Category Archives: Customer Experience

The Last Half-Mile

Posted on by
Reply

One evening last week, I came home to find two separate deliveries waiting on my doorstep. Both had been delivered in error. The first was a bunch of flowers, but the named recipient, the street address and the suburb were all incorrect – it was for someone else in another postcode. The second was a packet of coffee beans (part of my monthly subscription), but I had already received the same delivery the day before – so this was clearly a duplicate. Welcome to the perennial logistics challenge of the “last half-mile”.

Delivery-on-Demand: 5 years ago, Auspost was experimenting with drone deliveries (image sourced from IT News)

It seems that despite the increased demand for on-line shopping and home deliveries during lock-down, supply chain logistics are still struggling to find a consistent and reliable solution. Coincidentally, in recent weeks I have been pitched two different start-up ideas that aim to address the last half-mile challenge for e-commerce. Although they are each taking slightly different approaches, both start-ups are trying to address the “recipient not at home” dilemma – what to do with parcels and deliveries when there is no-one at home? Their respective solutions revolve around a “localised point of collection/delivery” – either using a more convenient network of click & collect facilities, or a network of trusted neighbours to receive deliveries on your behalf. I have previously covered another Melbourne start-up called Passel based on a network of trusted local couriers – but it doesn’t seem to have progressed very far.*

So if this is a recurring theme, why can’t it be fixed – or are the solutions out of step with the actual problem? Or is the problem not that big of an issue to warrant over-engineered answers? In attempting to provide constructive feedback to both the recent pitches, I gave similar responses in each case, which can be summarised as follows:

Using a proxy recipient still does not solve the problem of items being delivered to the wrong address (or wrong items delivered to the correct address). In particular, it doesn’t address the issue of Australia Post personnel carding an item as “not at home” when in fact they simply can’t be bothered to attempt delivery and prefer drop it off at the local Post Office for collection – believe me, I have had more than my fair share of those.

Localised click & collect services already exist – usually in convenient locations, and often accessible outside Australia Post’s normal hours. Plus more parcel locker and similar services are appearing – so is the demand really there for another delivery solution?

Who is responsible for insurance claims on lost or damaged packages, where the named recipient (who has the sales contract with the seller) does not match some of the relevant transaction details associated with the proxy recipient?

Likewise, if you are using proxy delivery or collection services, who is responsible for managing returns and/or unclaimed items? Some retailers will take items back and offer refunds as a matter of policy – but others won’t or can’t process returned stock, and end up re-selling into secondary supply chains at a discount.

How do you recruit and screen proxy recipients and deliverers, and build trust into the network? How do you avoid an under/over-supply of proxy providers – too few and the system gets choked; too many and it’s not worth their time and effort to sign up.

How do you recruit and service multiple retailers and/or their point of sale and fulfillment providers to make it a viable service for customers who wish to shop from multiple shops and brands?

Who (and how) do you charge for the additional convenience you are trying to offer – retailer, customer, or both? Suggested options include a per transaction fee and/or an annual subscription fee, or a check-out fee which can be rebated based on loyalty or other frequent buyer rewards. But the “convenience premium” cannot be disproportionate to the value of the transaction.

Even with more customised delivery options such as trusted neighbours, the issue of having to be at home during quite wide delivery hours (e..g, 8am to 1pm, or 9am to 5pm) still applies.

Confirming proof of delivery is still a pre-requisite – even more so if using proxy delivery addresses – and potentially adds another layer of complexity.

Finally, the need for immediate “Delivery-on-demand” may be overstated, at least on non-perishable goods, so a constant stream of delivery drones down every suburban street is probably some way off….. but maybe don’t rule it out if we have further pandemic-related lock-downs or continuing challenges in the COVID vaccine rollout.

* Similarly, I also blogged about other customer experience with the final step in fulfillment across a number of sectors, including e-commerce.

Next week: Notes from Blockchain Week

Open Banking and the Consumer Data Right

Posted on by
Reply

While most of Australia has been preoccupied by things such as Covid-19 lock-downs, border closures, which contestant got eliminated from Big Brother/Masterchef, and which federal politician went to an NRL game (and depending on which State you live in), the ACCC has implemented the first phase of the Consumer Data Right regime (aka Open Banking).

The TLDR on this new regulation, which has been several years in the making, can be distilled as follows:

Banks can no longer deny customers the right to share their own customer data with third parties.

So, in essence, if I am a customer of Bank A, and I want to transfer my business to Bank B, I have the right to request Bank A to share relevant information about my account to Bank B – Bank A can no longer hold on to or refuse to share that information.

