At the Card Forum and Expo this week, industry thought leaders will be coming together to discuss and tackle these very issues.  From card trends and opportunities to loyalty and the customer experience, emerging payments and regulation and compliance, rich discussions will answer many questions on the industry’s mind.

Zoot executives will be at the show learning as well as presenting. We will be moderating a panel of bankers from World’s Foremost Bank and Citi Retail Services. The following questions related to loyalty and the customer experience will be covered in depth:

1. What truly builds customer loyalty?
2. What is at the heart of successful rewards programs?
3. What type of innovation is available to cut costs while improving the customer experience?

The presentation will be an interactive learning experience. If you have questions you would like the panel to address, please leave us a comment here or join us at the show Friday, May 11 from 11:15 am-12:00 pm.

We’ll be reporting on information from the show in coming posts, so stay tuned for more from Card Forum and Expo 2012.

I recently heard a very healthy perspective on the “great channel debate” that I wanted to pass along. At the Bank Innovation show last month in San Francisco, Geoff Knapp—the VP of Online Banking & Consumer Insight at Fiserv, compared consumers’ channel preferences to their eating habits.

Stay with me…

According to Geoff, there are simple financial transactions that every consumer needs to do on a daily or weekly basis (checking account balances, depositing checks, etc.) He compared these transactions to snacking— something that you do frequently and without a lot of planning or investment. These transactions are low touch—they don’t require a face-to-face interaction. Thus, these “snacking” transactions are a perfect fit for self-service channels like mobile.

Next, there are a number of financial transactions that are medium touch. They are more complex and diverse than “snacking” transactions, but they don’t necessarily require a person-to-person interaction. Geoff compared these medium touch transactions (paying bills, budgeting, making account changes) to going out to lunch—something that we do habitually and with some planning. These transactions are often a little too complex or time consuming to be done on a smartphone, but can certainly be done with little or no person-to-person interaction. Online banking (with CSRs providing support through online chat) is a great channel for these types of transactions.

Finally, you have high touch transactions. These are rare and have very high stakes—a consumer getting their first mortgage or planning for their retirement. These transactions need to happen in person because the consumer is coming to the bank, not as a mechanism for efficient financial transactions, but as a trusted financial consultant. These interactions are “moments of truth” in consumers’ financial lives and a large part of consumers’ satisfaction and trust in their banks is dependent on these moments going well. Geoff compared these interactions to fine dining—an occasional, memorable, high quality event that is critically important to the consumer. Think about an important business dinner at a fancy restaurant or a marriage proposal after a magnificent three course meal. These moments have to go well. Efficiency and low cost are not as important as quality. These are the types of financial transactions that make sense in the branch or call center.

What I really like about this perspective on bank channels is that it segments the value of different channels based on the type of transaction that is most likely to occur in each. With the rise of remote deposit capture (RDC), bank branch traffic will and should decrease radically. Today, 60–70% of branch visits are to deposit checks. That’s ridiculous. Consumers shouldn’t have to drive all the way to the branch to deposit a check when they can do it on their smartphones with a couple of swipes. However, that doesn’t mean that bank branches should disappear. Just as requiring consumers to visit a branch to deposit a check makes little sense, it makes equally little sense to expect  a consumer to apply for a mortgage on their mobile device.

The key for today’s financial institutions is to optimize each of their channels to most effectively cater to the types of transactions that their customers want to use those channels for. This means investing in robust self-service channels that enable customers to efficiently conduct routine financial transactions. It means revamping branches and call centers to provide a premium consultative experience. And it means tying all of the channels together, so that customer data can be shared seamlessly across the enterprise, ensuring a more consistent customer experience.

It’s not going to be easy, but it will be healthier in the long run.

Several of the techniques he showed were right out of Hollywood spy movies. For example, a device easily worn under his suit jacket can read the information on the corporate ID badges used to secure most financial industry facilities and with a tap of a switch, transmit that same code to a nearby reader. In practice, this would allow a hacker to walk past a headquarters employee leaving for lunch, scan their badge, and then enter the facility as an employee.

Another technique is the use of a USB device that can automatically run software on a target computer. Once plugged in, the USB device can load the desired software, perhaps key logging software to capture passwords, a memory scanner that actively monitors for credit card numbers, or perhaps desktop sharing software that will make the entire contents of the computer accessible to a remote computer. The interesting aspect of this for me was thinking about the number of retailers whose cash registers are essentially a PC with a USB drive facing a customer. It would be so easy to plug a small USB device into the back of the computer while checking out and compromise the entire store network.

