Brett King

Posts Tagged ‘BofA’

Can Social Media Bring Down a Bank?

In Economics, Future of Banking, Social Networking, Strategy on November 23, 2011 at 00:26

Bankers often talk about the ‘trust’ consumers have in banking as a defining characteristic of why customers give banks their money instead of simply keeping it under a mattress. Some bankers might have difficulty understanding why customers of today seem perfectly happy to give money to the likes of PayPal, M-PESA, Lending Club or Zopa. The fact that I trust PayPal to send money on my behalf, in lieu of banks, might have been unthinkable just a few years ago. The concept of lending money through a social network would have seemed laughable too. Part of this is that we just don’t trust banks like we used to, and alternatives seem far less risky comparatively.

Reputational risk is surfacing in the sector as a whole today through social movements like “Occupy Wall Street”, “Bank Transfer Day” and other actions led by frustrated consumer groups and collectives. As an industry, we’re not organizing a structured approach to this challenged perception of ‘banking’. Instead we’re often trying to defend the indefenisble, a system saddled by inertia that assumes we have far greater responsibility to our shareholders, than we do to the customers we are supposed to serve.

Not the Regulator’s problem

At the European Retail Banking Summit held in London on November 8th, 2011, I pitched to European regulators the issue of Social Media, the Occupy Movement and what their position was towards the increased transparency that retail banks were facing. Martin Merlin (Head of Financial Services Policy and Relations with the Council, European Commission) and Philip Reading (Director, Financial Markets Stability and Bank Inspections, Oesterreichische Nationalbank) were at a loss to understand the role of regulators in defining a coordinated industry response. Martin’s response was telling:

“It’s simply not on our radar yet as regulators”
Martin Merlin, Head of Financial Services Policy, European Commission

Customers finding their voice

The new voice of the populace is demonstrated with no greater effect than through the so-called “Arab Spring” across the MENA region. If Twitter, YouTube and Facebook can overturn regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, I’m pretty sure they can totally undermine the brand of a bank that we’ve previously thought was “Too Big To Fail”.

To add credibility to that notion, in just months we have seen the Occupy Movement develop into a global protest against the economic and social inequality promoted by the current “system”. Consumers today have found their voice. Increasingly that voice is about choice, about rewarding organizations that listen and punishing those that think their decisions are immune from public debate or dialogue.

Prior to social media, the thought of rapid political change in a country like Egypt would have been considered extremely unlikely, a real outlier. Is there a measurable effect of this voice of the consumer on retail financial institutions today? Absolutely.

In January 2011, Bank of America’s (BofA) post financial crisis share price had recovered to $15.31 at its peak. As of this blog post, BofA’s stock is ranging at $5-5.50. This is instructive. Stocks with a historical Beta (β) of 1 are generally tracking flat for the year. So why has BofA lost more than 50% of its value in the last 12 months, compared with a market and contemporaries that have remained flat over the same period?

Bank of America's share price is at a 2-year low

Overlaying stock trading volumes and pricing, against average and cumulative sentiment (via social media analysis) shows that public displeasure with the company direction and engagement has been a core driver in BofA’s troubles. What is clear is that BofA would not have considered consumer sentiment a significant driver in their share price in the past. They simply could not have run their retail bank badly enough to result in this type of dip in the past unless there was some sort of significant and very public scandal resulting in massive losses. The market is obviously now pricing in concern about the long-term viability of a brand that doesn’t have affinity with the consumers it serves.

A great infographic from EvoApp showing the correlation between sentiment and share price for BofA

What to do next?

Understanding consumer sentiment, and actively managing the brand in this open dialog is going to be a key skill in the near term. This is not about ‘spin’ or control, because as Egypt and the Occupy Movement has shown, you can’t control these forces.

Instead what will be critical is the capability to respond visibly to the markets concern, to improve sentiment. In BofA’s case, the leveraging new Debit Card fees, claiming BofA had a “right to make a profit” and then dropping the planned fees – is no way to demonstrate strategic understanding of consumer sentiment in the social age.

We need a lens on sentiment that drives strategy. This requires a very different board room and executive feedback loop that simply does not exist today.

