Rich
2018-07-21 14:53:38 UTC
####################################################################
# ATTENTION: This post is a reference to a website. The poster of #
# this Usenet article is not the author of the referenced website. #
####################################################################
<URL:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/19/cashless-soci
ety-con-big-finance-banks-closing-atms>
# ATTENTION: This post is a reference to a website. The poster of #
# this Usenet article is not the author of the referenced website. #
####################################################################
<URL:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/19/cashless-soci
ety-con-big-finance-banks-closing-atms>
All over the western world banks are shutting down cash machines and
branches. They are trying to push you into using their digital payments
and digital banking infrastructure. Just like Google wants everyone to
access and navigate the broader internet via its privately controlled
search portal, so financial institutions want everyone to access and
navigate the broader economy through their systems.
Another aim is to cut costs in order to boost profits. Branches require
staff. Replacing them with standardised self-service apps allows the
senior managers of financial institutions to directly control and
monitor interactions with customers.
Banks, of course, tell us a different story about why they do this. I
recently got a letter from my bank telling me that they are shutting
down local branches because "customers are turning to digital", and they
are thus "responding to changing customer preferences". I am one of the
customers they are referring to, but I never asked them to shut down the
branches.
There is a feedback loop going on here. In closing down their branches,
or withdrawing their cash machines, they make it harder for me to use
those services. I am much more likely to "choose" a digital option if
the banks deliberately make it harder for me to choose a non-digital
option.
In behavioural economics this is referred to as "nudging". If a powerful
institution wants to make people choose a certain thing, the best
strategy is to make it difficult to choose the alternative.
We can illustrate this with the example of self-checkout tills at
supermarkets. The underlying agenda is to replace checkout staff with
self-service machines to cut costs. But supermarkets have to convince
their customers. They thus initially present self-checkout as a
convenient alternative. When some people then use that alternative, the
supermarket can cite that as evidence of a change in customer behaviour,
which they then use to justify a reduction in checkout employees. This
in turn makes it more inconvenient to use the checkout staff, which in
turn makes customers more likely to use the machines. They slowly wean
you off staff, and "nudge" you towards self-service.
Financial institutions, likewise, are trying to nudge us towards a
cashless society and digital banking. The true motive is corporate
profit. Payments companies such as Visa and Mastercard want to increase
the volume of digital payments services they sell, while banks want to
cut costs. The nudge requires two parts. First, they must increase the
inconvenience of cash, ATMs and branches. Second, they must vigorously
promote the alternative. They seek to make people "learn" that they want
digital, and then "choose" it.
...
branches. They are trying to push you into using their digital payments
and digital banking infrastructure. Just like Google wants everyone to
access and navigate the broader internet via its privately controlled
search portal, so financial institutions want everyone to access and
navigate the broader economy through their systems.
Another aim is to cut costs in order to boost profits. Branches require
staff. Replacing them with standardised self-service apps allows the
senior managers of financial institutions to directly control and
monitor interactions with customers.
Banks, of course, tell us a different story about why they do this. I
recently got a letter from my bank telling me that they are shutting
down local branches because "customers are turning to digital", and they
are thus "responding to changing customer preferences". I am one of the
customers they are referring to, but I never asked them to shut down the
branches.
There is a feedback loop going on here. In closing down their branches,
or withdrawing their cash machines, they make it harder for me to use
those services. I am much more likely to "choose" a digital option if
the banks deliberately make it harder for me to choose a non-digital
option.
In behavioural economics this is referred to as "nudging". If a powerful
institution wants to make people choose a certain thing, the best
strategy is to make it difficult to choose the alternative.
We can illustrate this with the example of self-checkout tills at
supermarkets. The underlying agenda is to replace checkout staff with
self-service machines to cut costs. But supermarkets have to convince
their customers. They thus initially present self-checkout as a
convenient alternative. When some people then use that alternative, the
supermarket can cite that as evidence of a change in customer behaviour,
which they then use to justify a reduction in checkout employees. This
in turn makes it more inconvenient to use the checkout staff, which in
turn makes customers more likely to use the machines. They slowly wean
you off staff, and "nudge" you towards self-service.
Financial institutions, likewise, are trying to nudge us towards a
cashless society and digital banking. The true motive is corporate
profit. Payments companies such as Visa and Mastercard want to increase
the volume of digital payments services they sell, while banks want to
cut costs. The nudge requires two parts. First, they must increase the
inconvenience of cash, ATMs and branches. Second, they must vigorously
promote the alternative. They seek to make people "learn" that they want
digital, and then "choose" it.
...