Danske Bank in a new world

In November 2012, I used Danske Bank and social media as an example to discuss credibility and branding. I had been asked about the bank’s campaign about a new world: Was the controversy a planned PR stunt? I did not think so. I felt the bank had tried to change its image and had been surprised that customers could now respond together and publicly.

Danske Bank and social media: Was the opposition planned?

One of the campaign images I described was a man with a banknote and a clear reference to the Occupy movement. I associated that movement with criticism of banks and the financial system.

So the question was understandable: How could the bank think of using it? Was it deliberate guerrilla PR to make all of Denmark shout and scream?

My answer was no. That was my interpretation of the situation, not something the bank’s communications department had told me.

I connected the campaign with a critical programme from Danmarks Radio I had seen shortly beforehand. I thought the programme was good and showed what I saw as greed and a way of banking that had put both the country and ordinary people in difficulty.

I was very critical of the term bank adviser

I knew perfectly well that customers themselves had a responsibility to read their loan agreements and draw up budgets. But I also felt the bank created a false expectation when it called its salespeople advisers.

In the video, I very categorically described bank employees as commission-paid salespeople. I felt their interest was in lending as much money as possible at a high interest rate, as long as the customer could repay it.

That was my general and very harsh assessment at the time. I did not present details about any individual employee’s pay model or a particular advice session.

My objection was that, in my opinion, many people had not understood the difference between meeting an independent adviser and meeting someone selling the bank’s products. I thought the bank should be honest that it was in business to make money.

My idea of the communications department’s problem

I imagined the bank knew DR’s programme could damage its reputation. Then the communications department would have to consider how the bank could appear kind, proper and concerned with customers’ interests.

I used very crude words about what I saw as past speculation and risky decisions. I called it a casino and gambling, and criticised it harshly.

If customers saw fee vultures and indifference towards anyone other than shareholders, the bank might want to present a completely different picture. That was my explanation of the campaign’s direction.

I did not know the internal considerations. But I felt it looked like an attempt to make the image and advertising smarter without changing the underlying business.

In my view, the images were meant to signal a new bank

I described the campaign’s images of Occupy, a runner without legs and two women kissing. I sarcastically mocked the message I felt the bank was trying to send: We understand the new world; we are open, modern and on board with everything.

My criticism concerned the bank’s use of the images to build a new story about itself. I felt there was a gap between the values the advert showed and the values I believed the bank acted on.

Taking off the tie, acting more freely and showing some modern symbols was not enough. I wanted to see a real change in how the bank treated customers and employees.

On Facebook, customers could see each other’s anger

I felt the bank had not fully grasped social media. On the other hand, the campaign had given it a baptism of fire.

I described the bank’s Facebook page as full of angry comments. Among other things, I had seen people write that they had been customers for many years and would now leave the bank.

I also said that, in my experience, the bank deleted comments and answered those that were not too extreme. Those were the observations I described in the video, not a complete count or documentation of all comments.

My point was that the employees handling social media had become very busy. Customers were not only reacting at home in front of the television. They could show their reaction directly on the bank’s own page.

The advert was no longer met by isolated viewers

I called Danske Bank an old-fashioned company. In the old situation, people could see an advert at home, talk about it a little with their family and then forget it. In my opinion, that made it easier to get away with an embellished message.

I was also very harsh about ordinary Danes’ media literacy. I said many were fooled by adverts like that and even used a very rough estimate of ninety per cent. That was a rhetorical statement in my criticism, not a study of the audience.

I mentioned an older Nordea advert as an example of a cosy, personal image of a bank adviser. I felt large companies had spent years portraying values they did not practise.

With Facebook, a customer could now see that others were just as outraged. And someone who had not reacted themselves could read other people’s explanations and start seeing the advert differently.

I also had my own little channel with around three thousand viewers, as I described it. I could sit there calling the campaign manipulation and get that criticism out to others. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and the other platforms therefore changed communication. Read also E-pusher about selling and marketing online.

I saw cost-cutting in the business rather than new values

I claimed in the video that the bank was not changing what I criticised, but instead closing branches, laying off staff and letting computers and online banking take over more.

That could lower costs while, in my view, ordinary customers continued paying the same interest and fees. I did not think we benefited from the savings.

I connected it with losses on past decisions, again using the casino metaphor. I felt customers ended up paying while the bank cleaned up after poor decisions.

That was my very critical interpretation of the business. I did not review the bank’s accounts or document the specific development of all prices and costs.

My speculation about what might happen afterwards

I also imagined the bank might become a very profitable business in the longer term once the losses had been dealt with and costs brought down.

I said it could become a golden investment. That was speculation from 2012, not current advice to buy the shares. I expected it might take a few years and that the bank would not necessarily lower interest rates and fees once the operation had become more efficient.

I mentioned poor decisions and properties that might no longer be worth the values assumed. My thinking was that cleaning up could take time, but a lower cost base afterwards could be very valuable to the bank.

I thought the campaign had backfired

My conclusion was that the opposition was not planned. I felt the bank had still believed it could influence the outside world with a clever advert, as I thought it had been able to do before.

But social media gave critics the chance to send out another message: that in their view and mine, the bank was carrying on as before. I was very categorical about its greed and focus on making money.

I expected the campaign would soon be withdrawn if it had not been already. I also thought the bank would keep a lower profile while its communications staff worked out what to do. Those were my expectations when recording.

My call was for more honesty about sales

In my opinion, the most honest thing would be to call the employees bank salespeople so customers knew what they were dealing with. I hoped the Danish Consumer Council would take up the issue.

I compared it with a used-car dealer. If he called himself a used-car adviser, I thought someone would react. Why should it be different when the product was money and loans?

That was what I wanted to highlight through the example of corporate branding. In my view, Danske Bank had woken up to a new world where the message did not come only from the bank itself.

And that new world was not just the images in the advert. It was also the world of social media where customers and critics could talk together and answer back.