The Total Disruption of Bank Distribution – Part 5

In Blogs, Customer Experience, Engagement Banking, Groundswell, Retail Banking, Social Networking, Twitter on August 1, 2011 at 11:09

Transparency challenges new revenue and friction

In September of 2009 Ann Minch, a customer of Bank of America, posted a video on YouTube called the “Debtor’s Revolt”. Ann detailed her case against BofA who had unilaterally increased her credit card APR (Annual Percentage Rate) to 30% from its historical 12.99% – quite a jump. She argued as a customer of 14 years, having never missed a payment, that such treatment was unjustified.  She contacted BofA and asked if they would discuss her situation or negotiate the rate change, but they referred her to a debt consolidation counselor.

BofA subsequently argued that the terms and conditions she had signed allowed them to make any adjustments of this nature without consultation with customers like Minch. If she didn’t like it, she was free to cancel her card and go to another bank. This wasn’t the end of the story.

Half a Million YouTube views later mainstream media started to pick up Ann Minch’s story. The pressure was suddenly on BofA to explain their actions, and the story that they were within their legal right to do so, just didn’t stand up to cross examination. All but BofA believed that their actions were unreasonable and extreme. The resultant pressure resulted in a complete reversal of BofA’s decision, a win for Ann Minch right?

Transparency wins

The Ann Minch story, and that of David Carroll with his YouTube-generated hit United Breaks Guitars, tells us that today consumers have extraordinary power afforded to them through social media. Consumers today have a voice, but increasingly that voice is becoming about choice, about rewarding organizations that listen to customers, and punishing those that think their decisions are immune from debate or dialogue. Prior to social media, Ann Minch wouldn’t have had a hope of getting a behemoth like BofA to change their policies or decisions based on her complaint. But it’s not just the voice of consumers on Twitter, Facebook, Google+ or social media more broadly.

A plethora of user driven recommendation apps and tools are coming to the fore in helping consumers choose organizations that respect customer involvement. There’s Nosh and Yelp apps that help consumers choose restaurants that they like, that provide great service or great food. There’s Trip Advisor that has become such a powerful force in the travel game that it gets 50 million unique visitors a month who use the site to select hotels for their family vacations. Then there are staples like iTunes and Amazon (who arguably pioneered the consumer product rating mechanism) who rank listings of their products based on consumer votes and reviews.  Today we’ve seen the launch of First Direct’s new FD Lab as a worthy attempt to engage customers in the future of the bank from a service and product perspective.

First Direct, who already has great customer advocacy, has launched a new crowdsourcing platform for engagement

Outdated processes are just friction

Today we live in a world where you can no longer provide poor service based on outdated rules, processes and policies and argue “hey, were a bank and that is the way we do it”. Today, if you are a bank and you have stupid rules and regulations that have been perpetuated by processes built around unwieldy mainframe transaction systems, or around KYC processes that are overkill for 95% of customers and their day-to-day interactions – you are setting yourself up for a fall.

Banking has been for the longest time built on the premise that you have to jump through a bunch of hoops to make yourself ‘worthy’ as a customer – you have to prove yourself before the bank will deem you suitable. As bankers, we argue that it’s not our fault, that we are saddled with regulations and requirements that force our hand, that require us to approach customer engagement in this way.

That kind of thinking is institutional laziness and denial – it creates friction that frustrates customers, is largely unnecessary and is generally costly and inefficient.

Let me illustrate. Take a long-term customer that walks into a branch (for the moment forget my post last week on the decline in branch visitation :)) and applies for a credit card or investment class product after say 10 years of a relationship with the institution. In by far the majority of cases he or she’s sat down in front of an officer of the bank, handed a blank application form and required to fill out details that the bank has had on record for a decade. Why?

There is no process, rule or regulation that can possibly justify that kind of inefficiency and poor service. If there is a requirement to get a signed consent or legal record of the customer’s acceptance of certain terms and conditions, then print out the required document with all his/her details pre-filled, ask them to initial to confirm their details have not changed, and sign the acceptance of the T&Cs. What is so hard about that?

Recently at my annual review with my relationship manager at a major brand bank, I was subjected to a 7 minute video on the risks of investing in Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) and the fact that I might lose all my money if I invest in this asset class, when I was, in fact, applying for a product that was a low-risk Corporate Bond in a totally unrelated asset class. Why the video then? Because someone in legal and risk decided all customers should sit through this video to reduce risk to the bank. Stupid friction.

Take a customer who forgets his Internet Banking password today. How many banks require him to come to the branch or sign a convoluted document and fax it to the bank to unlock his online account? I know at least two of my bank relationships do.

