric Mc said:
Banks are not just "a business". They have other responsibilities above and beyond providing for their chief execs and shareholders.They have never run at a loss - except when they have gambled with their investors funds or got involved in areas they shouldn't have.
If they stuck to their core service of providing banking facilities to the public, they would be fine.
Unfortunately "fine" is never enough - they must have more, and as a result, they take risks and end up making losses.
I see where you're coming from, but even with core retail banking the banks will take a risk every time they lend money... If they're not terribly good at assessing who to lend it to, they can make a loss while not doing anything particularly clever.If they stuck to their core service of providing banking facilities to the public, they would be fine.
Unfortunately "fine" is never enough - they must have more, and as a result, they take risks and end up making losses.
Logic is for machines.
It's time we remembered that we are dealing with people and their needs - not cold, hard calculating automatons.
I'm not saying banks shouldn't take risks. It's part of what they do. What they should not do is take excessive risk in the pursuit of greater and greater profits. Look what happened when they did. In fact, they were behaving in a far from logical manner.
So, as I said, they need to calm down and remember what they are for - and it's not just the pursuit of profits to the exclusion of everything else.
It's time we remembered that we are dealing with people and their needs - not cold, hard calculating automatons.
I'm not saying banks shouldn't take risks. It's part of what they do. What they should not do is take excessive risk in the pursuit of greater and greater profits. Look what happened when they did. In fact, they were behaving in a far from logical manner.
So, as I said, they need to calm down and remember what they are for - and it's not just the pursuit of profits to the exclusion of everything else.
Yep, it is about doing what the customer wants, the vast majority to choose to bank on-line, pay with cards over cash and retain free banking. You are clearly not part of that majority. You cannot judge the behaviour of an entire industry just because you and a minority number of customers do not want/like it.
HappySilver said:
Yep, it is about doing what the customer wants, the vast majority to choose to bank on-line, pay with cards over cash and retain free banking. You are clearly not part of that majority. You cannot judge the behaviour of an entire industry just because you and a minority number of customers do not want/like it.
Yes, its catering for ALL their customers. It's not a referendum or an election.Eric Mc said:
Are you saying banks have always behaved the same?
That they NEVER applied other criteria to their actions beyond pursuit of profit at any cost?
We're saying that you have a very skewed idea of what banks do, based presumably on your personal experiences and apparent bias. Certainly in my professional dealings with the back-office operations of high street banks, which are considerable, the 'pursuit of profit at any cost' is very far from apparent. Conversely, allowing customers to deal with the bank in the manner and at the time of their choosing is very, very high on their list of priorities. And actually going into a branch is, from a satisfaction point of view, pretty much the last thing that any customer wants to do.That they NEVER applied other criteria to their actions beyond pursuit of profit at any cost?
The ethos of banks has changed considerably over the decades. The standard of training of staff and the expectation of the application of professional standards to what they did and how they did has also changed massively. Of course they weren't some sort of "saintly organisation" in days gone by - but there was an aspect of ethics to what they did. That was lost sometime in the 80s as banks diversified into areas they traditionally had not been involved in - and they encouraged their staff to promote activities that were not previously part of normal banking.
The changes happened over a long time, so if you are under a certain age, you may not realise how things had changed. Maybe your experience of banking is only in the more aggressive era.
Worth listening to, I would suggest -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b8b7rx#play
The changes happened over a long time, so if you are under a certain age, you may not realise how things had changed. Maybe your experience of banking is only in the more aggressive era.
Worth listening to, I would suggest -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b8b7rx#play
Eric Mc said:
The ethos of banks has changed considerably over the decades. The standard of training of staff and the expectation of the application of professional standards to what they did and how they did has also changed massively. Of course they weren't some sort of "saintly organisation" in days gone by - but there was an aspect of ethics to what they did. That was lost sometime in the 80s as banks diversified into areas they traditionally had not been involved in - and they encouraged their staff to promote activities that were not previously part of normal banking.
The changes happened over a long time, so if you are under a certain age, you may not realise how things had changed. Maybe your experience of banking is only in the more aggressive era.
Absolutely this. My dad worked for one of the big high street banks, joined at the age of 18 but by the end couldn't wait to get out (took VR at 60). When he first started the customer's needs were at the forefront, but by the time he left they were viewed purely as a way of generating money in whatever way possible. He wasn't at all surprised by the PPI scandal and has very little sympathy for the banks, having seen first hand the sales tactics used.The changes happened over a long time, so if you are under a certain age, you may not realise how things had changed. Maybe your experience of banking is only in the more aggressive era.
Eric Mc said:
The ethos of banks has changed considerably over the decades. The standard of training of staff and the expectation of the application of professional standards to what they did and how they did has also changed massively. Of course they weren't some sort of "saintly organisation" in days gone by - but there was an aspect of ethics to what they did. That was lost sometime in the 80s as banks diversified into areas they traditionally had not been involved in - and they encouraged their staff to promote activities that were not previously part of normal banking.
The changes happened over a long time, so if you are under a certain age, you may not realise how things had changed. Maybe your experience of banking is only in the more aggressive era.
Worth listening to, I would suggest -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b8b7rx#play
Eric,The changes happened over a long time, so if you are under a certain age, you may not realise how things had changed. Maybe your experience of banking is only in the more aggressive era.
Worth listening to, I would suggest -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b8b7rx#play
I don't disagree that banks have changed, significantly - but then they needed to. In fact, it's quite likely that they left some changes a bit too late. I'm sure if I go back through this thread I'll find references to banks making their money from things like loans, mortgages, insurance etc. They certainly aren't going to make any money for their shareholders from routine cash handling for retail customers - these transactions can be easily automated (ATMs), so as to leave staff free to deal with the mortgages etc. If banks are expected to still maintain bank counter facilities for routine in/out transactions then it's only logical that the 'free banking' that the UK has always experienced will need to change.
