Note to new Chase Bank CMO Claire Huang: You came from Bank of America, but do not copy your former employer when you plan Chase’s future.

Chase is among the market leaders in the banking industry and one of the few with equity markers. Its logo is recognizable and its recent advertising has featured the Chase blue standing out within black and white TV spots.

Yet in the minds of consumers, Chase is just another big bank offering the same services as the others. All banks tend to look and sound alike and customers are angry with all of them.

We at Stealing Share know the banking industry well because we’ve conducted extensive research in the industry for last few years. From experience we know that all banks follow the leader in terms of brand and message. Unfortunately, it’s ignored by customers.

The big banks, with the exception of Bank of America, need to rebrand. That includes Chase. It’s been stuck in a quagmire because few – if any – banks present a unique and emotionally meaningful choice.

My advice to Ms. Huang: Use your Bank of America experience. Think about what it is that customers want that your former company did not offer.

Take it from there.

We have written extensively about the opportunity financial institutions have to build meaningful brands to steal market share from their competitors, and some have hired us to help them. Unfortunately, the majority of the industry has been reluctant to take advantage of this opportunity and I think I have figured out why – banks believe they are better off without a brand.

It is an amazing and confounding situation that defies all logic. A powerful brand can give an organization focus in a way the current quarter’s “corporate initiative” cannot. A brand can help insulate an organization in times of market turmoil. A resonate, consumer-oriented brand can be a lighthouse in a storm that differentiates it from the other market players. The problem here is that most banks are not interested in any of this.

I was prompted to write this after hearing about Chase’s $100 million settlement to resolve claims that the bank hiked minimum payments on credit cards in an effort to generate more fees. Though this case has been going on for quite some time, the settlement comes on the heels of some inappropriately risky market trading that cost the company $4.4 billion so far. Despite that loss, the bank generated a $5 billion profit in the second quarter.

Let’s just think about that from the perspective of the bank: Big banks helped create one of the largest financial calamities in history and they caused countless people to either lose their homes or find themselves stuck in houses they could not afford. Beyond that, banks relentlessly pursue new ways to extract fees from their customers and generate profits so large that they can afford to absorb a $4.4 billion trading loss. Yet consumers stay with them and the banks continue to make a lot of money. As the saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

The world, it seems, remains inexplicably indifferent to what the banks do even as “free checking” has become less free and customers are charged a fee for setting foot on bank property. Most consumers have been lulled to unconsciousness because they see no difference between banks. They simply stay with the devil they know. Banks, unwilling to wake them up, maintain the status quo as they quietly place quarterly profits ahead of their customers’ interests and even the bank’s own long-term interest.

From the perspective of the banking industry, brands must be watered down into meaninglessness because, if banking brands were to carry meaning, they would have to change.

But pain brings change, and banks for the most part are feeling no real pain.
This complacency will be the industry’s undoing. Banks will be changed forever when just one mid-level financial institution breaks free of the status quo and goes beyond mere advertising slogans to deliver customer satisfaction and brand meaning.

Credit unions were poised to do this but they never figured out a way to work together as a single industry.

Until a maverick company emerges, the big banks will get bigger and consumers will stick with what they have because they see no true alternative. It’s only a matter of time, though, until the future of the banking industry provides its own alternatives.

When we rebrand companies, there are a few vital aspects that we must be addressed to make sure the execution is well positioned to steal market share. The first is research. It has to be quantitative to ensure the data is reliable and projectable to the market as a whole. The second is the messaging. This includes the imaging, language and overall tone. And the last, and in some instances the most difficult, is company politics. How does the company operate, what does not align cohesively with the brand strategy, and most importantly, how do you get company personnel out of their own way.

More often then not, stasis is the culprit of brands that have lost their way. They might have started with a compelling brand promise, but competitors copying it and the ease of simply maintaining status quo can make it meaningless to the consumer.

We harp a lot on banks. They are in fact one of the worst offenders in marketing table stakes that every competitor has (ATMs, good service, etc.). When it comes to status quo, you don’t need to look hard to find an example in the banking industry. In fact we didn’t have to look at all. An example was mailed right to our offices.

We recently wrote a letter to Bank of America, outlining some challenges facing the banking industry and, due to the lack of any compelling message, great opportunity within it. About two weeks later, we received a response from Bank of America. Our letter had been opened and accompanying the material we sent them was a response from its legal department. The main body text read:

“We appreciate your desire to help us improve our performance. We are very interested in ideas which will help us meet our customers’ needs, and we are committed to providing the best products and services in the banking industry. However, in accordance with Bank of America’s Unsolicited Idea Submission Policy, we are unable to accept your marketing idea submission and we are returning any information or materials you have sent us along with this letter.”