Take a wealthy HNWI (High-Net Worth) customer that moves to the USA or UK from a foreign country and applies for a credit card, only to be rejected because he has no credit score – therefore doesn’t exist in the system so he can’t be assessed from a credit worthiness perspective.

None of these rules makes sense, and yet banking is choc-a-block full of such friction and opportunities for disenfranchising customers.  This is the perfect storm in today’s user advocated consumer world of open, transparent choice.

Friction kills advocacy

The problem with outdated rules, processes and procedures is that thinking “we’ve always done it this way” or “if you don’t like it you can leave” is simply no longer a viable argument to an increasingly well educated and informed customer. Already we’re starting to see customer advocacy as a key driver in choice of financial institution, and high visibility for customers who voice their dissatisfaction with such friction.

Have a look at a few sample tweets in recent weeks:

@DavidBThomas I’ve been with my bank for 30 years. They “thank” me by telemarketing me at dinnertime.
@NewsCut My bank — TCF — has a security question “What city is your vacation home in?” My bank really doesn’t understand REAL America.
@StevenValentino I hate my bank and I would happily shove what little money I have into my mattress if the FDIC would insure it.
@MadRainbowLtd Halifax bank are sh*t! They let someone clear out my bank account using an old cancelled debit card!
@clarecbarry Bank screwed up appointment for third time. Quite impressive. Now on way to work with meeting with Mr Douchebag

And this wonderful series of Tweets from @docbaty on 29 July

@docbaty Things my bank did wrong today:
1) that it would take two weeks to perform a simple account creation;
@docbaty 2) offered to expedite that process, which means it -can- happen faster, but they’re just not trying;
@docbaty 3) asked me if I banked with Bank Y at all; they do the same thing while you wait…
@docbaty 4) gave me a blank form to complete in sign, when every piece of info – other than signature – is already on file…
@docbaty 5) made an error on the processing fee, charging $2,180 instead of $218. I had to correct their calculations (she’d used a calculator)
@docbaty 6) checked new calculations with manager, while making me wait.
@docbaty 7) failed to apologize.

Now imagine the next generation of customers who are out there looking for a new institution to engage with right now. Where are they going to look before they decide on a life-long relationship with a financial institution? They’re going to ask their peers. They will search on a product or brand and find search engine results prioritized, not by some clever search-engine-optimization techniques, but by how their friends and networks have scored the performance of that bank or credit union. They’re going to ask for recommendations on Facebook, Twitter or Google Plus, and they’re increasingly going to choose new providers who think out of the box and who work on simplicity, great customer journeys and improving customer experience through better interactions.

What used to happen informally now is being hardwired into the brand selection process. What marketers used to call the ‘choice set’. We’re learning that this process can’t be gamed, manipulated or bought as a result of ad spend. We’re learning that the most effective mechanism is simply being great service businesses and listening to customers when they’re not happy. The process is brutal, it’s transparent, and it’s going to kill your brand unless you are honestly engaging customers, and you try your hardest to get rid of those pesky, stupid banking rules that only make sense to us as the bank – and even then, let’s be honest… they don’t really make sense to us either.

Don’t worry – you don’t need to develop an iPhone banking app…

In Business Banking, Customer Experience, Engagement Banking, Mobile Banking, Retail Banking, Strategy on November 19, 2010 at 10:26

As of May this year, only 4% of US FDIC insured institutions in the United States had any sort of mobile play, a small subset of this group had iPhone apps, and an even smaller percentage had Android apps. We already know that mobile Internet based banking is the fastest growing interaction channel for banks today, so this level of commitment by the industry is quite concerning. So why so slow?

Why so slow?

The challenge is that iPhone came into being in 2007 and it wasn’t even on the radar of banks generally. Organizations like Bank of America (who launched their App in July 2007) were an exception. Wells Fargo, for example, was the last of the big 4 banks in the USA, and they didn’t launch their native iPhone App until May 2009. By 2008, when many banks were considering launching an iApp, the Global Financial Crisis was upon us and budgets were being slashed, so rather than cut Bonuses, we saw bankers cut discretionary spending in the areas of IT. Mobile was often the first to go, because the attitude was “we don’t have to worry about that yet…maybe in 10 years time”. 2009 the budget woes continued, and 2010 was about rebuilding trust so the focus was on keeping costs low so that improvement in net earnings could be demonstrated to shareholders. Thus, we approach the start of 2011 when many banks will be thinking about mobile for the first time realistically.

