Aug. 17, 2009 at 12:18pm

National CU brand? Good luck!

Part 1

Posted by Kurt Jacobson in Strategic Communications
Comments (6)

“No Money, No Campaign-ey” is how Credit Union Journal Publisher Frank Diekmann expressed why CUNA CEO Dan Mica believes there will be no national credit union branding campaign.

I doubt such a campaign could ever work.

Effective brands are based on being different from competitors in a way that is motivating to a prospective member. If consumers look at a side-by-side list of the products and services provided by credit unions, the list, on average, isn’t much different than banks. Price is the sole exception. And you can’t win a price war unless you are the relentlessly low-cost producer.

“On average” is important because a national campaign must be based on a point of difference that most credit unions can live up to. That generally brings us to “member owned.” Unfortunately, "member owned" doesn’t appear to be a big deal to prospects. If it meant a lot to them, credit unions would already have a much larger share of the financial services market.

Comments (6)

A national campaign doesn't necessarily need to address the differences between banks and credit unions. A national campaign is needed to create awareness of credit unions. Very few people know (1) what credit unions are, and (2) that they can join one.

Credit unions can worry about communicating differences between them and banks after people establish the general understanding that (1) credit unions are are viable alternative to banks, and (2) they can get the financial services they need from them. Just that alone and credit unions would be making some headway. There are lots of people who think the only alternative to banks is their mattress.
1 | Left by Jeffry Pilcher | Aug. 18, 2009 at 11:10am

We don't need a national brand campaign - because the word "campaign" makes people think of a committee that agrees on some lame ad and then begs for dollars to run it. Tried that - didn't work.

What we need is for CUNA to have someone in the organization track all the good things CUs are doing and making sure it gets in the press. You know - PR. Free advertising! Just off the top of my head these things come to mind:

1. The tiny West Virginia CU that built their own iPhone app.
2. California CUs taking government IOUs when banks refused.
3. Carol Schillios, Herb Wegner award winner, living on her roof until she raises $1 million to help women in Africa.
4. Seattle Metro's 7 principles activities.
5. American Debt Relief Challenge updates

Credit unions aren't good at "tooting their own horns."

We need a national PR campaign - we're doing great things - let's show the world!


2 | Left by Denise Wymore | Aug. 18, 2009 at 11:27am

If the only difference between Credit Unions and Banks is price, then I expect a quick end to this quaint little industry. The idea that consumers only make decisions based on price is a falsehood. It is a concept held by wannabe marketers who usually come from the finance world.

If price ruled the world everyone would shop at Walmart, there would be no Mac's or iphones and we would all be driving Yugos.

Data shows that price is not the most important factor in picking a FI. Lets give up on this outdated idea that price rules. It just isnt true.

Awareness is the best reason for a national campaign. Most people have never heard of a Credit Union. Lets fix that and then we can discuss price.

Speaking of price, this is one campaign we just can't affort to do without.
3 | Left by Paul Stull | Aug. 18, 2009 at 11:32am

A cooperative, national ad campaign for credit unions is desperately needed. How many of us get blank stares when we mention "credit union" to most people? Or worse, I bumped into an old friend at a grocery store and was asked, "Aren't you embarrassed to say you now work with credit unions after the huge credit meltdown?"

It would be a whole lot easier for me if there was an attempt to explain the credit union difference outside of the CU industry. And, every CU is missing their chance to highlight how significant credit unions were during the Great Depression, and link that to our present financial situation. We've been handed a golden opportunity to expand our conversations outside of the confines of "the credit union industry" and press onward into new territory.

BB&T gets it. They have a banner outside all of their branches that reads, “Still Strong, Still Lending”. How many newspaper articles has that phrase made it's way into now?
4 | Left by Matt Hand | Aug. 18, 2009 at 11:37am

RE: That generally brings us to “member owned.” Unfortunately, "member owned" doesn’t appear to be a big deal to prospects. If it meant a lot to them, credit unions would already have a much larger share of the financial services market.

I would respectively disagree with the author's contention that "member-owned" doesn't mean a lot to prospects (or members). Credit unions, IMHO, have generally done a poor job in tying the concept of "member-owned" with "the benefits of member-ownership". Credit unions occasionally throw out the phrase and expect magical results. But just like any other brand, it needs built, nurtured and strongly linked to tangible benefits.

Ownership is a powerful concept. When it is effectively tied to the benefit of lower loan rates, higher dividends, and lower fees it can, and will, drive business.

The concept of member-ownership is especially useful as an appeal to business owners, upper level management, people of wealth, etc. They easily understand and usually embrace the concept. Yet this is a market segment that many credit unions struggle to attract.

And the appeal of ownership crosses class lines as well. To our members of more modest means, ownership provides a sense of pride. They may not own their car, or their house, or much of anything; but at least they own their credit union and enjoy the benefits of ownership.

The concept of ownership is powerful and could easily be the basis of a national campaign; as long as the campaign ties the advantages of ownership to tangible benefits.

5 | Left by michael spiellman | Aug. 19, 2009 at 5:48am

I'm with Denise. I'd prioritize a national PR campaign over a national ad campaign. The credit union story is easy to tell, and when told right, the media likes relaying it. Besides, the media is always a more credible voice than one's own.

However, should credit unions pursue a [PR/brand] campaign that established a basic understanding of what they are, then each, individual credit union would have a lot more latitude with their marketing capital. They wouldn't have to spend any more time, money or energy explaining the shared, common basics.
6 | Left by Jeffry Pilcher | Aug. 19, 2009 at 4:52pm