- The package wouldn’t be complete without the entire process being much slower than the old card swipe. What took a second or two before now seems to take millennia. Most of this time is spent waiting for the machine, without any indication of progress (apart from the flickering, lest we forget), which makes it seem even longer and more annoying. In an age when we are used to machines responding instantly, the awardee reminds us that complex operations are happening that require time and care.
I love that this lists all the reasons I hate those things. It's one of those devices that annoys you by the virtue of it being clearly poorly designed, rather than by the actual inconvenience of it. Why does the screen change so many times when nothing changes? Why is the error sound the same as the success sound? I mean, holy crap.
- Many merchants taped over the card slot on their new terminals, for a piece of aesthetically questionable decoration.
Worth noting: Target rolled out a company-wide chip block for their terminals because they decided to renegotiate their rate with Visa and MasterCard after the roll-out. Apparently they felt that the devices were too shitty to use unless they, personally, got some real compensation for putting up with all the customer complaints.
Chip cards are more secure, but it sounds like nobody thinks the trade-off is worth it. I'd wager that Hubski users don't get their identities stolen as often as the average person, nor is it common in their/our social circles.
- Credit card fraud doesn't fall on the cardholder though.
Not directly. But money a bank loses to fraud is money the bank can't devote to making a more attractive product. Cardholders collectively pay for fraud in the form of higher interest rates and fees, or smaller benefits.
I think customers are happy to have tools like freezing to reduce unauthorized use, as long as they don't introduce a lot of hassle.
- making a more attractive product
Is this a thing that banks actually do?
Around here, it is possible to suggest that businesses are actively hostile toward customers without being contradicted. No one ever explains why they give the majority of their income to these adversarial entities.
I don't think you're making that suggestion, I think you are giving vent to legitimate annoyance at the occasional, small lapses in customer service, like new credit card readers that are worse than the old ones.
Do you have a bank account? Why did you choose your bank, or your credit card, instead of another? Of course banks try to make more attractive products. If they don't (and can't secure some kind of bailout), they fail.
I'm not really convinced that's true. When I was looking to ditch Wells Fargo, I shopped around and found virtually no difference among what was on offer. I ended up going with a credit union, since they're at least ostensibly member-owned. The most I can say for them is that they leave me alone, although their mortgage division was beyond incompetent.
- I shopped around and found virtually no difference among what was on offer.
I am inclined to see this as confirmation.
Within a strictly regulated sector, where innovation is somewhat stifled — try offering virtual currency and see what happens — the various banks have so optimized the balance between customer service and not-going-bankrupt that they are nearly copies of one another, exhibiting a kind of law of one price for banking services.
By "actively hostile" I imagine tellers who insult your mother, lobbies that smell of urine, lines out the door on Friday, empty ATMs, unexplained balance reductions, established banks that take customers' money and run.
Instead we get web sites that are slow or occasionally down for maintenance, fees hidden in fine print, mobile apps with annoying security protocols, ATM daily withdrawal limits that you remember right before your summer vacation, and credit card readers that are sub-optimal for a year.
I am considering switching to a credit union too. Their not-for-profit structure and tax exempt status enable advantages for members that traditional banks can't match. It might be nice if more services were provided this way.
I find plenty of customer-friendly innovations in banking. Many of them are quickly copied by other banks, so eventually you see virtually no difference between them.
• Free checks
• Groovy hologram stickers
• Online bill pay
• Brick-and-mortar branches on every corner
• Online-only banks with no bricks or mortar
• Check deposit by sending a digital photo
• Temporary freeze on a misplaced card
• Notify bank of travel plans in advance to reduce fraud alerts
• Photo on back of card
• Budget reports and planning tools
• Complimentary coffee, breath mints, dog biscuits
• 24/7 telephone service
• ATM fee reimbursement
• Check security features: microprinting, temperature-sensitive ink, watermarks
• A competent mortgage division
At a high level, any business is customer-hostile because it wants to get as much of the customer's money as possible while providing the minimum in exchange. In practice, the business that provides the most in return gets the most customer revenue.
- By "actively hostile" I imagine...
I don't accept your definition, though, or perhaps better said I'm not willing to settle this low.
A bit of rhetorical flourish on my part, perhaps, though we must agree that those characteristics are hostile.
Is there anything in my bullet list that does not fairly represent banks "making a more attractive product"?
If none exist today, what would a truly customer-friendly bank look like, in your opinion? What prevents anyone from founding it, and stealing everyone's business?
I'm not really clear on whether you agree with my talk of hostility or not...
>what would a truly customer-friendly bank look like
Maybe one that doesn't try to wreck the economy again?
Now I am confused. I don't know which of these, if any, is the case.
1. I haven't expressed my idea — that corporate behavior is largely driven by consumer preference — clearly enough.
2. My point is clear, but I haven't persuaded you that it is true. In this case, I don't have enough information from you to understand why you are not persuaded. I don't see your "talk of hostility" to know if I agree with it or not.
3. You don't think this subject is interesting or important enough to bother discussing. In this case, we can leave what's been said and move on to other subjects.
Well, for point 1, I get what you're saying, but that becomes one of those maximization problems. In other words, consumers pick the lesser of two evils, which can then be taken as the same thing as full-on approval.
For 2, I don't think your conclusions (especially as regards to point 1) are inconsistent with the hostility I discussed.
For 3, well, I won't say it's something I'm especially passionate about, so up to you :)
It would be a mistake to conclude that a customer fully approves of a business simply because they patronized that business. I haven't made that mistake. Customers can always be better satisfied, by paying less if nothing else. Additional legroom is nice too.
Even if I make that mistake, the business is still making customer-centered decisions to be more attractive than the competition. It's the customer's interest that drives business behavior.
I think your conclusion is based on the incorrect assumption underlying most economics, namely that people (a) have sufficient information to make a rational decision, and (b) then make a rational decision.
I am pretty sure that these important and interesting considerations have received a fair amount of attention. Thinking, Fast and Slow includes many examples, such as the Allais paradox.
In any case, I don't see any connection to the idea that business is hostile to consumers. Both sides have limited information, and both sides occasionally make decisions that are not in their best interests.
I'm not saying it's connected, but I'm saying I disagree with your statement that
- It's the customer's interest that drives business behavior.
- and serving customer interests brings profit.
Except where it doesn't....
Great response, the second one you've given me in several days. I was going to tell you to stick around, since I thought you were new around here, but it is I that is new, comparatively.
WHY IS THIS STILL A PROBLEM????
In the UK we have gone beyond chip and pin, we have had that for years but now we have machines that use contactless. I initially scoffed at it but it's so easy to use you just put the card on the card reader for a second and that's it. Well I guess they are a little bit hard to use, you have to make sure you are holding the card totally still. But once you have figured that out it's easy. I feel like contactless is the point at which using a card at a bar is easy enough that you don't have to carry cash when you go out. It's easier for the staff as well.
I muttered under my breath that if it wasn't the verifone card swiper thing then there is no justice in the world and now there is some justice in the world and i'm still not happy
The two local mega marts have different ways of working the chip reader. One store, the chip reader reads the cards, needs one press of the OK button and is done in 25 seconds (I timed it). The other store, the better store IMO, has the absolute worst way to do the chip reader. Insert the card, wait 20 seconds. Hit a button. Something happens. Hit a button again, then wait. The whole process takes 70 seconds if you are on top of the button pushes. I don't go to Store 2 unless I need to get something at that store that is not at Store 1.
As an aside, the last time I went to Store 2, more people were using checks. And the parking lot was empty at a time it was normally full.