Live data from Hacker News

A short conversation with a bank

newsletter.danhon.com

291–300 of 316 posts

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I hear this I try a different credit union around me. Sometimes they have arcane rules like "oh you don't actually have dollars in this account. You have 500 shares. At this time you may sell shares back to the credit union at a rate of $1/share". Or recently a credit union in my area emailed me my password after I signed up, and then they kept sending me it in the mail as a reminder that I hadn't activate…

FWIW this is how banks work. You always have shares. Sometimes they just pretend they are dollars. I am not a customer of one, but I assume that using a CU instead of a bank is like using Linux on your desktop instead of Windows.

CU and Bank both have shareholders.

The shareholders of a credit union are by law/definition its customers/depositors.

The shareholders of a bank can be anyone.

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked for a 80+ year old non-profit. Their tech was definitely a shit show before I turned it around. I won't be surprised if it ends up degrades into a shit show again in a decade or so.

Almost immediately after you left, they promptly lost the admin password, Phyllis in accounting said, "why don't we just go back to copy machines and filing cabinets, we know how those work" and they unplugged all your computers.

This may me hyperventilate, because I've been there - except in my case I hadn't left, I'd simply gone on holiday for 2 weeks.

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#293

Disclaimer: I work in a bank and have worked closely with the customer support team. Here's the thing: retail banking margin is actually quite low and customer support is expensive. If you are someone who routinely calls your bank then your long-term value (LTV) is going to take a huge hit, so, of course banks want to keep everything as "low-touch" as possible. A small anecdote: there were plenty of elderly people wh…

> Here's the thing: retail banking margin is actually quite low and customer support is expensive. If you are someone who routinely calls your bank then your long-term value (LTV) is going to take a huge hit, so, of course banks want to keep everything as "low-touch" as possible.

Here’s the thing: this statement un-ironically embodies everything wrong behind the article.

1. “If you” — where you are the provider of capital the bank makes money from, or interest payments the bank makes money from, or fees the bank makes money from, i.e., the source of the bank’s revenue

2. “are someone” — victim blaming

3. “who routinely calls” — aka, who experiences so much friction in trying to accomplish routine banking tasks, they are willing to endure the abuse of the bank’s “customer support”; aka, who is willing to be the canary in the coal mine about abjectly terrible process; aka, the gift of customer feedback with willingness to get to the bottom of the issue, such as, why does this issue exist, and/or, why does this issue cause a call, and what can be done to ensure the next time the customer either (a) doesn’t experience it, or (b) can resolve it themselves in an obvious way less painful than calling in.

3. “then your LTV is going to take a huge hit” — no, your (the customer’s) LTV didn’t change, the bank is unable to service you effectively. Your value for revenue generation is the same. The bank’s inability to service you lowers their RoE, or return on equity.

And …

> thrawaybanksup (18 hrs ago) - Disclaimer: I work in a bank and have worked closely with the customer support team.

4. Not throwaway bank CTO, not disclaiming but disclosing: I spent ~5 yrs as CTO for Americas at the 2nd largest bank in the free world, trying to help it grasp what I’m sharing here. Worked closely with not just the customer support team, but all teams. From what I observed, I’d suggest your post exemplifies almost the entire banking industry’s fundamental misunderstanding of how to enable customer success in ways that drive bank success.

So here’s the actual thing:

In general, “support” is called for in the face of in-ability, and it’s the bank that is failing to provide that ability, even in the case of a senior checking their balance.

(ASIDE: You say “works closely with” the support team. Could be you’re with tech, could be product, could be a number of groups — regardless, the framing is that of customer service as cost center. So this post is addressing the customer service team or role. Moving on…)

Reframe everything you wrote imagining, for a moment, that customer success was a legitimate goal, and you may be able to hear how tone deaf support-as-cost-center is:

5. “Customer support is embarrassingly outsourceable” — Rephrase as “customer success is embarrassingly outsourceable” … Suddenly that doesn’t sound right, does it?

