Vancity responds to criticism
Posted by Trey Reeme on August 7th, 2006
Last week one of Vancity’s Change Everything participants asked a tough question, and I was itching for a response to appear. The user wrote in a post titled Why am I here:
I just discovered this Vancity blog site…. Hmmmm…. very nice but why would a financial institution put up a web site for bloggers….
Change – interesting theme considering people do not want to change, hate change and try to avoid change at all costs. Why does the credit union want me to change?
Vancity’s golden response (called Why we did it):
You’re right: banks don’t have a stake in social networking. But Vancity isn’t a bank; it’s a community-based financial institution that is as interested in making our community work as it is in making money. And these days, community is more and more about what happens online, which is why we thought we could play a role in helping use the Net as a tool to support community development in the Lower Mainland and Victoria.
.... At the end of the day, however, what matters is not our vision for the site—it’s what people make of it. So if the site isn’t working for you as is, let us know what would make it useful to you. Because among the things we’re changing are the features offered here, and we’re hoping the site will continue to evolve to meet the community’s interests and expectations.
By the way, in the interest of full disclosure, I work at Vancity and was one of the people who helped bring this site to life. I look forward to hearing more comments…
How easy it would’ve been for William and the rest of Vancity’s Change Everything team to say, “Let’s delete that thread now!” After all, it brought forth some comments calling it “time wasted” and a “pretty odd marketing attempt.”
Transparency is a powerful thing, friends. Now those of us following this project have an example of a credit union responding to direct criticism on a blog. Thank you again, Vancity, because you’re doing everything right with this site.
Vancity, don’t sweat the negativity. Your community will flourish and you’ll have a ton of users eager to respond on your behalf.
Thanks Trey.
We have tried to be transparent all the way along with this project. We have no hidden agenda here, no attempts to sell mortgages. We just want to engage in discussion.
It feels good to be able to stand behind the site that way.
I understand why some people would find that nearly impossible to believe. And yet it’s true.
Thanks, William
I think this is TERRIFIC dialog for Vancity…
While the marketer in me says – “Did Vancity explain clearly enough the premise behind the blog, the “what’s in it for you” and the “what’s in it for Vancity” at launch?” – the great news is that the site has sparked curiosity!
Now the opportunity is right there to give the public the “why” story – and start the conversation!
Thanks for highlighting the Vancity journey. There are these moments of truth along the way when people sometimes bail out afraid of the negativity.
Vancity stepped into it. That’s great!
Trey, you know I believe in brand ownership and this story appears to be about some very cool people who “own it”.
Thanks for extending this conversation via OpenSourceCU!
Fascinating stuff… I must admit, the jaded “Why am I here” post originally left me rather miffed. How could someone twist Vancity’s efforts into something disingenuous? At first blush, I am tempted to dismiss the post as the mental droppings of a negative individual. However, as I marinate on the situation I realize that an opportunity exists to better understand why this individual feels this way… and then use that information to address the needs of those individuals who share the same sentiment. Perhaps this is not simply a case of misguided agression, but rather someone who wants an entity, such as Vancity, to listen to them and serve their needs.
Maybe this is a test, and you failed.
You see, I am surprised that there is not more critical thinking going on here.
Why would you so willingly accuse a person that simply asks the question “why” of negativity?
The negative comments were the ones you all made about a guy who simply asked why? I guess this is not acceptable here in this group… instead you call him or her jaded, refer to mental droppings etc. Yikes. ease up there cowboy, it is just a simple question of why?
Isn’t it a bit naive to accept things blindly without some critical thinking skills applied to what is happening. I’d be a little afraid for you if someone starts handing out the kool-aid and telling you to drink it.
Not only is there no critical thinking in these comments, but the corporate rah rah is hard to believe. “Vancity’s golden response?” “Thank you Vancity you are doing everything right on this site”
Oh pulease.
It is very important to see things as they really are in life, and not as we wish they would be.
That’s somthing that former GE CEO Jack Welch said about business management. But that requires critical thinking.
Why—
I agree that it is logical and natural to question the motives of a financial institution’s entry into social networking. I did not share Josh’s initial frustration with the “Why am I here” post, but from the second half of his comment it is clear that he later realized that the post wasn’t intended to bash the idea but to question its purpose.
We ask the question “why” a lot around here as well. By “here” I mean at Trabian world headquarters. In fact, it took a while for us all to be sold on the idea of blogging for credit unions (as Trey mentions in a recent post) because we had to answer the question of “why?” Perhaps it’s time to share more of our internal (critical) discussions on this blog.
Having said that, I have to stress the idea that we are sold on the opportunity for credit unions to leverage the open and cooperative nature of the Internet to reach out to their members in a more effective manner.
You see, credit unions were the original “peer to peer” lenders, combining the resources of their members to offer loans at the lowest rates possible and savings accounts at the highest. If you look at the history of most of the huge credit unions in the US today you’ll see that they were founded by 20 people chipping in $5 each in 1956 or something like that. For many years, credit unions were the only financial institutions offering loans or savings accounts to lower- to middle-class people. Banks would only offer loans to those who already had money—credit unions lowered the barrier to entry. Banks probably wouldn’t be as active in the retail banking market now if credit unions hadn’t demonstrated that it could be done effectively.
