Death to 'Open Banking'

Who came up with the awful idea of calling Open Banking Open Banking? Guess...

If the FS sector is looking for reasons for the low uptake of Open Banking services they should take a look at the name they created. It's the worst possible choice. But then again, maybe that was deliberate.

It's no secret that the big banks never wanted to establish Open Banking protocols. Why would they? It dilutes their dominance and threatens to turn them into banking service wholesalers rather than customer-facing brands. Fact is, people don't like the big banks much. Banks know it and they’ll do anything they can to hold people in their walled brand gardens.

Banks were forced, through regulation, to develop and offer Open Banking. As such, they've never usefully promoted it. What they did do, however, is have to develop it and that means they got to name it. And it's a measure of the way the big banks think and operate that they named it from their perspective.

They saw their banks being opened up to connect with other people, and they saw the banking market being opened up. Hence, 'Open Banking'. Sounds great, huh? No. No, it's awful.

Was this intentional? Were the big banks subtly trying to sabotage the Open Banking future from the start?

Anyone who has operated in this area will tell you that the banking public hate the term. They're scared of it. The same banks that have developed Open Banking have simultaneously been spending millions getting the UK population to be vigilant about banking security. We are constantly told to be wary of suspicious emails, not share our passwords, keep things close and secret. In that environment the very last thing you want to do is be open with your banking.

It’s a genuinely terrifying idea for many people. They fear that by connecting their bank account to another service of any kind – putting personal bank details into a smartphone or laptop screen – they might risk losing everything. Banks shouldn’t be open, they should be locked shut. The very name Open Banking conflicts, mentally, with the core semiotics of banks – vaults, security guards, grand intimidating portico entrances.

Was this intentional? Were the big banks subtly trying to sabotage the Open Banking future from the start? Protecting their natural position of dominance by weighing the project down at the kick-off with a name that would actively switch people off?

I prefer cock-up to conspiracy. I think they just did a crap naming job. But this particular flavour of crapness says everything about how they operate – blinkered by their narcissism and failing to be customer-centric. The naming SNAFU of Open Banking is itself a further argument for the very necessary Open Banking realignment of our banking system.

But until we revise the name we’re genuinely stuffed. It won't work.

So, what should they have called it? I’m not going to try and suggest a final answer here but I can mark out a territory. Looking at it from a customer’s point of view, they’re seeking reassurance, something that feels like it’s connected to - even an extension of - the wider security messaging they see every day. Without that you’re on a hiding to nothing. The protocol needs a name that operates in the space of Enhanced Security Banking Link. It feels strong, it feels safe, it feels like it’s been thought through, and it refers to a finite, defined thing rather than offering a perceived free-for-all. (I’d be happy to refine the name further if anyone wants to commission me to do it…)

But until we revise the name we’re genuinely stuffed. It won't work. As an industry we’ve put our own blocker in front of the thing we also want people to do. We’ve named our shiny new thing in a way that projects exactly the opposite of what we want to get across. A system designed to be safe appears unsafe. It’s a scary barrier rather than an inviting way in.

Want to get more people to adopt Open Banking services? Stop calling it Open Banking.

It's time to change the name.