Protest? Pat Buchanan tried to do a deal with the Bank of Scotland once. How did the Scots react?

[sibelian]

SIGNIFICANT numbers of Scottish individuals phoned the Bank of Scotland and threatened to switch accounts to a rival bank citing the deal with Pat Buchanan as the cause.

It worked.

The Bank dropped the deal. Pat later decried the "strong" homosexuals in Scotland. In truth there was no more political strength in the gay rights movement in Scotland at that time than in any other country - the difference was that instead of trying to get through the labyrinthine structure of the state or the press or any other lumpy, uncommunicative apparatus to make their point the populace went DIRECTLY to the offender and told them they would get less money if they crossed the line.

There were several advantages to this kind of protest.

1. The Bank could not send riot police into people's homes to demand that they keep their accounts with the Bank of Scotland.

2. It is greatly less troublesome to switch bank accounts than it is to stand outside a state building waving placards day in and day out to no great effect. It is also GREATLY less troublesome to THREATEN to switch bank accounts IN NUMBERS SUFFICIENT TO COST THE BANK MORE THAN THEY WOULD MAKE FROM THE DEAL.

3. Any media manipulation instigated by the bank in an attempt to counter the strategy was more likely to force the customer away to a different bank and thus be an entirely self-defeating strategy.

4. It didn't matter how much money the individual had. They could be as poor as church mice or a multimillionaire. It didn't COST ANYBODY ANYTHING. Not even travel costs to a protest site.

5. It didn't matter how far away from the bank you lived. You could protest, with shocking effectiveness, OVER THE PHONE.

That was the key - it had to be actually communicated to the bank why the account was being switched. And that's the bit that's most often missing from the whole "voting with your wallet" strategy that fails to get to corporations - they don't know why the money goes missing so they don't do anything different. All that has to happen to get them to change their minds is to change the way the money flows.



So, I'm wondering how this whole strategy could be ...... developed....?

[louis-t]

1. I've been thinking about this for days....

If I was in charge of a fairly large bank, say, PNC, I would build a branch right next to every Bank of America branch in the country. The level of hatred for BoA in this country is staggering. Every Realtor hates them, every customer I have talked to hates them. As soon as I can get away from them, I will. If millions of people are on the same page, BoA's downfall is imminent.

[sibelian]

2. Are they retail? Do ordinary people have accounts?

Could it.... be... as simple as .... setting up a web...site... ???

Or a facebook group?

[louis-t]

9. Oh yeah, retail, commercial. Largest bank in the country.

They hold more mortgages than anyone. Remember, they bought Countrywide. They have more branches than anyone. I have heard many of their customers exit a branch saying "God, I hate this bank."

[unblock]

3. voting with dollars is hardly ideal, because it gives more power to those with more dollars.

that said, it CAN be effective because it's the only language they understand.

one person, one vote doesn't seem to work these days because politicians can be far too easily bought.

customers, on the other hand, still must be earned, at least as long as there is SOME level of competition remaining....

[sibelian]

5. No, that's not how it works itos the CUMULATIVE power that works, of both well-off and poor

i.e. middle class and impoverished. It doesn't matter who has the most money, all that matters is the alignment of common purpose and that the sum removed from play exceeds the benefit of pursuing the deal.

[unblock]

8. it's a cumulative effect, but the rich have more money to play with -- even cumulatively

capitalism is the ultimate one-dollar-one-vote resource allocation scheme. this is why income distribution is so important.
yes, enough poor and middle class people can, sometimes, "out-vote" the rich, but not always. in general, the economy has an incentive to cater to the greatest sources of disposable income and wealth.

the more lopsided our income distribution gets, the more this means "the super-rich" and not "the public at large".

[sibelian]

10. None of this has any effect on the kind of protest I describe.

[Waiting For Everyman]

4. I think it's a great idea and it's different now - with the use of technology.

Consumer protests were done before, but now with the use of Twitter and Facebook, it could be exponentially more effective, with a much bigger number of people responding.

I think that is a winning idea.

And you know, taking to its ultimate endpoint... the big money is in the 401(k)s. If people vote with their pensions, WITH a stated reason, in LARGE numbers, AND it's publicized (first on social media but spreading to the news) that could actually be a revolt against what we do need very much in the "first world"... a leash on the banksters.

Yes their small numbers have their mega-wealth, but the money of big numbers of people is a lot too.

That idea has definite possibilities.

[sibelian]

6. It was INCREDIBLY effective. The dispute ended in mere weeks.

The keys were:

1. Communicate the intentions to the offender at every stage in unambiguous language with precise explanations of the cause that has brought about the effect. CRYSTAL clarity and ALWAYS contact them.

2. Back it up with demonstrable action

3. No "negotiation"

4. Avoid all communication channels that attempt to blur or distort the conversation between the customer and the offender.

In the end, the sums didn't add up for them any more and they HAD to back down or they would have had to do some explaining to their shareholders...

I think this is a very important point - it is possible to take it from an uneasy fight to a straight win with SHEER NUMBERS.

The key is to remind people that the banks DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY. The money belongs to the CUSTOMER.

[sibelian]

7. shameless kick, just for a bit.

[sibelian]

11. Dee dee dee dee dee dum de dum dum

innocent whistling...