Your opinion of credit unions may be similar to the opinion that most people hold: they’re just another type of bank, they’re stuffy and corporate, they’re trying to manipulate (trick) people into borrowing more money than they should, and so on. And based on the behavior of some credit unions, I would have to agree with that characterization. However, there are quite a few credit unions that are truly concerned with the financial health of their members, are trying to be a positive influence in their community, and are trying to be more than a faceless institution.
I’m very aware of the need to “see things as they really are,” but I think it would be a shame to not see things “as we wish they would be.” That is the only way that innovation and change can occur. I’ve read Jack Welch’s biography, and I have a feeling that he would agree.
If we seem overly “rah rah go team!” on here it’s because we see a lot of untapped potential for credit unions to be more than “a different type of bank.” What’s more, based on the record-low savings rate in the US, we think it’s important for society as a whole to have financial institutions available that are truly concerned about the financial health of their members.
Thanks for your comments. I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on the subject of credit unions.
Funny how people have made many assumptions about what I think…
Really – all I was asking was why.
What surprised me and got me riled up was the big load of baloney that came back. – All from credit union personnel. People paid to write in blogs. The gospel according to cu idealogues.
My Vancity connect went as far as to suggest that their position was that building the community was more important than making money. Wait till he misses targets some quarter. He will find out why the credit union is in business, in a hurry.
If the goal was not making money, then it would be a non-profit organization. So the level of self delusion is surprising to me.
BY the way I am a credit union member and have been for a long time. But I know that business has to make money or they can’t stay in business. As a participant in the credit union it is disturbing if they don’t know this.
The second point is the subterfuge of saying we are “blogging for the good of the community” when Josh Jones, who posted above, clearly counsels cu staff in his postings to blog to get new business. So that came off to me as less than genuine.
Thanks for the opportunity to share my opinion.
WAIH
Umm credit unions ARE non-profit organizations. All the money they “make” goes back into better rates for their members.
They are non-profit in the US, anyway. I’m not sure whether that is true in Canada (I’m pretty sure they are taxed in Canada).
So it is important to make money for the sake of the members, isn’t it.
Yeah man. I don’t think that anyone is trying to say that credit unions aren’t trying to make money, even as non-profits.
I posted a commented in response to you on blogging as a marketing strategy on Josh’s blog, but I’m going to copy it here since this is apparently where the fisticuffs are going down. Check it:
Based on the responses I got from those involved with the cu industry, I don’t think they were being honest with themselves. And isn’t that the important first step… if they are ever going to be honest with me.
As soon as people started jumping in with protestations from all over North America to a little innocent post at the beginning (which, if you read it was simple,) it gave an indication that there was a lot more calculated marketing going on behind the scenes.
And sure enough the “change everything” site is not something that an organization does out of the “goodness and light” in their heart that the other cu posters kept insisting on. Like you say in your post, its business and there’s nothing worng with it.
That I accept and I don’t think I’m cynical. I just wanted someone to acknowledge it. The more they resisited admitting that fact, the less credibility it seemed that the whole exercise had.
peace
Why -
The part of your argument that I can’t swallow is your belief that Vancity’s ChangeEverything site “is not something that an organization does out of the ‘goodness and light’ in their heart that the other cu posters kept insisting on.”
I believe that the evidence points to the contrary. Vancity only barely receives mention on the site save the header saying “A community-powered site by Vancity.” Most of the users of the site aren’t employees. They don’t (and won’t) push any products. Sure, it’s a brand touchpoint for them, but hey, they funded the site’s development. It’s nothing like their main website, which they allow to do its job of selling.
But even in Vancity’s products, they’re bettering the community. Green auto loans, peer-to-peer business loans, shared-growth term deposits. Yep, they make money off of these things (and return it to their members because they’re a non-profit) ... but what’s wrong with that?
“Making money” and doing good are not mutually exclusive. All companies (for-profit and not) should aspire to the same.
OK
OK
I don’t have a problem wih any entity making money. Never have objected to that. I seem to be the capitalist in this conversation. They need to make money as the alternative is extinction.
Everyone knows this.
So why not just admit that, instead of insisting that we are just being, gosh, nice people… motivated only by our inherent “credit union goodness”.
There is nothing wrong with helping people with their financial issues and getting paid for it. At least I don’t have a problem with it.
The problem I have is if I see duplicity – pretending to be something other than what it is.
But enough of this – we have worked it over enough times already – doncha think?
Yeah, a dead horse can only take a certain amount of beating.
Thanks to a few hard working staff at Vancity, small and large green ideas like boomrides.com mission staff are working on are coming into the light.
Only a great group like Vancity seems to have the insight to fund motivated members of the green community. We look forward to seeing good news for all in weeks to come.
Environmental Solutions Development Manager, boomrides.com