And therein lies the revolving door of the same, repeated, non-intensive brand messaging, played out continually within the banking industry. When we start out any project, we tell our clients that we do not have their answers yet. We only have the questions that eventually lead to them. That’s because assuming you have the problem solved before you start means you have gotten in your own way. As it’s been said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

I have no doubt that Bank of America receives a vast amount of mail and that screening, evaluating and responding to it all takes time and resources. I also understand that there are legalities involved. My qualm is that this is typical of the banking industry and other industries (such as automotive) that churn out the same marketing product over and over. You cannot be interested in ideas if your policy is to never look at any. If you never consider new ideas all you can expect is more of the same.

Banking is a tough nut to crack. Yet we have done research for banks and there is certainly messaging to claim. The problem in the banking industry is its propensity to remain static. It is the reason customers see banks as an unwanted necessity rather than a preferred benefit.

It is amazing to me that, despite the current economic turmoil and consumer anger toward the big US banks, those banks such as Bank of America, Suntrust, and Wells Fargo still think they are above the common man. The recent debit card fee addition and subsequent removal are no exception.

I have heard a lot lately about how many consumers are starting to consider other financial institutions, such as community banks and credit unions, in lieu of their big bank only to find that the switching process is too difficult. I can tell you after doing extensive research in this category that the big banks make it this way on purpose. It is the only thing they can actively do to retain their customers.

I have no data to prove this but I would put it to you that banks have done more research over the past five years on how to keep customers than how to attract more of them. The simple fact is that no major bank has done any real investment in its brand or in the equities it could utilize to grow its market share.

This is a sad commentary on any number of levels. First, the major banks have seen no reason to change their way of doing business. Even with those few who have left big banks, the attrition rates remain very low across the board. Again, banks are more worried about keeping their customers than providing a value that resonates with their non-customers.

Secondly, community banks and credit unions have done an absolute horrid job in positioning themselves against the big banks in any meaningful way.

Community banks and credit unions have had years to figure out how to take share and, for the most part, they have failed miserably. Ever since the anger against the big banks began back as early as 2007, credit unions and community banks have tended to take a very timid and soft approach, hoping not to raise the attention and ire of the major banks.

Why? Are they afraid that the banks are going to suddenly notice them (after years of not giving them a thought) and aggressively go into their markets and steal their customers because of it?

While I have seen and heard a great deal of discontent about banks, I have not heard that discontent coming from those who use credit unions and community banks. I actually think the real reason that credit unions and banks have not been more aggressive is because they are scared. Even when they have positioned themselves against big banks, the tone is so soft it does not resonate.

Credit unions and community banks have traditionally viewed themselves as being very collegial. They think that they are part of a team that somehow all works together. In reality, they do not. Each is doing its very best to return value to its communities and customer base, and each believe it can do it better than its credit union or community bank “partner” down the street.

Some of the research we have done on a nationwide scale suggests that, once someone uses a credit union or community bank, they are much more likely to lump all credit unions and community banks to their considered set. What is worse is that many people who use a credit union or community bank use more than one and still have one of the major banks as their primary financial provider for day-to-day transactions.

Even for people who use a credit union or community bank, those financial institutions are not viewed as being on the same “level” as traditional banks. They are being judged by the lowest common denominator in the category, meaning audiences judge the category by the worst-looking credit union or community bank because they view all as one category instead of separate entities.

The problem is that credit unions and community banks either need to really start to work together or really start to distance themselves from their lowest common denominator image. They can no longer have it both ways if they hope to gain a greater share of the consumers’ wallet and increase their relevance in the consumer’s minds.

Could a community bank or local credit union match the national bank’s advertising spend? No way, but they could spend more smartly and utilize a message that resonates with a potential customer. (Or they could pool their resources, something we have recommended to credit union clients.)

The problem is that in order to take an effective and resonating position against the big banks, community banks and credit unions have to position themselves against both big banks and other community banks and credit unions. They have to stand out as different and better. But to many credit unions and community banks, that means openly admitting something they have already admitted internally – that, in truth, credit unions and community banks are competing against each other.

In their effort to gauge just how disgruntled banks could make their customers for no good reason, Bank of America, Suntrust and Regions will be doing away with the $5 debit charge they proposed just a few months ago.