The most interesting demonstration was the threat represented by peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks. Although the threat was widely reported in security publications over a year ago, I’ve yet to speak with anyone outside of info security aware of the potential risk. The compromise works like this: a user installs file sharing software, like LimeWire, Kazaa, or BitTorrent, on their computer to access free music. Once installed, the software shares the entire contents of the user’s hard disk, not just a limited set of music files. Once the files are shared, anyone on the peer-to-peer network who searches for the right file name can download the user’s files for whatever purpose they desire.

How great is the risk? Well, do you or anyone in your home or anyone at your company ever download free music? Another way to think of it is, do your kids have more music on their iPad then you can account for in iTunes charges? If so, you may be at risk. In fact, many organizations with strong security policies likely have employees who inadvertently share files over peer-to-peer networks, which completely bypasses their security infrastructure when the user installs it.

At this point, you might be wondering what types of data or files someone might find. I’d like to pass along three examples that Mr. Mitnick shared. First, imagine for a moment how many people write a letter to Citibank explaining an error in their account and requesting that it be corrected. Keep in mind that each of these users will likely include their name, account number, possibly even birthdates or other confidential information in the letter. Then, recall that Word uses the first sentence of the letter as a filename—in this case, Dear Citibank. Mr. Mitnick ran a live search for the phrase “Dear Citibank” that revealed hundreds of files. He showed one of the files with the extensive personal information grayed out to demonstrate how complete the information was for an attempted account takeover.

In the next example, he ran a search for the phrase “tax return”. Keep in mind that tax software saves your completed tax return with a filename like 2011_yourname_tax_return.pdf. A quick search revealed thousands of files containing the phrase “tax return”. This year the IRS has reported some 20,000 fraudulently filed tax returns where the fraudulent return was filed before W-2s were received by the IRS. The security protection that the IRS uses to identify a consumer is their adjusted gross income from last year, which is conveniently located on last year’s tax return which the hacker just stole. The fraudster simply creates fictitious information that results in large refunds to be distributed to temporary bank accounts. After the IRS receives the actual W-2 data, they will contact the consumer to request a refund. In most of these cases the consumer is not yet completed their taxes and has no idea that their tax information was stolen or how a fraudulent return could possibly have been approved by the IRS.

The final example I’d like to share is related to WikiLeaks. As reported elsewhere, many of the documents that WikiLeaks claims were submitted to them anonymously were actually acquired through P2P file sharing networks. The individuals who disclosed confidential State Department or military information were in fact doing nothing more than downloading music to listen to while at work. Some of the information released, such as family addresses for military personnel in Afghanistan, represent grave security threats. While leaks from financial institutions may be more difficult to identify, there is little doubt that at least one employee in at least one bank has chosen to look for some free music on company time.

Perhaps the most startling aspect of all of these security attacks is that antivirus and anti-malware software is completely ineffective. It is only through attentive and cautious behaviors that users and consumers can protect themselves from these attacks. Last year, I wrote an article titled, Can Consumers Be Trusted to Help Fight Identity Fraud? In short, the answer is that most consumers take virtually no security precautions with their personal computer or their personal data. As remarkable as it is, they seem to expect their financial institution to protect their identity while sharing confidential information with the world.

I don’t have a clear answer for how to solve this problem, but I certainly have a much greater sympathy when the IT security team tells me that my USB device must be disabled and I cannot have privileges to install software on my work computer. Now, I need to figure out how to implement that level of security at home.

To make the transition even easier the bank came on site at my company to complete the necessary paperwork to open the account. In terms of customer service the account change was very positive and seamless. I give this bank an “A” for the quality of the customer experience but saw the potential for more efficient, cost effective, secure processes so my account can remain free in the future. There must be sustainability when strategic decisions are made to waive fees.

Once the HSA opening process was complete, there were a couple of steps necessary to access my account online. I received an access code via mail that stated a password would be sent in a separate mailing for security purposes. The next day the second envelope containing my password came. My coworker received her envelopes on the same day because she doesn’t check her mailbox every day. After hearing that, it occurred to me this approach to security might not be all that secure. Perhaps I’m more sensitive to this because I was once a victim of mail fraud in a check washing scheme, but it did raise a question about the security of sensitive information sitting in the mailbox. Perhaps a combination of mail, email or text would be safer, not to mention more cost effective. For example, when I opened an ING account they deposited small sums into my checking account that I had to verify to ensure account opening security. No paper, no postage, no sitting in the mailbox, done.

