Monthly Archives: November 2016

Do You Speak Fintech?

paolozzi-head-of-invention

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo: Eduardo Paolozzi’s sculpture “The Head of Invention” in Holland Park, London

In the course of one day in the City of London last week, I was in three different conversations about Fintechs.

What struck me was that the financial services experts that I was talking to all had different examples of what a Fintech is. One mentioned a supplier of banking systems, another mentioned a disruptive network platform provider, and another mentioned a niche consumer lender who has been around in the market for at least a decade. Added together, these cover a very broad range of businesses indeed.

Check out the web and there is no standard definition that seems to have consensus. The UK government (UKTI) definition is as follows: “In its broadest sense, we define FinTechs as high-growth organisations combining innovative business models and technology to enable, enhance and disrupt FS. This definition is not restricted to start-ups or new entrants, but includes scale-ups, maturing companies and even non-FS companies, such as telecommunication providers and e-retailers.” (UK Fintech, On the Cutting Edge, HM Treasury and E+Y, August 2014). There is so much in there, it is hard to detect a couple of keywords.

Perhaps market forces are dictating the use of a very inclusive definition. If Fintechs are currently attracting investment capital, and being championed as the provider of choice for the digital generation, then what Board is going to tell its Chief Executive not to embrace the term wholeheartedly? Especially as the definition brings with it the allure of high growth for potential investors and, for the Chief Executive, the imposition of some ambitious growth targets. Of course market forces will create winners and losers, but you cannot win if you don’t take part.

I believe however that some structured definitions within this very fluid and fast moving market are important. As an interim executive, I get frequent approaches along the lines of “Are you interested in this CXO or NED role with XYZ Fintech”. How can anyone sensibly answer this without some discussion of the nature of the Fintech business and the operating model that it needs to have to be successful. It’s not enough to say that you can thrive in this market if you understand both banking and technology; that particular competency has been around since at least the 1950s.

For simplicity, let’s say a Fintech (in the retail banking market) could be a combination of one or more of the following businesses:

·         A software provider of banking systems

·         A platform provider who uses the software to provide a processing service to multiple banks

·         A bank (or quasi-bank) which is providing technology-enabled services to its end-customers; such a bank could be a pretty much anywhere on the challenger / maturity scale.

The combination point is important – for example a challenger bank might make much of its ability to create new software, or a platform provider might aim to win direct B2C business by putting in place some key “bank-like” services. But, just like the big conglomerate industrials found in the 1980s, the shareholder value of running all three types of business through the same management team may prove be to less than the value that can gained when the different businesses can be run by real specialists. The proviso of course is that, for overall value to be created in the Fintech market, there has to be a willingness for collaboration.

All three types of business need to deliver profits and return on investment. They all need to have a vision for where the sector is heading and the opportunities for disruptive growth. They also need to embrace the spirit of collaboration. But that aside, very different operating models are needed in each of these businesses.

The software provider and the platform provider are both B2B providers, whereas the bank (in this example) is a B2C provider. B2B and B2C entail very different go-to-market strategies.

The software provider is typically focused on innovation, and managing the costs of investment. Service is important, but it is rarely the core competence of the organisation. The platform provider is highly focused on managing service levels and operating costs. The bank is concerned with market share, and the risk/reward profile of its customers, and might be ready to outsource many of its delivery services.

The bank will have a regulator on its back, the platform provider will be trying to design a service which avoids the need for regulation, and the software provider’s only interest in regulation is in making sure its software can produce the numbers that regulators want to see.

In summary, this is definitely not a case of “one size fits all”. The Fintech concept embraces at least three very different types of business, which in turn have their own distinct skills requirements at executive level.

Banks should use data to improve service, and not to erode trust

img_0332

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a world where it is now much easier for consumers and businesses to switch banks, one reason that so few people do switch is that trust in banks still typically outweighs the exasperation that is caused by poor service experience.

Of course, what “good” looks like in terms of service excellence needs to be continuously reappraised in order to keep pace with the expectations of digital consumers. Mapping out the optimal “customer experience” across the range of products and services is a great start-point for this, after which you can map out the processes which deliver these products and services and seek to understand where they deliver a great experience and where they fall short.

