That’s how much Bank of America (BoA) raised my APR overnight: 129%.
The Customer Service Rep (CSR) said BoA had sent me a letter explaining that the terms of my credit card’s contract were being renegotiated. This defies logic, as by definition a negotiation requires at least two parties and some back-and-forth.
She went on to explain that, according to the terms of the renegotiation, I had two choices: 1) I could choose to decline the APR increase, and forfeit the use of my card. The card would be frozen and I would have to pay off the balance. Alternately, option 2) I could continue to use my card, so long as I agreed to the interest rate increase.
She described my choices with the conviction of someone who routinely has this conversation. As though she has nothing less than contempt and disdain for people who call in and ask why their APR has increased 129%.
At my job, I challenge my employees to think critically. One way I do this is by challenging them to define the variable in a situation. One way of doing so is to restate the situation in more severe terms.
“Let me recount those options,” I said. “I can accept the interest rate increase and keep my card, right?”
“That’s right,” she said.
“Or, I can decline the rate increase, but my card will be frozen . . .”
She began to agree, but I cut her off.
“ . . . meaning I’ll have to get another card so that I can continue to make charges, but the new card’s interest rate will be high because I’ll be carrying a debt load with BoA.”
She tried to cut in.
“And my BoA debt, coupled with my new card’s potential debt, will effectively destroy my credit rating.”
Silence.
When you discover the variable, it changes the dynamic. Explaining the situation in more specific terms, terms that define the consequences inflicted upon me by BoA, changed her tone from one of contempt to silence.
All of a sudden, the customer is human.
Truthfully, this whole BoA debacle is not about me; it is about corporate sickness. The sickness is shortsightedness, the trading of long-term success for short-term gains, and abuse of the customer.
I posted the debacle as my Facebook status, within minutes many of my friends weighed in. Almost everyone of them recounted a similar tale.
One friend, a former coworker named Stephen, responded that we should simply stop using credit cards and force BoA out of business.
I know Stephen was being flip, but the sentiment was painfully apparent: remind them that we are the customers; failing that, cause them pain.
Change the variable, change the dynamic.
I told my friend, “Please tell my company that their 100k employees should stop using their AMEX cards. While you’re at it, also tell the US Govt and the military [my customers] that since we’re no longer using our credit cards, we will not be traveling anymore, which means we will not be able to support them.”
“The solution is not a boycott,” I told Stephen. “The solution is fair trade practices and smarter business decisions.”
“Think critically,” I challenged him. “What would happen if -overnight- you raised your installation or delivery charges by 129% for your best customers, Stephen? Not the small guys, but the national accounts, as well as the architects and engineers.
“And what would happen if you told those same customers that if they didn’t like it they could just stop doing business with you?”
Change the variable and the dynamic changes dramatically. As I said, it is NOT about credit cards, it’s about sound business practices. Presenting customers with a binary choice, neither of which is to their benefit, is the kind move that companies bound to fail make.
But that does not get to the heart of the issue; why the dramatic and sudden rate increase? Here’s my conspiracy theory: After accepting $20 BILLION in Federal bailout funds, and then immediately purchasing Merrill Lynch, BoA is on the hook to generate huge profits. This is especially true when immediately after purchasing Merrill Lynch, BoA’s stock price plunged.
So, what to do? I am speculating, but I imagine that someone BoA, probably a displaced former Enron CFO, convinced BoA to forecast huge profits based upon the doubling of every cardholder’s APR.
Except, the accountant did not account for the variable.
The problem is that it will not work out that way, and as a result BoA will amass a portfolio of high-risk, bad credit. Shareholders will revolt, the CEO will be ousted, and $20 BILLION in taxpayer funds will go to waste. And then all of Merrill Lynch’s stakeholders (shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, etc.) will be injured, which will of course cause a cascade of economic woes.
Unbelievable? Think housing market collapse > economic collapse/recession > bank auto manufacturers bailout > massive debt > etc. etc. etc.
Why? The aforementioned sickness: a shortsighted lust for short-term gains over long-term success with a foundation built upon customer abuse.
Still, beyond all of that, it amazes me that massive companies like BoA continue to make such sophomoric mistakes. However, you do not achieve amazing Google stats by being thoughtful and proactive:
Results 1 - 10 of about 32,500 for ”bank of america sucks“. (0.20 seconds)
Think about that. In one-fifth of a second, Google found 32,500 instances of the term “bank of America sucks”. That is invaluable business intelligence.
Back to the BoA CSR . . . she confirmed that I had only those two choices.
I told her that BoA had fooled itself, believing the false dilemma it had invented for its customers.
“A false dilemma,” I explained “is when a situation is erroneously framed as ‘either/or’ and fails to account for alternatives.”
Silence.
“There is a third option. Customers with excellent credit, customers like me, we will leave BoA.”
And this is precisely what I did. As, I am certain, what others have done/will do as well.
“I know it means nothing to you,” I said to the CSR. “But the next payment I make will be to your competitor. There is no longer such a thing as ‘Too Big To Fail’.”
Welcome to life as the variable, BoA.