Activity

  • Dean posted an update in the group Group logo of Experiential Customer Environments Experiential Customer Environments 5 years, 8 months ago

    I think someone said it a while back, but people want different things from their bank. So how is a bank supposed to know what to add? For services and for the building, how do they test what will work? It’s not like you can just throw something out there when it costs money, so who decides what happens in a bank and how they change the lobby around?

    • It seems like you really like this group, Dean 🙂 You’re always chock full of questions and I like that. I wanna say that banks make decisions the same way you and I do – they think about it, run through reasons why or why not it would be a good idea, then just go ahead and test it out. Maybe they’ll run a survey or they have a team research the topic, too. But I’m sure that they don’t just throw around money and try ideas willy nilly! 🙂

      • Well it wouldn’t make much sense to think about it all that much and not actually do anything. I guess testing it out is the only way to go really.

    • I do not work for a bank so I cannot say for sure what their processes may be, but in my experience with changes in institutions and businesses, change comes after a battery of tests and numerous considerations of the implications of the new changes. My best example would be my work with Relay for Life, an established, structured event that I had chaired in the past. The process was as follows:

      1. Analysis of possible shortcomings, problems, or room for improvement through current status analysis and participant surveys.
      2. Proposal of ideas, suggestions, solutions, or changes to the current structure of the event that will address the findings of step 1.
      3. Narrowing of solutions based on the availability of resources and feasibility of effective implementation.
      4. Analysis of each proposed change and estimation of overall impact (qualitative and quantitative).
      5. Second review and narrowing of possible solutions.
      6. In-depth analysis and alpha testing of remaining changes through research, surveys, and professional consultation.
      7. Final selection and implementation.

      With that being said, this is an event that does not have the same presence that a bank does, so I do not believe it would follow this plan verbatim. However, I do believe that it would have a similar form in terms of the structure and screening process. Banks would probably follow a format similar to how restaurants test new items or changes in a limited number of locations. There would usually be a set budget for such experimental changes, and after a certain time period the effects would be analyzed and assessed so that a decision could be made for further implementation or ending of the concept.

      • Thanks for the really indepth answer. The step by step makes it easier to understand even though it’s not exactly what a bank would do. Maybe they’re doing something similar but with more specific bank stuff or more testing since they have lots of branches.

        • I can only imagine that their process is even more rigorous than ours was for our event. As a for-profit entity, I am sure banks are scrutinizing it to a greater extent than a group of volunteer leaders hosting a non-profit fundraiser. As such, they most likely are, and I would like to think definitely are, considering the financial implications on a closer level.

    • If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I’m sure you know that phrase, and that’s exactly what banks look at. There’s no reason to change things if there isn’t anything that needs fixing. If there is something that needs to be fixed then you can tell, and they make the change because they know it’s broken. Do you need to run tests to figure out that something isn’t working right? Usually you can see it, and that’s when they make the change.

      • Even though everyone else isn’t saying the same thing as you, this still kinda make sense. It’s not like the banks change all that often, and alot do just make changes because something bad happened or they actually need to. The saying has it right. If it’s not broken the banks usually don’t change it.

        • No one wants to admit it but they know these banks are only making the changes they absolutely need to make. The bottom line is the bottom line, and that’s what they are working towards. Do not even think that they are not looking for where they can save a few bucks and maximize profits because they are and you know it.

    • See, I can’t say much because my business basically runs on how I make people want to buy my stuff, but I know when I want something new in the bank it’s because I saw it someplace else. Now that usually turns into me talking to somebody about not having it there. “You know that ATM check depositing they’re talking about at BoA? Would be really cool if they got that here too.” That sounds like something I’d say, and I probably did say it when my Wells Fargo didn’t have check depositing yet. Makes me wanna say that banks make changes to keep up with the guy next door who has it too. As for being original and deciding on something new? Heck, it’s probably when it can save them a few bucks a year.

      • So I guess it’s just trying to keep up with the competition. Sort of like when fast food started selling salads. One place starts selling a salad and now everyone in the area does too. Then they try fighting on price, so they come up with new things since they aren’t making as much money on stuff everyone else is offering.

    • As with any company, there has to be a set guideline for how renovations and large-scale improvements will take place. This may be through building redesign, maintenance overhauls, or equipment replacement, but the same sort of rigorous review is still required. Many of the larger companies source their requirements for improvement through the overall financial impact it will have on the company. I am sure that banks would follow this concept to the letter and only approve what will be profitable improvements. The question then becomes how they quantify the impact of those improvements and how do they come up with the improvements to be made. Some companies will view the overall intangible impact rather than the revenues as the primary consideration for improvement. This may be that it improves mood and morale, or possibly makes the branch more inviting, which does not have a direct revenue impact but has the possibility of driving both sales and productivity. Regardless of what the improvements will do, it most likely has to be ran through multiple scenarios and tests to see whether or not it should be undertaken prior to actual prototype implementation in a branch. As we have seen with food service, if a change or product goes over well with the target market, then it is implemented in more stores until it achieves full inclusion in the business model.

      • So it’s sort of the slow roll with getting these new things out there? It makes a lot more sense than jumping into it and sinking all your money in something you aren’t sure about. I think I’m starting to really understand how this all works now. So according to everyone when they see that there can be improvements or changes, they review it, they test it, then they finally get it out to all the stores.

        • It might be a slow roll but do not forget that it only happens when they really need to make the changes. Who needs to put in new mood lighting when the old lights work just fine? Why do you need different teller stations when people are fine walking up to their tellers as it is? That’s the thing – they don’t need these new things. At least not yet, and when they do they will try everything out. But until then, just expect everything to stay as it is because banks are not planning to take on any new expenses for no good reason.