Process improvements can then be designed to address the problem areas and information can be gathered and analysed to spot and even predict service delivery shortcomings. When you can predict the problem, you can address it efficiently before it occurs, rather than expensively (both in terms of money and brand) after it has happened. Consistently good service experience will lead to increasing loyalty and a positive reputation in the market, enabling the bank to differentiate itself, retain customers and attract new business.

Naturally, the more complex the web of processes, the more likely they are going to be prone to problems. Simplicity is good. We have all observed how the fintechs and challenger banks have sought to create nimble, cost effective infrastructures which large banks, with a deadweight of complex legacy infrastructure, should in theory find it hard to compete with. To their credit, the challengers appear to have been spending more time than traditional banks, in talking to the market and finding out what customers want in terms of product design and levels of service.

At the moment, the challenger banks are, in many cases, testing the market with simple online products, such as fixed term savings accounts, rather than mirroring the full range of services which the traditional banks offer. Personally, I am not holding my breath for a real breakthrough from these banks – recently the mobile-app-only bank in the UK where I had opened a fixed term savings account managed to make my entire account data invisible to me, after pushing an app update on to my iphone. The process to make this data reappear involved a lengthy re-registration process with their contact centre. If these guys are struggling with technology at this level, it seems to me it will take time for them to develop a robust multi-service capability.

To be honest, I don’t really care about the type of technology – only how it helps support and deliver excellent service at the right price. A bank needs to use technology effectively to connect its data and its processes together and to streamline its service delivery. It should avoid the temptation to use new technology “because it’s there”, without addressing the root cause of service delivery issues.

Clearly this demands that the bank builds a clear view of what sort of service its customers want, and is able to justify the investment either through cost savings or the ability to cross-sell more products. This cross-selling requires a bank to capture information about its consumers, in market segments and ideally also to make it personal at the level of the individual customer.

A couple of ways to do this are to invest in relationship management and to invest in data analytics. Both have real challenges for a bank.

Again from recent personal experience, I have spent at least ten hours in meetings with the local relationship manager from my traditional UK bank, with an eye-watering amount of mundane form filling but also with some really value-adding observations about my potential needs. Trust was built up, and I began to look forward to each interaction. Then, all of a sudden, I got a call from the bank to say that the relationship manager was leaving and that it would be some months before they appointed a replacement. Back to square one, and a sinking feeling that when I do meet the replacement then it will be time to start going through all those forms again.

So, there is a real challenge for banks to invest in a consistent relationship management service, which includes effective two-way communication with customers.

How about removing the “inconvenience” of relying on staff continuity, and trusting in data analytics instead? There is a lot of research and investment going into predictive data. My sense is that this is probably effective at a “segment” level, but that “predictive” can become inaccurately “presumptuous” when such techniques are applied at the level of the single customer. I don’t (thank goodness) have a personal example of this from the banking sector – setting aside all those offers to move to “premium” credit cards which I don’t want or need and which get filed immediately in the recycling bin. But, given that retail banks are inclined to adopt practices from other retailers, I do worry about what might be coming.

Let me take a recent personal example from a well-known travel booking app that I (used to) use. I was recently meeting a new client whose linked-in profile showed that they, like me, had spent a lot of time in the Far East. I was trying to remember the name of a hotel I had stayed in few years ago. Via the history pages on the travel booking app I found my original booking. Great. Until I started getting a daily bombardment of emails from the travel company, offering to help me book my next Far Eastern trip. I have to say that I had seen this as a great app for making bookings and for getting good discounts. But the nuisance effect of those emails outweighed the value of the service, causing me to unsubscribe and to remove the app from my phone.

I give this as an example of what it might take for me to quickly turn off my relationship with a bank.  It is all about the grey area where predictive becomes presumptuous, and where marketing becomes intrusive.

What happens is that the bank would reach a point, where it will start to undermine its core competence of “trust”. Trust is not just about security. It is also about relying on a bank not to waste its customers’ time with presumptuous offers which they don’t need or want. A travel company can get away with such approaches. I don’t believe that a bank can, because its trust premium is a fundamental reason it stays in business.

At the start of this blog I commented on the balance of trust and service experience and its effect on customer retention. I have shown how investment in new services can lead to a requirement to build knowledge which, especially when placing too much reliance on data analytics, can lead to unintended breakdowns of trust. My own recommendation is that banks don’t mess with trust but rather focus on the other side of the equation, and invest in eliminating the exasperation that is caused by weaknesses in service delivery.