Another mailing I received regarding my HSA opening was a customer satisfaction survey with a self addressed stamped envelope enclosed. The survey included a ratings scale for various interactions with the bank and a section for written comments. While I think it is a great idea to ask your customers for feedback, I could see an opportunity to save time and money while making their process more efficient. The bank knew I was signing up for online banking and I provided them with an email address during the account opening process. They could have sent the satisfaction survey via email and all of my comments and rankings would have been able to be easily populated into their system. I pictured the tedious task of somebody manually entering the hand written information from the mailed surveys one by one. That seems very inefficient and expensive when you add up the cost of the mailing and the employee’s time.

The next items to arrive were my free box of checks, debit card, debit card password and finally my first statement. That seemed like a lot of mail within a couple of weeks. Granted I won’t always be getting this volume of mail, but there could be ways to consolidate or eliminate some of it. For example, having an option for automatic enrollment in e-statements on the account opening form would have saved me one less step in the account opening process and one less mailing. Another option to improve the customer experience, while reducing the clutter, would be to consolidate everything into a welcome package. One mailing with everything I need to conduct my bank business.

With the increased incidence of banks charging new or higher fees to offset losses from recent regulatory changes (e.g. the CARD Act, Dodd-Frank, etc.) it’s refreshing to find some banks that are working hard to keep that from affecting their customers. To continue to offer free services, cost reduction in other ways will be critical. A study by the Pew Institute last year reported that a customer may be charged as many as 49 different fees for a checking account. Based on that, I’m thrilled that my new account is fee-free. I’d like to keep it that way.

After suffering one of the worst economic recessions in history, we are seeing lots of small businesses start to appear. This is an encouraging trend for the economy, but it presents a challenge to the organizations servicing these small businesses. Merchant acquirers are enabling these new businesses to accept credit cards, debit cards, and other alternative payment products in their day-to-day operations. By doing so, these acquirers are taking on a high level of risk. If one of their merchants accepts payments for a product that they fail to deliver, the resulting chargebacks can often end up as losses on the acquirer’s books. In order to prevent this, merchant acquirers need to be able to assess exactly how risky each new merchant that they are underwriting is going to be.

The challenge facing merchant acquirers is to accurately assess merchant risk in an environment in which traditional credit risk data and analytic products have become less reliable. Acquirers who are underwriting small businesses need to understand the credit worthiness of the business’ principal. However, due to the recent recession, traditional credit reports and scores have become a lot less predictive. A consumer who went upside down on their mortgage three years ago (during the height of the recession), might have gotten back on their feet since then. A consumer, who lost his job and missed a few credit card payments when unemployment was at 10%, might have stabilized as the economy has improved. These are exactly the type of consumers that, due to changes wrought by the recession, are starting new businesses. Despite their recession-related credit trouble, they might now be in a position to successfully launch and operate a business. The problem is that merchant acquirers looking at these consumers through traditional creditworthiness indicators might not see them as profitable, low risk merchant accounts.

So how do merchant acquirers overcome this challenge? First, merchant acquirers need to look beyond traditional credit data during the underwriting process. There are a number of alternative data sources that can supplement traditional sources to provide a much more accurate, post-recession view of consumers’ creditworthiness. We’ve seen alternative data products that can increase the number of approved accounts by 15% without changing the acquirer’s risk tolerance.

Once merchant acquirers have incorporated alternative data for a more accurate automated risk assessment, they need to intelligently apply their manual underwriting resources to the applications that are on the fence. There are always going to be a few merchants that fall right on the cut-off line. They might have a questionable credit history. There might be a fraud concern. There might not be enough data available for an automated decision. These are the merchant applications that you want your underwriters working on. You want them to conduct thorough research on the merchant in order to understand the risk that they pose. Ultimately, your underwriters need to determine if the merchant is going to be able to follow their business plan and deliver their products on-time and undamaged. By automating the merchant risk assessment process, acquirers can efficiently process the majority of their applications and leave only the most questionable cases for their underwriters to deal with.

Merchant acquisition is a challenging process. This rising tide of post-recession entrepreneurship represents a great opportunity for merchant acquirers. However, acquirers cannot afford to underwrite more risk than they can handle. In order to successfully seize today’s small business merchant opportunity, acquirers need to invest in an underwriting system that can accurately and efficiently sort the good merchant risks from the bad.

While theirs may not seem like an enviable position, public scrutiny is the price that comes with being one of the largest banks in the country. There likely will never be a day people won’t grouse about big banks, Wall Street or corporate greed. The way I see it, the more challenges you face the more opportunities you have. Of course money doesn’t hurt either. The surge in loan volume because of HARP (good) prompted Bank of America to bring back some of its’ previously laid off fulfillment center employees (also good). The challenge was keeping up with processing the loans without creating a bad customer experience through lengthy wait times or winding up as front page news yet again if any backlash, consumer or otherwise, arose based on their ability to facilitate the HARP volume smoothly.