That sounds like someone somewhere isn’t doing a job.

For instance, since winning product management involves customer journey, customer experience, and reducing friction, why is “customer support” considered a cost center ripe for cost avoidance, and not signal priority one for product development?

L1, L2, L3, L4 — no product team in there anywhere, as if the errors are a technology team issue rather than a product usability fail!

Ouch.

Banking is still run by a vast “frozen middle” of management whose jobs depend on a flat refusal to accept any of the above.

In the rare example such as the bank called “Simple” which initially got it better, the few who figured that out will get gobbled up by a bigger bank that doesn’t get it seeking growth or returns or technology, folded into the larger bank’s operations, thereby destroying the difference never recognized — actually rejected — by a majority of the acquirer’s middle or even senior management team.

Sorry, @thrawaybanksup, you cannot outsource customer success. It’s a way of thinking, not middle or back office, or operations, or support. The bank in the customer’s experience, in the customer’s head, is the reality. It’s the bank that succeeds or fails.

Fight to elevate the support team’s role to help “solve the problem at the left”, a tight feedback loop prioritizing work where the product decisions are made, so terrible customer experience doesn’t get shoveled out back to bury a disempowered call agent, it lands on those responsible for the experience.

Help “Management” grasp the surprisingly effective concept that “support” redefined as “success” both improves margins and reduces support expense when driving simplifying the experience.

2. (again) “If you are someone who routinely calls your bank…” — No. Just no. Instead: If you are a bank which gets routinely called!

This is all on the bank.

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#294
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now it makes sense. Can you enlighten me? Why don’t they include that in the email receipt?

To prevent Google from tracking purchases. Google scans all email that passes through its servers and parses out who bought what. If the information isn't in the email, it makes it harder for Google to do this. Presumably Amazon wants to keep this information for its own competitive advantage. Further reading: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/17/google-gmail-tracks-purchase... Also, your comments seem to be auto-dead for…

I hope that's not true. People (and bots) should not be reading mails addressed to them. (Analogous to it being illegal to read physical letters addressed to someone else)

Else maybe the EU needs to make some new laws again. :-/

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#295

Banks, of course, can be awful. However, if you can develop an in-person face-to-face rapport with someone at a bank, you'll find that they can bypass, sometimes, much of the infuriating petty bureaucracy. I once had a bank employee print almost a ream of statements on the spot for me. I was almost in tears from the generosity of their time and effort. This was after going to a different branch an being told it would…

> ”print almost a ream of statements on the spot for me. I was almost in tears from the generosity of their time and effort”

Stockholm Syndrome. Tears of gratitude for a bank employee paid for their time and effort bypassing standard procedure says more than the article.

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#296
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To prevent Google from tracking purchases. Google scans all email that passes through its servers and parses out who bought what. If the information isn't in the email, it makes it harder for Google to do this. Presumably Amazon wants to keep this information for its own competitive advantage. Further reading: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/17/google-gmail-tracks-purchase... Also, your comments seem to be auto-dead for…

I hope that's not true. People (and bots) should not be reading mails addressed to them. (Analogous to it being illegal to read physical letters addressed to someone else) Else maybe the EU needs to make some new laws again. :-/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmail#Automated_scanning_of_em...

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Generally, anything not-for-profit and older than 40 years is a technological shit-show. Everything new is the same. Because everything has to be disruptive innovative hockey stick growth bullshit. Here's a screenshot of tha app for a Swedish bank, Klarna: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FHXG5bPX0AIC1oe?format=jpg&name=... . They are a bank. They offer credit cards, and fast online credit payments. And no, "Payments" i…

What the actual fuck. If you ever come to Australia the Commonwealth Bank and Australia Post apps are two examples to restore faith in humanity. They are functional, practical, reasonably intuitive and they keep improving with actual valuable and handy features. Every now and then it still boggles my mind when I use them. Whenever there is a request for reviews I make sure to mention it. I hope the dev team is paid w…

