Automated mobile phone alerts are, in theory, an excellent way to communicate with bank customers about possible fraud, low balances and transaction status.
In reality, banks’ mobile alerts are in need of improvement, say industry analysts.
“Alerts on paper sound great,” says Mark Schwanhausser, director of omnichannel financial services at Greenwich Associates-owned Javelin Strategy Research. “Everyone wants to have a way to communicate with customers in a personalized way without costing too much.”
The importance alerts has grown with the popularity of mobile devices themselves.
“In the last few years, mobile phones have become staples of everyday life,” says Alex Carriles, director of self-service channels at BBVA Compass. “We have phones next to us pretty much 24/7 and if anything happens in our life that may have some impact, especially in finances, we want to know and we want to know right away. Mobile alerts are part of that.”
But problems with banks’ mobile alerts include delayed timing, ambiguity, banker-speak, conflicts with email messages, and the inability for customers to take action to fix the potential problem conveyed.
“Notoriously, [banks’] alerts are substandard,” Schwanhausser says. “If [the bank] alerts you to nonsense, the downside is people will start to ignore alerts and maybe not sign up for them in the future.”
Flawed alerts present a reputational risk to banks that brag about their mobile channel features, he adds. That risk will rise as more people enroll in alerts.
Yet alerts remain popular. According to a June report published by ath Power Consulting, only 38% of customers don’t receive mobile alerts from their financial institutions. Michael McEvoy, managing director of the Boston consulting firm, says alerts can improve service and customer perception of banks and help drive customers to a lower-cost channel.
One common mistake banks make relates to timing. Late night text messages with garbled content are best avoided. “In alerts, the timing is very important,” says McEvoy. “You don’t want to send out alerts to most people at 3:00 a.m.”
Nor would a bank want to sit on a time-sensitive message. If a person receives an alert saying he’s nearing his credit limit the day after the software spotted the risk, the value is likely gone. In other words: refrain from telling customers about yesterday’s news through a channel designed for immediacy. This problem occurs at banks that process batch notifications overnight.
“A best practice would be to let the person define the parameters of when he would receive an alert,” says McEvoy.
Some institutions do this, including JPMorgan Chase, USAA and City Bank Texas.
Do Not Disturb
City Bank Texas lets customers decide when the Lubbock, Texas bank can text them. Otherwise, the bank’s alert engine would message the customer to a transaction, to a low balance or to possible fraud any time of day or night. “We like to consider ourselves near real-time,” says Jim Simpson, senior vice president and chief technology officer at the bank.
ClairMail, now owned by Monitise, powers City Bank Texas’ texting capabilities.
One timing issue is outside the bank’s control. Typically, City Bank Texas customers who sign up for transaction alerts will receive text messages within four to six seconds after swiping their cards. If the alerts are delayed, due to something like a carrier issue, the frustrated customer could end up calling the bank. “Users get very dependent,” says Simpson. “That’s the nature of the beast.”