Standford Financial vs. Ambiguity

Stanford Financial recently ran a new commercial. There were lots of dramatic slow pans blanketed by emotional music. What, according to the commercial, makes Stanford Financial so worthwhile? Why, their people of course!

And what do their people do? A service!

And what is their service? Hard work.

And at what cost does the hard work come? At a value for the client.

And what does that value buy them? Clear vision.

"Welcome to Stanford Financial Group. Hard Work, Clear Vision, Value for the Client."

(Click on the image to see a larger version.)



Not only is their slogan boring, but it says very little about the real value in what Stanford does.

This is an older commercial, but it still says basically the same thing: come to us and we'll treat you better. (Than what, I don't know.)



Everybody wants to believe that they are hard working with a clear vision, providing value for their client. There is nothing remarkable, nor is their anything unique, about Stanford's proposition.

UBS, another financial group, had this to say:

Imagine a global financial firm with the heart and soul of a two-person organization. A world-leading wealth management company that sits down with you to understand your needs and goals. An award winning global investment bank and premier global asset management business dedicated to giving you the most personal attention at every level. You & Us. UBS.



Again, who cares? And is it even believable? A global financial firm with the heart and soul of a two-person organization? Do you know what company has the heart and soul of a two-person organization? A two-person organization.

What makes you unique? Service doesn't make you unique. Everybody has service.

Now let's look at Citibank. They, too, are in the money business, while not the exact same field. Citibank ran a very memorable set of ads that were benefit-driven. They could have talked about how great their services were, but instead they jumped on the "identity theft" issue. Since it was a hot issue, and others had yet to own that concept, Citibank was quite successful at preempting the word(s) in the mind.









Am I suggesting that humor is the only way to portray a point? Hardly. But I am suggesting that companies such as Stanford and UBS should stop being so self-important, contradictory, and/or cliché.

As a final example, let's look at ING Direct. They have revolutionized the banking industry by creating the first branchless bank. They have many wonderful features, like a zero-dollar minimum in your checking account, and offering a "loan" instead of charging service fees if one overdrafts.

People are attracted to features. ING made 9 billion last year on 25% growth. How much of that comes from ING Direct is hard to tell. One thing is for sure, ING Direct and Citibank actually have something unique to offer. If Stanford and UBS have something unique in their arsenal, it certainly isn't conveyed by their advertising.

The lesson is clear here: people want benefits. They want uniqueness. Nobody can own the same word or concept in the mind as another. ING Direct stands for "branch-less," and Citibank stands for "identity theft." UBS and Stanford stand for "service." Both UBS and Stanford are doing quite well, but their lack of focus opens up a gaping hole into which a smart competitor could carve out a profitable niche, exploiting the financial services' lack of positioning.