How to make life that bit harder

[Lilith7]

Monstrous. Some ATM's will be charging a fee to withdraw money. Because they're greedy & they can. Eastgate is one of the poorer suburbs; I wonder why they didn't try this over in Merivale or Fendalton...

Someone contacted Chris Lynch about this, whereupon it was suddenly all a terrible mistake. 

And really, it seems highly unlikely they'd be doing this unless they're making a profit.



https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/3...vider-says


"Banks reducing the number of cash machines they offer are creating an opportunity for private ATMs, charging higher fees, to take over – but the fees should not be as high as the $7.50 some users have spotted.

A Next-branded ATM at Christchurch shopping centre Eastgate sparked concerns at the weekend when it displayed a message telling customers they would be charged $7.50 per transaction.

Next spokesperson Wibo Basoma said that was an error. “My team put in the wrong description file.”

He said transactions would be free for the first three months, and then $2.80.

In comparison, most banks no longer charge a fee for withdrawing cash from their own ATMs or those of other banks.

“We just provide a service – the banks are pulling out and banks are reducing their footprint, that's what we are filling in,” Basoma said."

Claire Matthews, a banking expert from Massey University, said it was unlikely that private ATM providers were making big profits.

“They certainly charge higher fees – that has always been the case. I doubt that it means they are making huge profits; rather, I think it reflects the costs of running an ATM network and making a reasonable profit. Banks have probably been willing to accept a breakeven position on ATMs and have also been able to save on some location costs by having many of them in their own branches.”

https://www.chrislynchmedia.com/news-ite...ZBTiLruTqf




[b]"Shoppers at Eastgate Mall can be rest assured they won't face “obscene” ATM fees. [/b]

Over the weekend, numerous customers contacted Chris Lynch Media after encountering a surprising $7.50 transaction fee message at both Next ATM machines.
Chris Lynch Media visited the mall on Sunday and many patrons chose not to proceed with their transactions upon seeing the fee.
Christchurch City Councillor Yani Johanson, who was at the mall to investigate, described the fee as "excessive".


He commended Countdown supermarket for offering an alternative for customers to access their cash.



[b]However, Eastgate Shopping Centre Manager Karina Tainui told Chris Lynch Media the mall checked with the NEXT Payment company. [/b]

“This morning we were assured that the $7.50 charge was a screen error and on checking bank statements one should find that the $7.50 charge has not been applied.

“Next ATM's has apologied for the confusion."

[dken31]

Its a private service that no one is compelled to use, i.e. if you don't like the fee then don't use their service. Note that these are non-bank ATMs, so they're not an ancillary service that can be funded from fees received on other banking services; if these service providers don't charge fees for withdrawing money, they have no income at all.

As to whether or not $7.50 per transaction is "too much", that is a matter of opinion, however their response suggests even they though it a bit much. Having said that, as the Massey University "banking expert" said, they're unlikely to be making huge profits, as even at $7.50 per transaction, they need a lot of transactions to cover the cost of supplying and maintaining the machines. But it is really no different to my local dairy charging $6.80 for a 2L bottle of milk that I can get cheaper elsewhere: they're simply hoping that customers will accept their high price for the sake of convenience.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Yesterday my fruit shop had a sign adding 2.5% for debit cards. So I fished out my eftpos card and discovered it had expired the day before.

Bastards.

[Lilith7]

Its a private service that no one is compelled to use, i.e. if you don't like the fee then don't use their service.  Note that these are non-bank ATMs, so they're not an ancillary service that can be funded from fees received on other banking services; if these service providers don't charge fees for withdrawing money, they have no income at all.

As to whether or not $7.50 per transaction is "too much", that is a matter of opinion, however their response suggests even they though it a bit much.  Having said that, as the Massey University "banking expert" said, they're unlikely to be making huge profits, as even at $7.50 per transaction, they need a lot of transactions to cover the cost of supplying and maintaining the machines.  But it is really no different to my local dairy charging $6.80 for a 2L bottle of milk that I can get cheaper elsewhere: they're simply hoping that customers will accept their high price for the sake of convenience.

I think they tested the water with their pricing & got a bad reaction, as they deserved. And they wouldn't seriously be doing this out of the kindness of their hearts; there has to be a profit in it for them somewhere.
And if they try this on a large scale, then I suspect their ATM's will be given a bypass by most.

[dken31]

Non-bank ATMs are hardly new and they've always charged fees and I imagine most people avoid them most of the time. However, on the rare occasion that I've needed cash but haven't been able to get to a bank ATM but there has been a non-bank ATM handy, I've happily paid the fee.