This consumer anger is not just exclusive to banking. It was also a just few months ago that Netflix made the decision to split into Netflix and Qwikster to only double back and stay exclusively Netflix. Or what about the new Gap logo? That one sure didn’t last long, although my feeling is that Gap should’ve stuck to its guns on that one.

Business decisions that affect brand need to be made carefully and, if the decision represents a complete 180 degree rotation, then the plan should be culled a bit more before being implemented. What’s happened here is that businesses such banks and Netflix have underestimated the anger that exists among consumers.

The problem with backtracking is that it never backtracks completely. Ground is always lost. Even if a decision was based on good intentions, then you backtrack, the brand has lost some ability to resonate with customers. More dangerously, if the decision is to benefit the company, consumers realize their lack of value – and that makes them angry. Either way the waterhole is poisoned.

The culprit of many of these bad decisions decisions if often the lack of research. Over the years, I have worked with or read about companies undoing decisions they made. At the root of most of them was using research that wasn’t research projectable to the larger audience.

Let me explain: Focus groups and online surveys tell you nothing. You cannot project the results because they are affected by group dynamics, speak only to the outliners and are not a large enough sample to be quantitative.

Even quantitative research performed today is often meaningless because only attitude and usage are asked, and not the meaningful questions that drive human behavior.

A brand launch is much easier than a rebrand for the simple reason that a brand launch starts with a clean slate. Once a brand is created, whether an effective or an ineffective one, changing consumer beliefs can be both difficult and expensive. It costs much less to make the right decision the first time around.

In their effort to gauge just how disgruntled banks could make their customers for no good reason, Bank of America, Suntrust and Regions will be doing away with the $5 debit charge they proposed just a few months ago.

This consumer anger is not just exclusive to banking. It was also a just few months ago that Netflix made the decision to split into Netflix and Qwikster to only double back and stay exclusively Netflix. Or what about the new Gap logo? That one sure didn’t last long, although my feeling is that Gap should’ve stuck to its guns on that one.

Business decisions that affect brand need to be made carefully and, if the decision represents a complete 180 degree rotation, then the plan should be culled a bit more before being implemented. What’s happened here is that businesses such banks and Netflix have underestimated the anger that exists among consumers.

The problem with backtracking is that it never backtracks completely. Ground is always lost. Even if a decision was based on good intentions, then you backtrack, the brand has lost some ability to resonate with customers. More dangerously, if the decision is to benefit the company, consumers realize their lack of value – and that makes them angry. Either way the waterhole is poisoned.

The culprit of many of these bad decisions decisions if often the lack of research. Over the years, I have worked with or read about companies undoing decisions they made. At the root of most of them was using research that wasn’t research projectable to the larger audience.

Let me explain: Focus groups and online surveys tell you nothing. You cannot project the results because they are affected by group dynamics, speak only to the outliners and are not a large enough sample to be quantitative.

Even quantitative research performed today is often meaningless because only attitude and usage are asked, and not the meaningful questions that drive human behavior.

A brand launch is much easier than a rebrand for the simple reason that a brand launch starts with a clean slate. Once a brand is created, whether an effective or an ineffective one, changing consumer beliefs can be both difficult and expensive. It costs much less to make the right decision the first time around.

It’s one thing to criticize the banks, such as Bank of America, for charging for debit cards. Or to rip apart the banks that are also going to charge for checking.

But what really gets me is how lamely competitors will try to take advantage of the anger lurking inside target audiences when it comes to banking.

First, the response from the competition will be soft in the belly. It’ll be cute and homey. And it will not be couched within the bank’s brand.

Too bad. Because there is real opportunity here, and the banking industry has a habit screwing up its best marketing opportunities.

Citigroup, which has been touting its promise not to charge for debit cards, will now charge customers $15 per month if their checking accounts have less than $6,000 in them. Is that “Citi never sleeps”? Yeah, it might be. But not for the good.

That themeline, which I like a lot less than it’s previous one, “Live Richly,” is supposed to be about Citi always being on the lookout for you. I guess it’s a lookout for Citi’s own bottom line.

My point here is that, once again, banks are about to blow it. Some will try to take advantage, but they’ll either not have the brand for it or their messaging will be tonally soft.

Some will act as though nothing has happened. “Nothing to see here, ma’am,” while still promoting the unemotional benefits such as “opportunity” (Bank of America) or “chasing what matters” (Chase).

The thing is, as our own research has shown, there is real anger at banks. A response by the competitor would work if it was edgy, straightforward and aligned with that anger.

More importantly, the marketing message of “we don’t charge you here!” should be built into brand. This is very crucial. If it is not related to your brand, audiences won’t hear you.

