Quantcast
BANKTHINK
Partner Insights

Why Internet and Mobile Banking Can Be Out of Sync

Print
Email
Reprints
Comments (2)
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Google+

In the continuing discussion around mobile banking as a standalone channel, a new dimension has emerged: the platform’s parity with Internet banking.

Mobile banking apps, especially native apps, are evolving at a rate higher than Internet banking. Not surprisingly, cool, new technologies are geared more towards a mobile platform. The creativity in this particular space is, in part, due to the overwhelming demand for the service. Consumers' use of mobile banking rose dramatically in 2011, jumping by 63% to 57 million U.S. adults from 35 million in 2010, according to Javelin Strategy & Research.

The same scenario happened 10 years ago when Internet banking became the leading channel. It pushed the envelope in terms of how we interact with end users while moving ahead of other channels.

During the past six to nine months, financial institutions executives have started taking notice of online channel parity. The mobile channel moved ahead and the Internet feature-set stopped evolving, much less matching the new features coming out of the mobile channel. According to a study conducted by the Federal Reserve in 2012, nearly 21% of mobile phone users report that they used mobile banking in the past 12 months. Furthermore, among those consumers who do not currently use mobile banking, 11% report that they will "definitely" or "probably" use mobile banking in the next 12 months.

Internally, that creates some interesting conversations about channel parity. Are all channels created equal with features available across the board?  Do online channels warrant special consideration?

The answer is simple: Channels will inevitably differ.

The disparity in channel innovation can be due to tactical issues, such as waiting for technology to advance so a feature can be added to a new platform.  Because the pace of innovation is different for each channel, it can be difficult to tie channels together. However, it is a good idea to ask ahead of time if a new feature is even appropriate for a particular channel.

Certain features are unique to a platform, because, fundamentally, they service customers and members in different ways. Taking a picture of a check to make a deposit works best on a mobile phone. That experience cannot be exactly replicated through any other channel, even though we use similar technology with ATM (image deposit), branch (branch capture) and remote (home scan) channels.

Another mobile-exclusive feature is the capability to instantaneously turn your debit card "off and on" depending on usage. In order to avoid fraud, you can keep your debit card deactivated until you need to complete a transaction. Using your mobile banking app, you can activate the card for that one purchase. The capability is also important if you are out and notice your debit card is missing. Instead of spending time on the phone with your institution while someone is running up charges on your card, you can pull out your mobile device and instantly turn the card off, then reach out to your bank to report the issue. Unless consumers carry their laptops with them while shopping, this is a feature that is exclusive to the mobile channel. 

Careful consideration of whether a feature should be applied across platforms will ensure the development of a cohesive cross-channel experience. 

Conversely, if you apply a standard of parity, you wind up in a holding pattern because right now and for the foreseeable future, Internet banking is not keeping pace with mobile banking. If you wait to launch a new feature on both platforms simultaneously, you will no longer be innovating. You will, instead, be behind the times. 

Mobile is not just Internet banking on the phone, so why treat it the same?

Admittedly, with new channels, customer expectations have grown. However, deploying a coordinated channel strategy to create a cohesive customer experience does not mean all those channels will do the same thing. While the story of multichannel banking continues to evolve, platform parity is much more myth than reality. In the end, by pushing channel-specific innovation, all parties win. 

Robb Gaynor is the co-founder and chief product officer of Malauzai Software Inc.,a mobile banking solutions provider.

 

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

(2) Comments

SEE MORE IN

RELATED TAGS

'I Want a Tom O'Brien Action Figure Doll': Comments of the Week

American Banker readers share their views on the most pressing banking topics of the week. Comments are excerpted from reader response sections of AmericanBanker.com articles and from our social media platforms.

(Image: Bloomberg News)

Comments (2)
Great article Rob. I'd go back further in time and look at the birth of the first online banking solutions that you and I helped sell at Edify. Back then there were no out-of-the box online banking apps and Edify was asked to build custom web apps that mirrored the predominant self-service channel at that time - IVR. I could even argue a case that the terrible workflow in all OLB solutions today - silo'd functionality sitting on individual tabs - is a direct result of porting over IVR menu trees (that's exactly what Edify PS folks did back in the day). IVR - Press 1 for account balances, 2 for transaction history, 3 for transfers, etc. In OLB today - a tab for Account Summary, tab for Transaction History, tab for Transfers, etc. Applying this to the main theme of your article - I could argue a case that OLB usability payed a serious price by using IVR as the initial design point and it's been with us for almost 15 years. As you point out, FIs have clearly already made that same mistake on their initial mobile/tablet implementations by unnaturally "forcing" web parity onto their mobile/tablet solutions.
Posted by dgaydon | Thursday, December 20 2012 at 1:58PM ET
I think you make a good point about the need for cohesive, not necessarily identical, channels for a bank. Each channel serves a different purpose. When a new channel (like mobile) emerges, it doesn't replace old channels (like the branch), it supplements them. The value of these new channels is that they give consumers more options; "if you don't want to drive to the branch to deposit a check, that's fine because we offer remote deposit capture." Allowing consumers to seamlessly move between the channels that are most convenient and valuable to them is the key.
Posted by Alex Johnson | Wednesday, January 02 2013 at 1:38PM 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.
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.