Why does this matter? Well, a major obstacle to competition, customer choice and product innovation has been the past refusal by banks to allow customers to share their own account information with third party providers – i.e., it has been an impediment to  customer switching (and therefore anti-competitive), and a barrier to entry for new market entrants (and therefore a drag on innovation).

Of course, there are some caveats. Data can only be shared with an accredited data recipient, as a means to protect banking security and preserve data privacy. And at first, the CDR will only apply to debit and credit cards, transaction accounts and deposit accounts. But personal loans and mortgages will follow in a few months. (And the CDR is due to be extended to utilities, telcos and insurance in coming years – going further than even the similar UK Open Banking scheme.)

Although I welcome this new provision, it still feels very limited in application and scope. Even one of the Four Pillar banks couldn’t really articulate what it will actually mean for consumers. They also revealed something of a self-serving and defensive tone in a recent opinion piece:

“Based on experience in other markets, initial take up by consumers is likely to be low due to limited awareness and broader sensitivities around data use.”

Despite our fondness for bank-bashing (and the revelations from the recent Royal Commission), Australians are generally seen as being reluctant to switch providers. Either because it’s too hard (something that the CDR is designed to address), or customers are lazy/complacent. In fact, recent evidence suggests existing customers of the big four banks are even more likely to recommend them.

For FinTechs and challenger brands, the costs of complying with some aspects of the CDR are seen as too onerous, and as such, act as another impediment to competition and innovation. Therefore, we will likely see a number of “trusted” intermediaries who will receive customer data on behalf of third party providers – which will no doubt incur other (hidden?) costs for the consumer.

Full competition will come when consumers can simply instruct their existing bank to plug their data into a product or price comparison service, to identify the best offers out there for similar products. (Better still, why not mandate incumbents to notify their existing customers when they have a better or cheaper product available? A number of times I have queried the rate on an existing product, only to be offered a better deal when I suggested I might take my business elsewhere.)

Recently, my bank unilaterally decided to change the brand of my credit card. Instead of showing initiative by offering to transfer my existing subscriptions and direct debits to the new card, the bank simply told me to notify vendors and service providers myself. If I didn’t request the change of card, why am I being put to the inconvenience of updating all my standing orders?

For real innovation, we need banks and other providers to maintain a unified and single view of customer (not a profile organised by individual products or accounts). Moreover, we need a fully self-sovereign digital ID solution, that truly puts the customer in charge and in control of their own data – by enabling customers to decide who, what, when, why and for how long they share data with third parties. For example, why do I still need 100 points of identity with Bank B if I’m already a client of Bank A?

Finally, rather than simply trying to make money from managing our financial assets, banks and others have an opportunity to ensure we are managing our financial data in a more efficient and customer-centric way.

Next week: Counting the cost of Covid19

 

 

 

The Finnies

Posted on by
Reply

The third annual FinTech Australia awards were celebrated in Melbourne last week, following the organisation’s relocation from Sydney during the past 12 months. Any concerns the organisers and sponsors may have harboured (given the switch in geography) were easily allayed, as the event was sold out, with over 300 guests in attendance.

The overall winners were definitely B2C brands – challenger banks, consumer lenders, payment providers – with Airwallex, Afterpay (which despite some recent negative press was named the FinTech of the year for the third time) and Up Bank taking out more than a third of the awards between them.

Despite the 30 per cent increase in the number of entries (over 230 in all), it did feel like the Fintech community is still something of a village, as several award presenters were themselves presented with awards. Maybe something for the organisers to think about for next time, as it’s not always a good look when winners end up presenting to each other.

On the other hand, the organisers are to be commended for the running order – unlike some industry events, the awards were all presented in a single session, and not dragged out from soup to nuts. It was also a great decision to use the Victorian Innovation Hub as the venue, as well as have grazing-style catering instead of a sit-down dinner. And the choice of live band was excellent, as past, current and future bankers cut a rug.

Next week: Brexit Blues

 

Life After the Royal Commission – Be Careful What You Wish For….

Posted on by
Reply

In the wake of the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Financial Services Industry (aka the Hayne Report), one of the four major banks announced that it would be removing bonus payments for its front line tellers. This was supposedly in line with Hayne’s proposal that performance-linked remuneration, financial incentives and sales commissions in the financial services industry need to be restructured.

Image sourced from Small Caps

This prompted a mixed reaction among the public, based on some of the comments I have read on social media. Some felt that the tellers were being made scapegoats for the banks’ bigger failings – others felt that this was an inevitable outcome from the banking backlash.

Personally, I believe the announcement is potentially just one of the many likely “unforeseen consequences” to come out of the Royal Commission – I’m not saying this particular decision is good or bad, just that we need to be aware of what’s likely to happen based on Hayne’s key recommendations. Be careful what you wish for. And, as an underlying theme to this whole debate, let’s not forget that most Australians are shareholders (directly or indirectly via their Super) of the Four Pillar Banks (one of the greatest government-endorsed and legislatively protected market oligopolies around which also helped steer us through the GFC relatively unscathed….).

So, what else might we see?

First, as with financial advice, residential mortgages will move to a “buyer pays” model. Brokers would not be able to receive commissions from mortgage providers or other intermediaries based on the products they sell, recommend or refer – instead, mortgage applicants will be expected to pay for the services of a broker, who will therefore be under an obligation to find the best product for their client. But removing trailing commissions and other conflicted remuneration may also mean that brokers could seek to earn additional fees from their mortgage clients by re-contacting them a year or so later (with permission, of course) to inform them of a better deal. (Even now, lenders are not explicitly obliged to let existing customers know if they have a newer product that may be better for them). Some estimates suggest that fee-for-service will add about $3,000 to the initial cost of applying for a mortgage. Whether this will also lead to more competition among mortgage providers (who will no longer have to pay broker commissions) is not clear.

Second, the increased focus on acting in the best interests of the customer may result in placing all financial planners, brokers, advisors, insurers, and banks (and their officers, agents and employees) under a fiduciary duty of care to their clients – even if they are not directly managing specific assets, selling a specific product or advising on specific services or financial strategies. In other words, advisors etc. will be deemed to have taken ALL of a client’s needs and circumstances into account. (This is largely the result of the miss-selling of financial products, and the charging of fees for “no service”, by banks and their retail wealth management arms.)

Third, the increased cost of compliance will disproportionately impact smaller financial institutions such as credit unions, member-owned banks and other mutual societies, who came through the Royal Commission pretty much unscathed. Those costs will need to be passed on, to customers and members. Of course, there has also been some political debate around the need for some sort of banking levy – which will ultimately be passed on to shareholders or customers (who are often the same people…).

Fourth, and related to the above, the separation of roles between those superannuation trustees who act as both fund trustees and as responsible entities of managed investment schemes will have a knock-on effect in terms of operating and compliance costs. Such dual-regulated entities will have to decide whether to focus on their trustee role, or appoint a separate and independent responsible entity in respect of the asset management.

Fifth, the higher compliance and regulatory obligations may deter or inhibit more competition – either from new market entrants from overseas, or from local start-ups. The recent restricted ADI model (aimed at enabling challenger or neo-bank brands) has not exactly seen a raft of applications, and off-shore banks tend to come and go in successive waves, largely driven by market conditions. If lending standards are further tightened, it may be less attractive for foreign firms to set up local operations. In fact, there have been calls to force some smaller superannuation funds to merge with larger funds, or exit altogether for reasons of scale and efficiency – potentially taking out some of the competition in that sector. And if mortgage brokers have to move to a fee-for-service model, it will likely force some providers to exit the industry, as happened with the FOFA reforms in financial planning and wealth management.

Sixth, at the level of corporate governance, boards of financial services providers will need to be mindful of their duty to act in the best interests of the company – which has traditionally meant the share holders – and the increased duty of care towards their customers, which may at times be at complete odds. Non-executive directors willing to serve on the boards of banks and insurers may also be harder to find, at a time when there is already a high concentration of directors who sit on multiple boards across Australia’s biggest companies. So, board diversity may be even harder to achieve, especially if non-executive directorships become subject to even greater formal qualification, to ensure board members have appropriate professional experience, industry knowledge and technical expertise, as well as financial competence and risk management skills.

Finally, all this is happening as we face something of a credit squeeze (thanks to increased lending standards and greater provisioning for risk-weighted assets) heightened economic uncertainty (slowing GDP growth, lower productivity, wage stagnation, falling property prices), and an upcoming General Election campaign during which the Hayne Report will be held up as a key reason for why “things have to change”. The irony being that, except in a few areas, the complaints aired and wrong-doing uncovered during the Royal Commission could have been addressed by the regulators and enforcement agencies via existing laws on financial services, prudential standards, and general consumer protection (unfair contract terms, unconscionable conduct, deceptive and misleading behaviour). Plus, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (which combines the remit of the former Financial Ombudsman Service, the Credit and Investments Ombudsman and the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal) has a wide jurisdiction over consumer complaints relating to Credit, Finance and Loans, Insurance, Banking Deposits and Payments, Investments and Financial Advice, and Superannuation. And as with most External Dispute Resolution agencies, AFCA and its predecessors have an obligation to report on systemic issues within their industry.

Next week: Pitch X