To be fair, the other bank I use, Handelsbanken, is also sane: displays all the info you need, gives you quick access to functionality etc. Not without its issues, but Klarna takes the cake :))

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#298

Banks, of course, can be awful. However, if you can develop an in-person face-to-face rapport with someone at a bank, you'll find that they can bypass, sometimes, much of the infuriating petty bureaucracy. I once had a bank employee print almost a ream of statements on the spot for me. I was almost in tears from the generosity of their time and effort. This was after going to a different branch an being told it would…

> ”print almost a ream of statements on the spot for me. I was almost in tears from the generosity of their time and effort” Stockholm Syndrome. Tears of gratitude for a bank employee paid for their time and effort bypassing standard procedure says more than the article.

...well, relative to the response I got at a different branch, it was an incredible relief to me.

I knew that I needed someone to cut through bullshit red-tape for me. The first branch didn't do it, so I went to another and was lucky enough to find someone who wasn't a rule-following robot.

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another explanation I’m predisposed to, due to personal involvement: I was on the Shop[1] team when it was transitioning from Arrive to Shop, and shifting from a package tracking application to a shopping cart. If you gave the app access to read your emails, we’d scan for tracking #s but also parse through emails from Amazon to pull data about what you ordered straight into the app, so you could track everything from…

German Amazon still lists what was ordered in both order confirmation and shipping notification mails. It also lists the tracking number and the shipping company, even though they link to their own tracking overview... So looks like it is not yet globally at the same low standard, and might also be because of different laws.

Interesting! Yeah, it’s maybe a little bold to claim we’re the cause for Amazon’s change, the timeline just lines up so well. Could be different laws, could also be that Shopify (Shop’s parent company) is still very US-centric and perhaps they didn’t feel as threatened by us or other similar products in Germany as they did in the US. I can’t say anything for sure, but it’s fun to hypothesize!

Re: A short conversation with a bank

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes - that's how I found out. A company that was supposed to delete my data as per the GDPR (or at the very least retain the minimum amount of data required for legal purposes) was sending me all kinds of emails to the "VOID" address, clearly suggesting they just changed it but otherwise left my account intact, most likely because they didn't actually design the system to support being able to delete user accounts.

Please tell me you reported this to an ombudsman

I've given up on reporting many breaches to my country's regulator (the ICO in the UK) because they are completely useless.

First of all, the system operates on a complaint basis - they're not interested in being handed evidence of GDPR breaches, they're only "interested" (in quotes because the entire process feels like they're being forced to do something and do the bare minimum, as opposed to genuinely caring about protecting & defending citizens' privacy) in complaints where you didn't get your way. Imagine if the police wasn't interested in the location of a wanted, violent criminal and turned people away with "come back when you've actually been shot by him".

The complaints process puts the burden of investigating, documenting the breach and verifying further compliance onto you. It is extremely admin-heavy and requires you to first argue with the company and give them 30 days (more in certain specific scenarios) to respond, so a malicious actor can drag out the process for months before you can even proceed with a complaint to the regulator, and once the regulator takes action it is up to you to assess whether they now comply, and if not, go through the whole process again.

Finally, if you've made it through thus far and actually have a valid complaint that doesn't give these lazy idiots a technicality to use as an excuse to close your complaint, it'll rot in a queue for months, and when it actually gets processed and actioned, the only outcomes I've had so far (including for a company clearly acting in bad faith and probably breaking more laws than just the GDPR) is the ICO sending a letter which the company can ignore in total impunity, with the real-world penalty for ignoring it being another letter.

Imposing such a "penalty" obviously requires going through this whole process again so in the real-world very few people will make it this far to begin with, let alone following up on further non-compliance.

I'm also doubtful of their technical proficiency so I'm afraid they can trivially be defeated by the company using some technobabble to justify why they can't delete accounts if there's no expert on hand to debunk the BS excuses.

It is a war of attrition in which the regulator (at least in the UK) is in cahoots with the enemy.

Post reply on HN