(03-10-2023, 04:13 PM)dken31 Wrote: They provided them widely and freely as long as they did due to almost all of their customers wanting them at the time. If one bank didn't offer ATMs, customers would have left en masse to other ATM-providing banks; i.e. it was worth it for the banks to wear the cost of providing ATMs because it was essential for retaining customers. Now, however, with relatively fewer customers caring whether or not their bank provides ATMs (I genuinely don't even know the location of a single ATM) it is no longer worth it for them to provide so freely as ATM availability is unlikely to be a major consideration for many potential customers. It is the same deal with branches (again, I don't even know where my "local" branch is) where they are gradually being closed down as fewer & fewer customers care about them.
As for "there are always several people using or waiting...", it stands to reason that with a significant reduction in ATMs, the few remaining ATMs are still well utilised. Also, I'm guessing that banks keep track of each ATMs use, with that being a factor in which ones they get rid of first. So, if your one is usually busy, hopefully for your sake that is one of the last ones to go.
I think the banking situation is a good example of the overall service reductions we see today. Customer services cost money and because everyone feels cash-strapped we complain about the cost, and then complain about the inconvenience caused when the services are reduced. Then there are more reductions because what is left doesn't suit people and so it goes. For the two banks we use, one has only an ATM left on the main street, and the other has a branch open 4.5 hours on three days a week.
This week I had a couple of things to sort out that I much prefer to do in person. I missed closing time at the branch so did what they wanted and phoned rather than wait 2 days for the first transaction (the phone told me the wait time was over an hour, but did give me an email address and someone called me back in reply to my email).
For the second issue I waited until the branch was open, tried phoning the local number to make an appointment (they didn't answer) so went down (luckily it's close by) and then made the appointment for next week to see the staffer assigned to that work, who will presumably travel from the city just to see me. At the branch I saw three staff, and only one other customer. The place looked pretty dead. So I guess that they will close the branch before long because 3 staff for 13.5 hours a week can't justify the rent on the building. And so the cycle goes. Not that long ago there were always queues at the branch and we knew the staff. Now they are just strangers.
I'm sure they justify the changes by the money saved, and the shareholders are probably happy, but the customers haven't actually been asked whether they might prefer to have the divide between term deposit and mortgage interest structured so that they could still give us service from staff who know the ins and outs of our business.
(04-10-2023, 12:52 PM)king1 Wrote: What I felt to be the general consensus back then was the only real responsibility of the business is to the shareholder/owners. The rest of it (Environmental, reputation, being a good corporate citizen etc) was considered discretionary and only if in the best interests of the shareholders, unless required by law...
That sounds like a very narrow view. All of the things you list relate to the overall success of the business and therefore are part of the responsibility to the shareholders/owners. I think part of the slippery downward slide for a lot of companies is the fact that they have lost sight of those things so it's interesting that it's a perspective you were taught and no wonder that so many fail.