In this situation, opportunity exists to develop a method to streamline processes to ensure future growth is not impeded. Strengthening the bank’s capacity to meet increasing loan demands may take new business strategies and more effective technology solutions. While it may not be an easy fix, it’s one worth the investment. This is just one example. Oracle recently held a forum for financial services executives in New York and reported that most big bank technology infrastructures are old and homegrown, making them not only difficult to maintain but also to evolve. According to the Oracle presentation, banks are working with software applications that are on average 15 to 20 years old and infrastructures at least a decade old. The point they were driving home is that there is plenty of opportunity for banks to become more efficient by upgrading inflexible, outdated core systems.

Does anyone really care if big banks can’t catch a break? If what we read in the news is any indication, probably not. It’s no secret that the financial industry has a way to go in restoring public trust, but we will all benefit if banks become more efficient. Driving down costs means savings can be passed on to customers, hopefully in the form of fewer fees. Streamlining processes also provides a better customer experience. It’s a goal worth pursuing especially in light of new regulations that are impacting bank profitability and a lower consumer tolerance for additional fees. There is plenty of room for the implementation of new business strategies and technology that promote transparency, trust and profitability. This is the land of opportunity after all.

In the merchant acquisition space, the main risk is that of non-delivery. This presents itself in two different forms, intentional and unintentional. Intentional non-delivery happens when a merchant goes into the relationship with the intent to defraud consumers and leave the merchant acquirer holding the bag while they fly off to the Bahamas. Unintentional non-delivery happens when unforeseen circumstances cause the merchant to be unable to fulfill all of its orders. For example, a vendor making t-shirts out of his garage has a celebrity wear his shirt and suddenly everyone wants that shirt. The orders come pouring in and there is no way he can fill them all based on the scale of his operations. So he closes up shop and the acquirer is stuck with a litany of chargebacks. Unintentional non-delivery is often more difficult to manage because the merchant’s intentions are good, they just encounter circumstances beyond their control.

So how do merchant acquirers manage non-delivery risk? While risk cannot be eliminated entirely, a proactive approach to managing the inevitable will go a long way toward minimizing the amount of risk incurred. Understanding that the risk posed by merchants is going to be variable and being able to adapt as the risk level changes needs to be a key priority. What does this look like?

Merchant acquirers need to comprehensively evaluate a broad range of merchants during underwriting and effectively monitor those accounts based on both known and suspicious loss indicators. Utilizing a wide variety of business and consumer credit data, in addition to alternative credit and fraud data allows a more comprehensive evaluation based on what is most appropriate for a particular merchant. For established businesses pulling a business credit file is appropriate. For a small start-up, looking at the consumer credit history of the business principal(s) is a better option.

Having access to the right data is critical throughout the entire merchant relationship lifecycle. Monitoring dramatic changes in sales volume, ticket prices (switching from selling low end to high end goods) or changes in the type of product being sold (i.e. apparel to furniture) all require immediate and proactive attention. Automated risk triggers will help acquirers stay ahead of the curve when managing all types of merchant risk. Early identification of risk gives acquirers opportunities to protect against losses and chargebacks.

Just like diplomats put their powers of persuasion to work for the global good and middle children like Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama overcome their seemingly unfair positions in life; merchant acquirers have opportunities to position themselves for great success and profitability with the least amount of risk.

About three years ago, a banker shared with me one of the manual steps in their automated origination process. When loan applications required a manual review they would box up the paper applications and ship them across the country to their underwriting office. Once there, the stipulations or flags were cleared and the remaining steps of the applications were completed manually. While the process was labor intensive and expensive, the real issue was risk. That risk became clear when two of the boxes failed to arrive one day. Suddenly the institution was faced with a data breach involving personally identifiable information. Over the next six months, we helped them automate that process and eliminate the paper processing. They still complete manual reviews with human interaction, but they accomplish them safely and efficiently. The point is that even today, many institutions have significant manual processes in spite of their efforts at automation.

The challenge faced by institutions today is to transition from the opportunistic automation approach that has captured much of banks’ budgets for decades to a more systemic approach. By this, I mean institutions must consider the totality of their process requirements, not just the step in a process that yields the greatest ROI. In some circles this concept is referred to as strategic automation or straight through processing. Regardless of the name, the key value is to automate everything in the process that can be automated, then focus on bring efficiency to those remaining steps that still require manual intervention.