HappySilver said:
Can you show me an industry that hasn't changed likewise in the last few decades?
Of course other professions have reduced their standards over the years. But the excuse "they're all at it" is the excuse of a scoundrel.I hope to God that that doctors and surgeons don't consistently put profit before professionalism.
Robertj21a said:
Eric,
I don't disagree that banks have changed, significantly - but then they needed to. In fact, it's quite likely that they left some changes a bit too late. I'm sure if I go back through this thread I'll find references to banks making their money from things like loans, mortgages, insurance etc. They certainly aren't going to make any money for their shareholders from routine cash handling for retail customers - these transactions can be easily automated (ATMs), so as to leave staff free to deal with the mortgages etc. If banks are expected to still maintain bank counter facilities for routine in/out transactions then it's only logical that the 'free banking' that the UK has always experienced will need to change.
Nothing wrong with change. It's the nature of the change that was the problem.I don't disagree that banks have changed, significantly - but then they needed to. In fact, it's quite likely that they left some changes a bit too late. I'm sure if I go back through this thread I'll find references to banks making their money from things like loans, mortgages, insurance etc. They certainly aren't going to make any money for their shareholders from routine cash handling for retail customers - these transactions can be easily automated (ATMs), so as to leave staff free to deal with the mortgages etc. If banks are expected to still maintain bank counter facilities for routine in/out transactions then it's only logical that the 'free banking' that the UK has always experienced will need to change.
To some extent Eric, you and others are wasting our collective breath.
Agreed there is nothing wrong with change, in fact it is to be encouraged generally. The big issue is when that change results in something which proves to be somewhat fragile generally or not suitable for a subset of customers due to various reasons.
Then dial in an unhealthy measure of the usual PH mode of "well this solution works perfectly for my circumstances, therefore that is the only solution for everyone across the whole community." Not explicitly stated but strongly implied, also sometimes though perhaps not on this thread that anyone who doesn't get with the programme is a bit backward / luddite / simple / wanting to go back to the 40s / insert any other personal comment as appropriate.
Slightly amusing anecdote, in the fish and chip shop the other week, guy in front of me wanted to pay using his phone app. All went through quickly, except the display on the device was upside down to him, he and counter staff didn't notice that instead of, say, £5.60 it was for £56.00. The palaver they went through to try and correct it, in the end they had to resort to giving him £50.40 out of the till. None of them were old slightly confused pensioners.
Agreed there is nothing wrong with change, in fact it is to be encouraged generally. The big issue is when that change results in something which proves to be somewhat fragile generally or not suitable for a subset of customers due to various reasons.
Then dial in an unhealthy measure of the usual PH mode of "well this solution works perfectly for my circumstances, therefore that is the only solution for everyone across the whole community." Not explicitly stated but strongly implied, also sometimes though perhaps not on this thread that anyone who doesn't get with the programme is a bit backward / luddite / simple / wanting to go back to the 40s / insert any other personal comment as appropriate.
Slightly amusing anecdote, in the fish and chip shop the other week, guy in front of me wanted to pay using his phone app. All went through quickly, except the display on the device was upside down to him, he and counter staff didn't notice that instead of, say, £5.60 it was for £56.00. The palaver they went through to try and correct it, in the end they had to resort to giving him £50.40 out of the till. None of them were old slightly confused pensioners.
FiF said:
To some extent Eric, you and others are wasting our collective breath.
Agreed there is nothing wrong with change, in fact it is to be encouraged generally. The big issue is when that change results in something which proves to be somewhat fragile generally or not suitable for a subset of customers due to various reasons.
Then dial in an unhealthy measure of the usual PH mode of "well this solution works perfectly for my circumstances, therefore that is the only solution for everyone across the whole community." Not explicitly stated but strongly implied, also sometimes though perhaps not on this thread that anyone who doesn't get with the programme is a bit backward / luddite / simple / wanting to go back to the 40s / insert any other personal comment as appropriate.
Slightly amusing anecdote, in the fish and chip shop the other week, guy in front of me wanted to pay using his phone app. All went through quickly, except the display on the device was upside down to him, he and counter staff didn't notice that instead of, say, £5.60 it was for £56.00. The palaver they went through to try and correct it, in the end they had to resort to giving him £50.40 out of the till. None of them were old slightly confused pensioners.
It's not a question of 'wasting our collective breath', it really isn't !Agreed there is nothing wrong with change, in fact it is to be encouraged generally. The big issue is when that change results in something which proves to be somewhat fragile generally or not suitable for a subset of customers due to various reasons.
Then dial in an unhealthy measure of the usual PH mode of "well this solution works perfectly for my circumstances, therefore that is the only solution for everyone across the whole community." Not explicitly stated but strongly implied, also sometimes though perhaps not on this thread that anyone who doesn't get with the programme is a bit backward / luddite / simple / wanting to go back to the 40s / insert any other personal comment as appropriate.
Slightly amusing anecdote, in the fish and chip shop the other week, guy in front of me wanted to pay using his phone app. All went through quickly, except the display on the device was upside down to him, he and counter staff didn't notice that instead of, say, £5.60 it was for £56.00. The palaver they went through to try and correct it, in the end they had to resort to giving him £50.40 out of the till. None of them were old slightly confused pensioners.
It's far more a case of trying to understand what it is that this 'subset of customers' really want. If it's routine cash transactions there's ATMs, if it's loans etc there's bank branch staff. What is that is lacking ?
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff