Three million Australians unhappy with financial institutions
Over three million Australians are dissatisfied with their main financial institution and a further two million say they plan to switch brands in the next six months, according to global measurement company, Nielsen.
The research house also reported 50 per cent of Australians surveyed were not even prepared to recommend their institution to others, and one in four didn’t trust the banks to invest their money well.
The trends indicated respondents aged 35 to 54 were most dissatisfied, with more than one in two not willing to provide a recommendation to friends or family.
Nielsen’s head of financial services and insurance, Jo Brockhurst, said there was a “Promise Gap”, where the brand marketing and values of a company were not in sync with the customer’s end experience.
“When you overlay the marketing and brand attributes of the financial institutions compared to the actual experiences, it becomes apparent there is a huge gulf between what the customer expects and what is being delivered,” she said.
The report indicated that while most Australians nominated better interest rates and lower fees as the primary reason for switching to another financial institution, other factors affecting their decision were also recommendations from friends and professionals, better customer services and larger product offerings.
“Brands that want to address these frustrations need to capitalise on the three most common reasons cited by Australians as to why they would recommend their financial institution,” said Brockhurst.
“These are the ease in which they deal with the customer (36 per cent), good customer service (27 per cent), and good value for products and services (26 per cent).”
Brockhurst said 20 per cent also rank the company’s reputation, and another 20 cent rank staff as key reasons for recommendation.
AUTHOR
Anastasia Santoreneos
Recommended for you
As the industry navigates the fallout from recent product failures, two major AFSLs have detailed their APL selection process and relationship with research houses, warning a selection error could “destroy” a licensee.
The impending retirement of financial advisers in their 50s could see the profession face significant succession challenges over the coming decade and younger advisers may not be the answer.
With a third of AFSLs being solo advisers, how can they navigate key person risk and ensure they are still attractive propositions for buyers when it comes to their succession planning?
A quarter of advisers who commenced on the FAR within the last two years have already switched licensees or practices, adding validity to practice owners’ professional year (PY) concerns.
