Quantcast

Can You Fear Me Now? Banks Risk Verizon-Like Backlash on Fees

DEC 30, 2011 2:37pm ET
Print
Email
Reprints
(3) Comments

As banks look for ways to get revenue from free services like bill pay, they risk becoming a target of public outcry, as Verizon Wireless has in recent days over a short-lived plan to assess a $2 fee for certain bill payments.

Consumers circulated petitions and organized boycotts over Verizon's fee, which would have applied only to one-time credit and debit card payments made online or by phone (the fee would not have been assessed to consumers who sign up for an automatic recurring payment). On Friday, Verizon said it no longer plans to impose the fee, which was originally set to take effect Jan. 15. The fee was first reported by the blog Droid Life.

Most banks have long abandoned charging for online bill pay, but some have experimented with bringing fees back for specific uses, such as for last-minute payments. The justification for such fees from banks and bill-pay providers is that the price of an expedited payment is more palatable than the late fee and finance charges that would be assessed for missing a due date entirely.

If banks keep their bill-pay fees limited to scenarios such as this one, they may avoid the same outcry Verizon faced, experts say.

"[Banks] really need to be thinking about pricing in a much more holistic way," says Ron Shevlin, a senior analyst at the Aite Group LLC. "It's not just trying to get away [with] charging for something."

Banks are still feeling the sting from Bank of America Corp.'s failed attempt to attach a $5 monthly fee to debit-card use.

"They had to backtrack, and the really negative thing about that is now there is a sense that these were capricious fees," says Shevlin.

Banks may get a better response from consumers if they bundle services under one fee, so that no single service seems overpriced, says Nicole Sturgill, a research director in the retail banking and cards practice at TowerGroup.

"You might get things like identity theft protection, or maybe it comes with a certain number of expedited bill payments, or you get a rewards debit card … You are getting more for what you are paying for," she says.

Expedited bill-pay fees can be justified, experts say, but consumers may demand that other types of payments remain free, even when such services are costly to banks.

"All of these carriers and financial institutions are faced with increased costs and stronger regulations," says Jacob Jegher, a senior analyst within Celent. "They are trying to deal with all that while balancing the customer experience, which is no easy thing to do."

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

(3) Comments

SEE MORE IN

RELATED TAGS

 

 
Kumbaya Moment for Banks, CUs; Brown-Vitter as WMD: Week's Best Quotes
The most notable quotes from American Banker stories of the previous week. Readers are encouraged to add their own observations in the Comments fields at the bottom of each slide.

(Image: Fotolia)

Comments (3)
The problem with the fee structuring is that regulators/consumers want it both ways. They want to restrict what banks can charge and do, yet they want everything to be available for free. Banks are for profit businesses not Charities. Even credit unions, which are non profit organizations, must still pay for lights and employees. The Dodd Frank Deformed Act and the Durbin Accident are total nightmares for consumers and banks. Everyone looses. This is like going to a restaurant and telling them that they must sell their steak for less than they paid for it. FINE! the Restaurant says, but you pay a washing fee for the plates and silverware! THEY MUST or they close and you no longer have a restaurant to eat at. Someone needs to Fire/Impeach Durbin, Frank, and Dodd! http://www.bulldogpublications.com/?zx=531428ac9a1c7278
Posted by Darrell W | Monday, January 02 2012 at 2:21PM ET
The problem with the fee structuring is that regulators/consumers want it both ways. They want to restrict what banks can charge and do, yet they want everything to be available for free. Banks are for profit businesses not Charities. Even credit unions, which are non profit organizations, must still pay for lights and employees. The Dodd Frank Deformed Act and the Durbin Accident are total nightmares for consumers and banks. Everyone looses. This is like going to a restaurant and telling them that they must sell their steak for less than they paid for it. FINE! the Restaurant says, but you pay a washing fee for the plates and silverware! THEY MUST or they close and you no longer have a restaurant to eat at. Someone needs to Fire/Impeach Durbin, Frank, and Dodd! http://darrellgwolfe.blogspot.com/
Posted by Darrell W | Monday, January 02 2012 at 2:22PM ET
Comparing dining in a restaurant to banking is ridiculous. What consumers want is fair pricing for services and transparency. But to charge someone to pay a bill electronically when the bank is saving the cost of processing it any other way, is just plain greed, especially when the customer is now doing the work that use to take several employees to process. Would banks prefer consumers go back to using paper instruments? I think not.
Posted by EFB | Wednesday, January 04 2012 at 3:15PM ET
Add Your Comments:
You must be registered to post a comment.
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.
DAILY ENEWSLETTER UPDATE

A Newsletter featuring Bank Technology News' top stories plus special reports and data

This feature displays payments industry news and analysis from American Banker sibling brand PaymentsSource. Registration is required; for more information contact customer service.

TWITTER
FACEBOOK
LINKEDIN
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.