It wouldn't surprise me if they aren't making any money at $2.80 (they certainly aren't at free for 3 months) but are instead doing damage control before they gradually increase prices once this has all died down

I charge 2.9% credit card fees to my customers, because that is what my payment service provider charges me (I.e. I don't see a cent of that 2.9%). I make the extra fee very clear to my customers, tell them that its an option if they want it but that I don't recommend it, but a surprising number still chose to pay that way even when the fee is $50+ (e.g. on a $2K+ invoice).

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Yes. Like electric kiwi charging 1% if I choose to pay rather than let them direct debit. Which seems strange to me.

If these are bank fee related it is time we put the squeeze on banks. After all service has declined, profit has skyrocketed. They have truly become usurers.

[alpha111]

I was in Broadbeach, Gold Coast last month. The ATM in the Oasis shopping center came up with a charge of $3.50 per transaction. Of course ANZ had used Covid as an excuse to shut the local branch and ATM so had to use the free shuttle to go to the branch in Pacific Fair.
Naturally the Governments will not do anything about it there or in NZ.

[dken31]

What would you like governments to do about it? Compelling private businesses to provide a certain service at a certain price never works. The only time I think governments should get involved in pricing is when there is collusion between "competitors" (aka price fixing where supposed competitors actually cooperate to be able to all increase prices).

The problem with ATMs is that hardly anyone uses them anymore making them uneconomical to provide for cheap/free. Although removing them or switching to expensive user pays non-bank ATMs is hard on those that find it difficult to use alternatives, they might just have to accept that free/cheap ATMs are a thing of the past.

It happens with other things as well: I remember buying a decent diskman for about $30 15-20 years ago whereas when I wanted one recently for my kids, the only option was a poor quality looking one for about $200, at which point I decided they didn't need one after all. I'm not angry with Sony etc for no longer making diskmans, and I don't think the few remaining cheap knock-off producers are "price gouging". It is just the market adapting to what most people want.

[Lilith7]

What would you like governments to do about it? Compelling private businesses to provide a certain service at a certain price never works.  The only time I think governments should get involved in pricing is when there is collusion between "competitors" (aka price fixing where supposed competitors actually cooperate to be able to all increase prices). 

The problem with ATMs is that hardly anyone uses them anymore making them uneconomical to provide for cheap/free.  Although removing them or switching to expensive user pays non-bank ATMs is hard on those that find it difficult to use alternatives, they might just have to accept that free/cheap ATMs are a thing of the past.

It happens with other things as well: I remember buying a decent diskman for about $30 15-20 years ago whereas when I wanted one recently for my kids, the only option was a poor quality looking one for about $200, at which point I decided they didn't need one after all. I'm not angry with Sony etc for no longer making diskmans, and I don't think the few remaining cheap knock-off producers are "price gouging". It is just the market adapting to what most people want.

And yet, somehow, banks have indeed managed to provide their ATM withdrawal service without charge until now. None of them appear to have gone out of business as a result.
Nor made any great losses.


And I disagree that hardly anyone uses ATMs anymore; there are always several people using or waiting to use one quite often when I go to use one.

[dken31]

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.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

I'm guessing you are too young to remember when banks actually offered customer service, when bank managers were considered upstanding community leaders, and when a career in banking was considered a good job for life...

[Lilith7]

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 its worth noting that some banks have also closed some of their branches, especially those in country areas -  which has caused problems for some of their customers.
Slowly they're becoming more & more about profit than about providing a service for those who've chosen to deposit their money with them, as well as making a reasonable profit.

[Praktica]

The current economic mode is that returns to the owners of businesses is the most important thing, and everything else - ecological problems, customer service, etc, are entirely secondary. It's a recipe for disaster.

[Lilith7]

The current economic mode is that returns to the owners of businesses is the most important thing, and everything else - ecological problems,  customer service, etc, are entirely secondary. It's a recipe for disaster.

Definitely agree - if things don't change then I hate to think of what the future might hold.

[king1]

I did a business ethics paper years ago as part of my business degree. One of the fundamental issues in business ethics at the time was around just how much responsibility do businesses have to anyone other than the owner/shareholders.

There was talk of stakeholders and various entities that had some kind of interest in the business, think clients, suppliers, neighbours, tax dept etc (basically anyone affected by the business and it's operation).

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...