This is all woefully lagging the customer behavior curve, but good to finally see the majority of banks are starting to think of ways to enable customer behavior through the mobile device and now committing to not only iPhone, but Android platforms too.

The Future Mix

By 2015 the day-to-day interactions of the average retail customer will be very different. Driven by changing customer behaviors, increasing pressure on our time, increasing customer expectations around improved interactions and journeys, etc will drive a complete shift in channel priorities. By 2015 the #1 interacted channel (or by frequency if you prefer) will be mobile, #2 internet on the desktop and TV, #3 ATM, #4 Contact Centre, and #5 in the branch. Even #1 and #2 might tend to look a little the same; in that, as devices like the iPad become more capable the lines between ‘mobile’ and desktop blur, so the issue of the ‘journey’ or the interaction itself becomes very critical.

It’s not just one App that we will need either. There will be a bunch of interactions we’ll be managing in this space. Increasingly those journeys will become contextually integrated and delivered via HTML 5 no longer restricted to an “App” or browser-based, instead being based on a contextual trigger, event or service opportunity.

So obviously banks need to make a big P&L commitment to mobile as a channel and to journeys as a philosophy for serving the customer moving forward. So how is it that I advocate that you don’t need to worry about developing your App?

Lessons from VTB24 in Russia

Last week I visited with the multi-channel team at VTB24 in Russia. They are the second largest retail bank in Russia and have close to seven million customers. Given the growth in smartphone adoption and mobile usage in general in Russia, just like everywhere else in the world, there is an obvious urgency to investing in mobile platform development. This was the challenge presented to the VTB24 team.

VTB24 was strongly committed to a mobile App for the iPhone platform, but budget constraints being what they were, they didn’t expect to be able to invest in the development of the App until 2011. Some preliminary conceptual work had already been done, but the platform wouldn’t be mobilized till next year. They already had previously deployed WAP-based banking but this was looking tired compared with customers expectations for App-based mobile banking.

So in this environment, Daniel Gusev, who was tasked with developing the plan for development and launching the iPhone App, was very surprised to wake up one Saturday morning and find the following tweet:

“Great to see VTB24 finally has their iPhone app!” – Tweet (translated from Russian feed)

WHAT?!? This was Daniel’s immediate reaction. This can’t be right?! After all, he was the one tasked with developing the App, if someone else in VTB had been working on something, he would have known. So he logged on to the iTunes store in Russia and sure enough, there was the App for download.

The App as it appeared on the iTunes store

The immediate reaction was to suspect foul play. That someone had created an App to phish identity details from customers or use man-in-the-middle technology to conduct electronic theft. However, after requesting source code from Apple, VTB24 found that the App had no suspicious content, and in fact, had adapted the iPhone APIs around WAP commands to convert the mhtml-based commands of VTB’s to a workable iApp. An elegant, and workable solution.

Daniel then tracked down the developer and had a simple question? Why on earth would you do this?

The customer answered, “Well, I wanted iPhone banking and you guys didn’t have it, so I thought I would try to see if I could build it myself. When it worked, I figured other customers might use it too!”

Wow!

So VTB24 have engaged with the developer. They now have a live iPhone App that was built by a developer for a fraction of the cost, in a fraction of the time that they would have taken to develop it. Yet, it works and works well, even at some point claiming a number 3 spot in Finance section of the Russian App Store (without any marketing support from the Bank)

Conclusion

There is a lesson here. Sometimes due to embedded politics and internal gaming, we want to control such ‘projects’ as the “iPhone App” internally. We might argue around compliance, risk, security, etc, but this approach shows that by thinking outside of the box, we could actually have much quicker innovation in the customer space than we currently do.

The moment we turn the “iPhone App” into an internal project, we are essentially guaranteeing a 3-9 month turn around time to implement and launch. By engaging a developer community, we could reduce this time, cut costs, and probably end up with some really creative solutions that we would not have thought of ourselves.

Take this on the road. Try to breakdown the barriers and IT silos in respect to production of new channel solutions. The end result may be better than anything we could do internally.

BANK 2.0: Are Banks too Big to Change?

