October 3rd, 2005
Banks suck.
Banks really utterly totally completely unequivocally comprehensively suck.
They suck so hard that they have their own event horizon.
Today I wrote this letter to the Vancouver Province newspaper.
To Whom it May Concern:
I was absolutely infuriated by Inez Dyer's article, "Getting along with the bank" (Monday, October 3rd). Dyer starts with an assertion that her "some 25 years" of experience as a banker was enjoyable to her—ignoring the fact that no matter how enjoyable the banker's experience is, the customer's experience may be completely different. (In the case of banking, I suspect that the happier the banker, the more unhappy the customer.) Then Dyer continues with several "points to ponder" that reveal her banking-centric attitude:
People are unhappy with banks because they "don't communicate" with them. Dyer must think that good communication skills are a simple matter of dumping as much information as possible into the other's lap.
Dyer uses the analogy of a marriage, which I find particularly offensive. I do not consider a bank or any of the people working at a bank to act in a spousal role. By trying to paint the bank as a partner, as a friendly shoulder to lean on, as an active trusted part of my life while at the same time charging me for such "services" as holding my money, and depositing, transferring and withdrawing funds is duplicitous at best. Banks charge customers for services. Period. We are not friends, neighbors or spouses. If we want to characterise the relationship: We do business together.
The entire article carries an attitude of Dyer's that it is customers' fault for their unhappiness with banks ... and that the banks play no part in that unhappiness. To sum up: We don't tell banks enough information about us therefore we are unhappy with the banks.
Well, if banks were truly concerned with the feelings of their customers, they would halt the steady march of fee increases and instead start sharing profits with customers. But trying to convince us we are unhappy because we don't give banks enough of our personal information is insulting and offensive to me.
Dyer says herself: "I took the position that most customers are either unwilling or unable to fully communicate what they need." If customers are "unable", it may be that banks create their own vocabulary, their own sets of ever-changing rules, and their own procedures (often without significant or clearly-stated notice) that are just plain confusing to people outside banking circles. But, beyond that, has Dyer considered that customers don't trust banks because banks have taken so much of their money in the past? Are we supposed to continue volunteering as much information as we can to banks, just so more of our money can be subject to service charges?
There is not one person I know who does not have some complaint about the erosion of their savings through nickel-and-diming policies of banks. Dyer should take note: Customers are unhappy because of this, not because we "don't communicate" enough with banks.
In the end, the most infuriating thing about Dyer's attitude towards banking customers is that she feels that banks are perfectly justified in attempting to gather as much information about people as possible. Knowledge is power, and banks know that the more information they can glean from their customers, the more power they have ... and the more money they can take from them.
Sign my guestbook - Email me - Back to the Rant-o-Rama index