A Lesson from Self-Service Checkout
It doesn’t take a deep thinker to see the manifest advantages of digital banking over reliance on people-intensive brick and mortar. ATMs are a historic case in point. Many US bank branches still prominently advertise “ATM Banking” capabilities (with apparently very old signage). ATMs served – and continue to serve – customers well.
But have we gone too far in our expectations for digital banking? Some banks have, I fear. Banks who measure the efficacy of their digital banking properties through the narrow lens of cost savings may be particularly susceptible to error.
Consider retail self-service checkout. It's a massive, global trend that saw widespread adoption. I recently read an illuminating BBC article on the topic that describes a market pull-back. Why? Because, for many retailers, the investment in self-service hasn’t produced the promised return. Worse yet, many shoppers hate the experience.
'It hasn't delivered': The spectacular failure of self-checkout technology
Before you deem the comparison off-base, I’ll acknowledge that consumer sentiment toward digital banking is far more positive than for self-service checkout. That said, the important point in my opinion is that many consumers don’t love self-service, even as they choose self-service user journeys with increasing frequency. Instead, consumers love low-friction and high-convenience. When a self-service use-case delivers both low-friction and high-convenience outcomes, most consumers will love the experience. But, when either fails to deliver, they’ll hate it and you’ll get the blame.