In Customer Experience, Retail Banking, Strategy, Technology Innovation on June 11, 2010 at 13:18

Reformists and regulators in the US, in the EU and in other jurisdictions are grappling with the problem of massive banks and how their financial health is tied up with the very vitality of the economy. This happens because as the banks are so large and represent a major indicator of the health of the stock market, and thus the macro-economy, it is possible that one of them went under it would have deleterious effects on the economy at large.

In the US space JP MorganChase, Wells Fargo and Bank of America are all in the top 20 traded stocks by market capitalization, Citibank makes an appearance also in the top traded stocks by volume. If either of one of these 4 banks were to go under, the effect on the stock market and the economy would likely be devastating. This is the classic argument of those that support the ‘too big to fail’ position.

Entities are considered to be “Too big to fail” by those who believe those entities are so central to a macroeconomy that their failure will be disastrous to an economy, and as such believe they should become recipients of beneficial financial and economic policies from governments and/or central banks.

Source: Wikipedia

There is another factor at work here, however, these organizations are structural behemoths. Between these 4 organizations, they employee just under 1 million people in North America alone. Between Google, Microsoft and Apple these top tech firms manage only 150,000 employees. In a tough year financially, the big 4 banks struggled with collective profit of $21.4Bn, while the top 3 tech firms reached a whopping $29.3Bn in operating profits.

To put this in perspective employees of the top US banks contributed roughly $22,256 each to the profit of their employers, whereas top tech employees amassed an impressive $195,973 each as a contribution to the bottom line. This difference in core profitability comes from relative organizational efficiencies and the ability to generate new revenue streams through innovation.

As banks have grown, they appear to become less efficient at generating returns for shareholders. This is where the issue of proprietary trading comes in. Proprietary trading has been used by banks in recent years to generate arbitrage opportunities for profit taking where shrinking margins no longer allowed the same. However, proprietary trading turned out to be an extremely risky way of earning profits during the financial crisis with bets on CDOs going the wrong way and banks getting hammered as a result…

“Merrill Lynch lost nearly $20 billion… Morgan Stanley had a nearly $4 billion loss in proprietary trading in [Q4] of 2007. Goldman Sachs spent $3 billion to bail out one of its hedge funds… Citi lost big — as much as $15 billion, on the CDOs it decided to hold rather than sell off…”

Stephen Gandel, Is Proprietary Trading Too Wild for Wall Street? Time.com, Feb 5th, 2010

So in an environment where product margins are being squeezed, markets are struggling (further reducing margin on investments) and where prop trading is under the microscope, where are new revenue opportunities to come from?

There are a raft of innovations rapidly occurring the in financial services space at the moment, largely independent of the banks. Smartypig, as one example of a cooperative model with traditional players, has developed a platform that has put a unique web 2.0 approach to deposits. Since launching in April of 2008, Smartypig has already taken deposits of more than $400m and are well on the way to more.

P2P lending, derided by traditional players as risky and unregulated, has started to generate some serious looking results. In May the Lending Club, a P2P collaborative social lending network, passed more than $10million a month in Loan Originations. Zopa, another social lending network based in the UK, is approaching half a million users who are happy to lend and borrow to each other.

In the payments arena, there is a plethora of competitors to the mainstream card issuers Visa and MasterCard. There’s PayPal, who continue to go from strength to strength. There’s Square, founded by Jack Dorsey of Twitter fame. More recently Facebook has entered the P2P payments space too.

The thing is – all of these really interesting innovations in financial services are being driven not by banks, but by start-ups, technology innovators and much more agile organizations. Why aren’t the banks at the forefront of these improvements?

Innovation is tough

Innovation is very difficult in traditional institutional structures

The issue lies in two core hurdles. The first is organizational inertia, the fact that for a very long time banks have focused on an organizational structure that is built around the branch as the core of the customer relationship. Products are manufactured around the branch, and marketing is limited to either branding or campaigns of the month. The most senior bankers in the organization are generally those from the ‘distribution’ side of the business. It all works like a grandfather clock.

The second issue is that banks have a metrics and financial system that is fundamentally flawed. Today bank strategy is reinforced by line item budgets that were built during the branch era, and management teams dominated by bankers with 30 years of traditional banking pedigree heavily invested in their real-estate.

These two hurdles are leaving third-parties to innovate the customer experience, and evidently this is where the intersection of changing consumer behavior and business models is creating real opportunities for improved revenue and profitability.

