Response to my December article The End of Banking at Credit Unions? was fast and a tad furious. For that I am grateful because it means it struck a chord, which was the intention. In the article, I offered an idea for an alternate, albeit invented, term for “banking” that could be used by credit unions interested in differentiating themselves as FIs.
I carefully pointed out that adopting bold new language would only be successful if employed in a clever, calculated manner and with support from the entire organization. Guerrilla marketing is not for the faint-hearted, a point validated by some faint-hearted reactions like “[FIs should] not get caught up in internal circular arguments about nomenclature” and “this sounds like a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist” (both posted in the Credit Union Group on LinkedIn).
A few comments supported the idea, even if not my suggested terminology. Others flat out did not like the terminology but at least they understood the concept. “OMG! UR efties sound extraordinarily iffy 2ME! LOL!” is my favorite comment because it made me laugh. The author got the point. That’s not to say he endorsed it but he was engaged.
After all, engagement is the intended outcome of content marketing. Alas, some are content with their marketing as is.
Thanks for reading and engaging!