= Subscriber content; or subscribe now to access all American Banker content.

Why Big Banks’ Slick Strategy Will Be Their Downfall

The speed with which the ten largest U.S. banks are gobbling up retail market space might suggest that smaller institutions are in trouble.  Yet in an ironic twist, big banks may be the ones in greatest danger.

Big banks have largely amassed their commanding market share by giving consumers what they want: the convenience of banking from laptops and mobile phones, backed by a large network of branches and ATMs. In the process, the big banks took the person out of personal banking. They cut costs by replacing face-to-face transactions with digital efficiency, slick software and standardized products.  Huge sign-up bonuses and extensive advertising lured customers in. Younger and tech-savvy account holders shifted to national banks.  But while big banks may have won the battle for customers' bodies, they have lost the war for their minds. 

Forty-three percent of customers at big banks are dissatisfied with their institution, according to the 2014 Consumer Banking Insights Study.  They would prefer to bank with smaller, local institutions, but the pull of convenient technology and the hassle of uncoupling electronic services is too powerful a force to break. 

But just because customers use big banks doesn't mean they're loyal to them.   Seventy-one percent see their banking relationship as transactional rather than relationship-driven, according to the survey.  Fifty-three percent say they see little difference between banks, and are poised to move to any financial provider with better service and lower fees.

As a result, big banks are sitting on a huge base of apathetic, unhappy or trapped customers—an unstable keg of potential dynamite.  Retailers, banks included, create brands to build emotional relationships with clients.  Relationships with an emotional component tend to be enduring and help customers resist the pull of lower prices. But when customers view their banking relationship as purely functional, they have no hesitancy about switching.

Millennials, the 18-to-34-year-olds who lead the digital revolution, are a particular problem for big banks.  Although millennials make up just a quarter of the U.S. population, they account for 43% of all mobile banking and finance users, according to “The Future of Account Opening,” a study conducted by Andera in January 2014. By 2020, they will have more income than Gen Xers and baby boomers combined, according to Javelin Strategy and Research.

Millennials distrust big banks and put the four largest—JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Citigroup—among their least favorite ten brands in the U.S.  Underscoring the problem, a third believe they won't need banks at all in five years.

This poses a big problem for large banks, which stand to lose millennials to competitors.  Online upstarts like Moven, GoBank and Simple have appealed to young people by using  a formula of lower  fees and helpful advisory services.  Spain’s largest bank, BBVA, recognized the threat and launched a counter-offensive by acquiring Simple earlier this year.

That's not the worst of big banks' problems.  Just before BBVA acquired Simple, in fact, the Spanish lender’s chairman and chief executive Francisco González penned a Financial Times op-ed titled, "Banks need to take on Amazon and Google or die.” He was right to worry.  Apple, Amazon, and Google  have the technology, financial expertise and existing customer relationships to steal a huge percentage of big bank clients—especially millennials. 

These digital behemoths already have financial relationships with customers. Apple has credit card or banking information on about 600 million customers, while Amazon has financial and personal  data on more than 240 million customers.   Google recently introduced its own prepaid card, which allows customers to transfer funds between bank accounts and permits 500 million customers to transfer funds via Gmail. 

In addition to the strength of their financial relationships, Apple, Amazon and Google are among the most revered brands in the world.  Consumers trust them and seek out their products. Seventy-three percent of millennials say they’d be more excited about a new financial offer from a tech company than from their bank, according a survey by Scratch, a brand consultancy division of Viacom. Half expect Google, Amazon and Apple to revolutionize banking as they have music, retailing and advertising.

To the big banks' regret, when millennials go looking for a new financial institution, they won’t compare banks. They will be looking for the customer-friendly services and intuitive technology they get from online giants.  And that’s where the national institutions will fall short.

Extensive branch networks and high legacy costs will prevent big banks from cutting fees enough to match the rates offered by online giants. Big banks can’t change their size, corporate structure or ethically-challenged history. And they can’t match the tech giants' innovative technology.  As tech companies make further headway in the financial services industry, big banks will gradually lose market share. There’s little they can do about it.

On the other hand, well-managed, progressive community banks will be in relatively good shape.  Tech-driven customers departed years ago, and older and underbanked customers—those who need a little extra, personalized help—remain.  As community banks and credit unions have always known, personal service and a community focus breeds customer loyalty and ensures longevity.  It's a formula that the big banks gave up on their way to becoming a national presence. 

Kevin B. Tynan is SVP Marketing at Liberty Bank for Savings in Chicago. He can be reached at


(4) Comments



Comments (4)
Whilst there is validity in the surveys and opinion that the big banks have lost the personalisation through introducing tech options for most transactions across multi channels. I think that the big banks only need to apply the methodology of migrating the transaction and not the client through ensuring multiple touch points are applied by having a outbound call program. Not just a lead contact for the sole purpose of a product, but a service based call for the sole purpose of maintaing customer relationships and building customer loyalty. While the behaviours of the clients are telling us that they want the latest technology options and that they are preferring to transact within a self service environment, they still need to have a genuine relationship with their MFI so that when they are seeking financial advice they are not looking elsewhere.
Posted by Holdenfi | Saturday, July 19 2014 at 7:34PM ET
The financial services industry is supported by amazing technology companies. Many of these companies are using incredible new technologies to improve banking. I agree with you that progressive community banks and credit unions thrive in this environment. You referenced one of them in your article, Andera. The research you quoted is based off of survey data and just measures opinion and not actual behavior. If the behavior comes to fruition then all banks and credit unions will potentially be in trouble. That will only happen if Alibaba, Google, Apple or Amazon decide to fully implement competing banking services in the USA. The advantages banks and credit unions have today is how to navigate the regulatory environment that exists. You also said that "And they (big banks) can't match the tech giants' innovative technology." That is just not true. I support this opinion based on the fact that Citi bank created two start-up type financial services types startups (they also disbanded them). One was called MyFi. One of their former executives is now at Moven. Also, many of the nation's biggest banks are actually bank rolling the innovative new banking technology via their Venture Capital divisions. The potential disruption is their for community banks and credit unions to "win" and keep their fair share of profit producing clients. Personal relationships and community focus alone will not be the road map to success.
Posted by dmgerbino | Saturday, July 19 2014 at 1:37PM ET
You may have misinterpreted. My point was that big bank audiences are significantly different from those of community banks. As a result, a threat to a large bank will not necessarily be a threat to a smaller one.
Posted by kevintyn | Thursday, July 17 2014 at 10:01PM ET
With all due respect... huh? Do you think somehow that community banks' customers are NOT going to demand the latest and greatest technology? Do their customers not own iPads or smartphones? They don't use Google or Amazon, or buy Apple products? Are these poor "community bank customers" intimidated by technology that frees up their time and makes life easier?
I would never argue that fostering personal relationships isn't a good thing. And I acknowledge the importance of healthy community banks. But to try to make the case that large banks, with more branches and bankers in their communities, are somehow more endangered than small banks seems nonsensical.
Posted by My 2 Cents | Monday, July 14 2014 at 12:10PM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.