Banks need to hive off a portion of their best people, along with some new aggressive Y-Gen and digital native thinkers, to start thinking out of the box in an independent, cashed-up tiger team. This can’t be under the traditional organization structure because it will otherwise die a slow and agonizing death. This has to be about incubating very different approaches to an otherwise very traditional business, and it can’t happen within the current structures or environment.

Future EPS depends on it!

Forget greater regulation, social media will force transparency (HuffPost)

In Retail Banking, Social Networking, Strategy on May 10, 2010 at 09:53

See the original post on Huffington here

As President Obama was gearing up last month to push further reforms for the finance sector through congress, the sector lobbyists were also gearing up for a battle of PR wits to try to prevent changes that threaten the status quo.  Senior industry players like Jamie Dimon were extremely vocal in challenging the president’s push for greater regulation.

The mantra of “too big to fail” was the protection the big banks were all hoping to fall back on, and this call was certainly an underlying foundation of the bailout and TARP initiative in the US. The fear that if the biggest banks fail, the economic repercussions would be so serious that it is less costly and more economically prudent to bailout big banks so the economy didn’t get hurt further. Such sector lobbying and grandstanding is a fairly standard reaction to such government intervention, as we’ve seen time and time again.

But there is something more powerful than regulation or reform which looks like it will be a much more powerful force for creating change that even politicians will learn to fear – social media. In the recent UK elections, voter turnout was at the highest level in 13 years, largely due to the influence of social media in creating interest and driving participation in the election.

We’ve seen social media act as a force for small business and consumers in breaking the back of long held bank policies that have been unyielding even in the most regulated markets, with active ombudsmen or watchdogs. In February of this year Citibank was forced to very publicly back down from a policy-based decision on blocking the business account of a web start-up called Fabulis. In September of 2009 Ann Minch, a long and faithful BofA customer, posted a YouTube video documenting the interest rate increase on her BofA credit card from 12 to 30%. In the video Minch comments that she “could get a better rate from a loan shark”. Bank of America was unmoved by her social media efforts, at least initially. But after more than half a million views in just a few weeks, BofA was forced to reverse their interest rate increase and in doing so set a very public precedent for other customers.

Corporations are under the watchful eye of social media

This is a trend more and more questions by customers, more reversals in policy decisions that were once held as sacred and unmovable by the biggest corporations globally – basically they were too big to be challenged.

The largest corporate bankruptcies in history (see great infographic) largely occurred due to either lack of adherence to existing regulations (Lehman Bros), unbridled greed (Enron), lack of innovative thinking (GM) or just poor management. Even though Enron and Worldcom’s collapse resulted in the creation of the Sarbanes-Oxley act, it is generally believed that it is not lack of regulation that resulted in what were the biggest bankruptcies in US history at the time, but the intent of the management to circumvent existing regulations to create ‘arbitrage’ opportunities.

Great infographic on largest corporate bankruptcies (Source:www.good.is)

Goldman Sachs is being targeted for similar practices, this time around CDOs and the sub-prime crisis. Calls for Lloyd Blankfein’s resignation are sounding around Wall Street as Goldman’s shares have plummeted 19% since April 15, knocking $15 billion from Goldman’s market cap. The issue at hand is Goldman’s active strategy to make money from the collapsing sub-prime market, such as the so-called “Big Short”.

We saw the same shenanigans during the Enron debacle with empowered traders coming up with trading strategies they gave nicknames such as “Get Shorty”, “Fat Boy”, “Death Star”. This represents an institutional, wall street embraced, increased appetite for driving speculative bubbles or exploiting regulatory weaknesses to make extraordinary profits. Traders argue that arbitrage is just an ability to read risk and hedge appropriately, but when the traders have enough clout to create the bubble that generates the arbitrage opportunity, it takes on a different life – and creates lots of ethical questions.

We are coming to a point in time where such speculative, hedging and arbitrage strategies, or even outright fraud, are going to be a lot more difficult to execute because of the force of public opinion powered by social media.

We have come to an age where those organizations who are transparent, open and engaging with their customers will be rewarded. Those who don’t understand social media, refuse to participate in the conversation, and who don’t easily integrate customer needs, opinions and issues into their organization, will be punished – publicly and without mercy.

We often talk about the privacy implications of social media, but when it comes to large corporations – you most private, sacred issues will be played out on the public stage unless you are on top of social media and it’s impact on the voice of your customer.

Get ready for open, transparent customer engagement, 2.0 style!