For example, while I don’t think Southwest Airlines gets it completely right, its campaign of not charging for luggage and change fees fits within its brand of “it’s now safe to move about the cabin,” which means you can actually afford to fly with us.

My prediction is that no bank will take advantage of this because the messaging will be soft and no one has the brand for it. Just like they fumbled the opportunity when banks were blamed for the collapse of the US economy.

What’s different now?

Back when Ally Bank first launched two years ago, I thought it had inched toward the sweet spot when it came to bank marketing. Its “straightforwardness” brand was positioned against other banks, whose reputation had dropped like a stone in the minds of consumers. Even the name of Ally suggested as much, being an ally of the consumer without serving its own self-interest.

Ally’s problem, at least at that moment, was that it came from GMAC, which already had its own reputation problems. No doubt that served as the reason for the name change, but there was little hope Ally could actually fulfill its brand promise. The name change felt like a swindle, especially when it was, in essence, positioned against itself.

Now, a year later, Ally is breaking out a new brand campaign centered around, “No nonsense. Just People Sense.” In the spots, a man on the street is given thousands of dollars to hold and the video taping reveals that the man doesn’t take “one dollar.” Therefore, why would you want a bank to hold your money when it charges you fees to hold it? See the ad here.

My take is that Ally Bank has sufficiently distanced itself from GMAC that the brand can be fulfilled and the recent spots certainly are positioned against the self-interest of banks. Changing the name and brand was a good idea.

But Ally Bank is still stuck at the halfway point. The position is right, but it’s played out in a comical and very soft way. It’s not positioned emotionally and tonally against the competition and certainly doesn’t build on the emotional anger consumers have about banks.

Tone is often the forgotten component in brand positioning. Many companies believe it’s all about words – “We’ll just say it!” – but fail to realize that, if they are not positioned against the competition emotionally and tonally, they will not get noticed.

If your brand is not emotional, it simply will not work. If the tone of the brand marketing is the same as the competition, the brand is not truly positioned against the rest.

A recent report from Change Sciences say banks are increasing their involvement in online marketing – and that those efforts will transform the consumer experience.

Maybe, but they won’t change a bank’s market share.

Online banking has changed the business model of banks for years because consumers would rather do their banking online than go into a branch. That meant banks had to reduce the number of branches because they have become, in effect, very expensive billboards.

However, if banks believe that by simply using social media, mobile support, their own bank homepage and streaming video – as listed in the report – they will steal market share, they are very wrong.

It has been our experience that banks often confuse tactics with strategy, which means they too often believe by performing those online tactics that it will make them seem up to date and preferred.

What they don’t understand is that, with these social media tactics, they are simply speaking to those who already use them. For those that don’t, the process of switching banks feels daunting. Therefore, those most likely to switch have reached a point of failure from their current bank, usually the last straw of a point of failure. We’ve all reached that point, but still don’t switch much.

Why is that? It’s because once we reach that point, we look at the landscape and find that all the banks promise the same things. Do we really think, for example, things will be better over there? No, consumers lump them all together because banks have lumped themselves together by marketing the same values.

It simply doesn’t matter one iota that, as a bank, you’re becoming more active in social media. It does not create preference because it is only a tactic, just as direct mail or advertising are, and everyone is doing it.

Only by having a different and more meaningful message than your competition will your market share increase.

One of the authors of the study, Steve Ellis, could have been addressing this when he said, “Among the big national and regional banks, there are pockets of change, but they are not yet more than this.”

There’s something biblical about the images of the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan early this morning (as well as the shock effects felt in Hawaii and the US west coast). I am not making light of it because it is a horrifying tragedy – all you had to do was wake up to the morning news and see those images to understand that.

But that’s my point. The images themselves demonstrate how much we bring to the table when we receive any kind of communication, whether it’s a video image of a tide of water sweeping across Japan farmlands or a simple marketing message. We bring ourselves into it.

So much of marketing today does not tap into the emotional recalls that we have stored in ourselves. That’s why so many messages go right through us.

Occasionally at speaking events, I’ll test the audience with the first note of a sound (like the first strains of Monday Night Football) and it is amazing how quickly most get it right away. What is even more interesting the feelings that are associated with it. Like hearing an old song or smelling freshly baked cinnamon rolls.

When something does that – and a marketing message or a brand promise can – it becomes part of ourselves (because we recognize something about it that taps into our storage of memory) and is more than just memorable. We own it and it has an emotional, which is just what those tsunami images had.