Ron Shevlin, the Forrester alum who blogs at Marketing ROI and occasionally at NetBanker (posts here), has been on a roll recently with a number of thought-provoking posts that take on the conventional wisdom we hear in meetings, press releases, and other soundbites picked up by the press.

Earlier this month, Ron challenged some of the statements made in the press implying that the downfall of NetBank was caused by its online delivery strategies (here). That initial post led to an interesting discussion culminating in this gem (here) where he takes on the whole notion that banks MUST have branches to acquire new accounts, concluding (words in parenthesis are my additions to show context):

"The inability of the Internet to supplant the branch as the acquisition channel of choice (so far) has very little to do with the inherent superiority of the branch, and everything to do with the (current) inferiority of the online channel." 

And my favorite, this zinger:

In effect, bank branches are just big, expensive security blankets.

Inspired by his post, I've come up with what I'll call the "5 Habits of Inefficient Delivery" (see note 1). 

Habit #1: Customers go to branches to solve service problems.

Expensive solution: Build more multi-million dollar branches to house expensive service reps to sooth frustrated customers. 

Better solutions: (A) Improve the product/service so there are fewer problems; (B) Solve customer problems online in near real-time, not "within 24 to 48 hours"; (C) Empower online support reps to solve problems without forcing the customer to make an hour-long trek to a branch.

Habit #2: Customers go to branches to apply for new accounts.

Expensive solution: Build more multi-million dollar branches and staff them with well-compensated sales agents to transcribe applications hand-delivered by customers.

Better solutions: (A) Develop a killer online sales process that helps customers choose the right option; (B) Provide a user-friendly application with 24/7 online support and solid guarantees. 

Habit #3: Customers feel more comfortable with a bank that has a large branch presence.

Expensive solution: Build more multi-million dollar branches or what Ron calls, "big, expensive security blankets."

Better solutions: (A) Trust your customers and treat them right at every opportunity, and they'll remain loyal no matter how many branches you operate; (B) Keep prices competitive, i.e., no more 10 basis points of interest for a savings account (see here). 

Habit #4: Customers like to use the branch to deposit paper checks.

Expensive solution: Build more multimillion-dollar branches that serve as human-powered ATMs.

Better solution: Until paper checks disappear, use remote-deposit capture, envelope-free (image) ATMs, and instant credit for mailed deposits such as Pennsylvania School Employees Credit Union's (PSECU) Upost@Home (previous coverage here) (see note 2).

Habit #5: Customers go to branches because they are there.

Expensive solution: Build more multimillion-dollar branches to stay within a few minutes' drive or walk for most of your customers

Better solution: Make the online and telephone customer experience so phenomenal and complete that no one misses the branches as they close and consolidate

Notes:

1. For more information, see Online Banking Report, "The Demise of the Branch"

2. On a related note, see PSECU's "Go Branchless" campaign (here)

Well, not so much when compared with other Western countries; however, the bigger question is whether they are all overbranched. Only Singapore, with 111 branches per million inhabitants, is in a good position cost-wise. Italy and Switzerland, with more than 700 branches per million, have their work cut out for them as they reduce the number of branches from a level twice as high per capita as the U.S. total of 372 per million.

At our sister publication Online Banking Report, we've predicted that the total number of branches in the United States will fall by about 40% during the next 20 years (see note 1). Given expected population growth, that equates to about half the number of branches per million (using the BIS baseline, our projection is that the U.S. would have fewer than 200 branches per million in 2025).  The reason for the decline is the rise of the out-of-branch channels: phone, online, ATM, and soon mobile (see note 2).

Here's some interesting data from the Bank for International Settlements <bis.org>. Click on the table below to read the five-year data trend. The 270-page PDF is located here.

Interestingly, of the 13 countries covered in the report, only Hong Kong, Singapore, Sweden and The Netherlands have fewer branches per capita than the United States. We have almost 25% less than the 13-country average. Only two countries showed an increase in the 2001-2005 period: Italy which added 1,500 branches and the United States which grew about 6,000 (see note 2).

Here's the list in order of most branches to fewest per million inhabitants:

1. Italy                 >>> 762
2. Switzerland   >>> 701
3. France            >>> 649
4. Belgium          >>> 566
5. Germany        >>> 561
6. UK                     >>> 472
<< <AVERAGE >>> 471
7. Japan               >>> 459
8. Canada             >>> 441
9. U.S.                    >>> 372
10. Sweden          >>> 295
11. Netherlands >>> 270
12. Hong Kong   >>> 249
13. Singapore     >>>  111

Notes:

1. See Online Banking Report's Decline of the Branch (#128), published May 2006.

2. Tom Brown's been writing about the trouble some banking chains have been having with the performance of their new de novo branches (see here).  

3. In 2001 and 2002, the U.S. branch total in the BIS data-set excluded credit unions.