Others have mentioned that it is important to them that a bank is able to help them make their mark on the world. There is the idea of a bank helping a person thrive, but then there is the current perception that “thriving” is really reconciling that you will end with less than you had hoped. The people I talked to understand that the economy will not improve anytime soon; one even gave the dismal projection of “10-15 years” before we bounce back. They are working harder than ever to make up for their losses, and their friends and colleagues are postponing retirement. Dan says he is still trying to stick to his financial plan; Emily keeps at the back of her mind that “anything can happen”.Opportunity: People are struggling now to stop the bleeding; they’ve lost investments and most of any nest egg/legacy they had built for themselves/their children. It might be ambitious (and seen as disingenuous) for a bank to promise people a future they’ve already resigned themselves with having lost, but there is an opportunity still to help them leave their mark on the world.
More comments from Mark Miller, Executive Strategy Director at Team One:
ReplyDeleteUnder the heading of 'helping me to leave my mark,' I think there are a couple of different ways to consider this observation. On the one hand, banks could relate on a smaller, truer scale in line with current affluent ambitions: a family I'm proud of OR a career I'm proud OR even just doing my small part VERSUS the older sort of 'change the world' mentality. In this scenario, you'd put the focus on celebrating accomplishment and achievement and you would, as you've described Katherine, challenge the very notion of what legacy and thriving are all about; more grounded though no less important or significant. On the other hand, knowing that affluents have felt the need to lower their standards - or to just be more realistic these days - you could incite them to take a more optimistic route. There was some really nice work done by Saatchi in the recent past that proclaimed, 'dreams never retire.' I think that notion has relevance here too. While being responsible counts at a time when institutions have been generally irresponsible, affluents do want to dream; a short-term down economy does not have to mean a life of lowered expectations. Many affluents, especially new affluents, didn't get ahead by accepting the status quo, but by challenging it and forging ahead when others told them 'it couldn't be done.' Connecting around that shared ideology - that dreams are worth pursuing - may be salient here. Don't think a bank can promise to make dreams happen - this shouldn't be a cause and effect style solution - but they can share the belief.
This is a bit of wild card thought - maybe a lot of one - but if I factored out some of the interview specific learnings and just stayed focused on your broad heading (around redefining legacy and thriving) I was inspired to ask this question: could a bank ever 'put its money where its mouth is?' Said another way, could a bank ever invest in helping to create change and a legacy to be proud of OR get us, as a society, back to thriving? Mark's really bad example: What if a bank invested in building water purification systems in third world countries. It's an entrepreneurial solution to a growing problem; it's towards sustainability and it's certainly about change in perpetuity. Sort of an 'actions speak louder than words' style of solution. So, we wouldn't just run ad messages, we'd exhibit a series of behaviors that proved what our bank believes. Or maybe we run a challenge to see what solutions our customers could come up with that is toward creating a new legacy and thriving in a modern world. Whatever idea is best, we could fund/support as a bank.