[Lilith7]

I did a business ethics paper years ago as part of my business degree.  One of the fundamental issues in business ethics at the time was around just how much responsibility do businesses have to anyone other than the owner/shareholders.

There was talk of stakeholders and various entities that had some kind of interest in the business, think clients, suppliers, neighbours, tax dept etc (basically anyone affected by the business and it's operation). 

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...

Yeah.. well I'm never going to be able to  agree with the view that customers don't really matter as long as they use whatever it is businesses are selling.

Just treat people - including customers of businesses - as they'd want to be treated. It isn't that hard; people can manage to exist without making massive profits. And what exactly is the point of mucking up the planet we live on, knowing full well that our descendants mayn't be able to exist thanks to our idiocy.
It comes down to fairness; & sadly that appears to be lacking these days.

[harm_less]

I did a business ethics paper years ago as part of my business degree.  One of the fundamental issues in business ethics at the time was around just how much responsibility do businesses have to anyone other than the owner/shareholders.

There was talk of stakeholders and various entities that had some kind of interest in the business, think clients, suppliers, neighbours, tax dept etc (basically anyone affected by the business and it's operation). 

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...

Yeah.. well I'm never going to be able to  agree with the view that customers don't really matter as long as they use whatever it is businesses are selling.

Just treat people - including customers of businesses - as they'd want to be treated. It isn't that hard; people can manage to exist without making massive profits. And what exactly is the point of mucking up the planet we live on, knowing full well that our descendants mayn't be able to exist thanks to our idiocy.
It comes down to fairness; & sadly that appears to be lacking these days.

And then add the situation where customers become your suppliers also. This is exactly what is happening in the electricity supply landscape as increasing numbers of consumers start feeding surplus solar generation back done the lines.

• The issues then become how much those customers are paid for the 'raw material' they are providing you? 
  
• How does the gen-retailer (and transmission infrastructure owner) address the use of their network by 'customers' whose monthly account is potentially drastically lower than non-generating customers? 
  
• How much return on distributed generation such as by PV is enough to entice customers to not jump to a better deal offered by another gen-retailer, or to increase their generation capacity to a level of self-sufficiency where complete disconnection from the grid becomes a viable option?
  
• How do these factors work for previously state owned generating companies who now have to answer to private shareholders?
  
• How proactive are TPTB in the electricity supply landscape in regard to continually falling costs of PV and battery storage products, and the rapid uptake of EVs?
  
• How to treat customers who either can or cannot afford to sidestep the electricity supply system equitably?
  

This is not an issue just for NZ. The death spiral of utility companies, as it has been referred to as, is real and being experienced internationally already.

[Lilith7]

Yeah.. well I'm never going to be able to  agree with the view that customers don't really matter as long as they use whatever it is businesses are selling.

Just treat people - including customers of businesses - as they'd want to be treated. It isn't that hard; people can manage to exist without making massive profits. And what exactly is the point of mucking up the planet we live on, knowing full well that our descendants mayn't be able to exist thanks to our idiocy.
It comes down to fairness; & sadly that appears to be lacking these days.

And then add the situation where customers become your suppliers also. This is exactly what is happening in the electricity supply landscape as increasing numbers of consumers start feeding surplus solar generation back done the lines.

• The issues then become how much those customers are paid for the 'raw material' they are providing you? 
  
• How does the gen-retailer (and transmission infrastructure owner) address the use of their network by 'customers' whose monthly account is potentially drastically lower than non-generating customers? 
  
• How much return on distributed generation such as by PV is enough to entice customers to not jump to a better deal offered by another gen-retailer, or to increase their generation capacity to a level of self-sufficiency where complete disconnection from the grid becomes a viable option?
  
• How do these factors work for previously state owned generating companies who now have to answer to private shareholders?
  
• How proactive are TPTB in the electricity supply landscape in regard to continually falling costs of PV and battery storage products, and the rapid uptake of EVs?
  
• How to treat customers who either can or cannot afford to sidestep the electricity supply system equitably?
  

This is not an issue just for NZ. The death spiral of utility companies, as it has been referred to as, is real and being experienced internationally already.

Humans are resourceful, if nothing else. Sooner or later, someone somewhere will come up with a solution to it.

And sooner or later, someone somewhere will eventually come up with a way around that. Its what we do... 

[SueDonim]

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.

---

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.

[king1]

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.

I think the idea was just to get everyone thinking about it and the implications, and whether it was acceptable. It was 15-20 years back so a little less concern about environmental, mental health and other similar issues back then...

Thankfully there has been some progress since then