The advantage of strategic automation is twofold. First, by looking at the entire origination process and seeking to automate every feasible part, there can be unexpected efficiency gains. For example, a piecemeal approach will often result in redundant processes or the need to run an application back from the beginning of the process after a stipulation is cleared. Second, it enables the institution to manage both credit and institutional risk far more effectively. By considering the entire process at once with a single set of eyes, it is less likely that exceptions in the process will be overlooked and left operating with risky procedures. While there is overhead to this process, it is far more effective, not to mention less risky, than mailing boxes of applications across the country.

A more subtle value of strategic automation is it requires an institutional approach to decision-making. When institutions take an opportunistic approach to software solutions they often choose vendors or software with shortcomings that are not yet visible. Over time as the scope of the project expands, the shortcomings of the vendors become evident. At this point it’s not uncommon to simply add additional vendors who can address these gaps and focus the IT budget on integration. The resulting hodgepodge of software, while technically addressing all of the low hanging opportunities for automation, is expensive to maintain and unable to scale with business. Stepping back and looking at the entire process, whether that be the origination process, origination across the enterprise, or the entire credit lifecycle, enables the institution to define requirements will be able to grow with the organization’s needs.

If you find yourself in a situation where gaps in your origination process are not cost effective or adding risk, please share your experiences.

In the early 2000s, Sony was doing everything it could to transform the music industry. It recognized the writing that file sharing services like Napster had left on the wall. Digital music was here to stay. The real question was if digital music would evolve into a profitable business venture for the music industry or if it would continue gnawing on the record companies’ margins. Sony was determined that digital music would evolve and that they were the company to make that evolution happen.

At the time, Sony controlled a huge percentage of the global music industry through their recorded music division—Sony Music Entertainment. Sony also had the luxury of owning its own consumer electronics division capable of making great electronics products including the first portable music device—the Walkman. They were perfectly positioned to lead the digital music/MP3 player revolution…and they tried to. Andy Lack, head of Sony Music, showed the iPod to the company’s leadership at their annual meeting in 2003. “Here it is” he said to a group of 400 managers, “Here’s the Walkman killer. There’s no mystery meat. The reason you bought a music company is so that you could be the one to make a device like this. You can do better.”

But they couldn’t. Despite the fact that they knew that consumer demand for a digital music solution was huge; despite the fact that they had every advantage in producing a product that could meet that demand; despite the fact that they put considerable effort into creating that product. They couldn’t.

Why?

One of the main reasons was that Sony, like many other great companies that have failed to adapt, was organized into divisions. Each division—the consumers electronics division, the software division, the music entertainment division—had their own profit and loss (P&L) bottom lines. They all operated with semi-autonomy, which meant that getting them to work together was practically impossible.

By contrast, Steve Jobs never organized Apple into distinct divisions. He created a single cohesive and flexible company that operated on a single P&L bottom line.

When the record companies recognized the need for a “digital music solution”, they tried to work with Sony to develop a solution that would work for the entire music industry. Only after Sony had proved they weren’t able to deliver, did the record companies chose to work with Apple. Apple was able to create an end-to-end solution that delivered a great user experience. Apple beat Sony because, in the words of one music executive, “Steve [Jobs] would fire people if the divisions didn’t work together, but Sony’s divisions were at war with one another.”

In 2001, Apple released iTunes. It has gone on to sell more than 16 billion songs and counting. In 2004, Sony launched Sony Connect, their competitor to iTunes. They killed the service in 2008, after it became abundantly clear that it could not compete with iTunes. Sony (one of the largest players in the music industry) ceded control of the digital music distribution business to Apple (a company that hadn’t been part of the music industry until 2001).

So what can banks learn from this story? First and foremost, great customer experiences are produced by companies that are tightly aligned and deeply collaborative. Divisions and silos are the enemy of great customer experiences. If your online banking operations are completely separate from your branch banking operations—separate technology, separate policies, separate P&L—then the customer’s experiences across those channels will be wildly different. You lose the control to ensure a great customer experience. Same thing with your lines of business (LOBs). If all your LOBs operate autonomously, then a customer’s experiences across those different LOBs will be discordant rather than harmonious. I spoke with a banker who had a great (read: terrible) story about that exact thing. His institution’s DDA group wanted to cross-sell qualified customers one of the bank’s credit cards. This was a great strategy for driving new account growth, but there was a problem. There was no system for sharing cross-sell offers between the DDA and credit card groups’ origination systems. This resulted in consumers being made credit card cross-sell offers during the DDA opening process that the credit card group knew nothing about. When some of those consumers returned to the branch and asked about the credit card they had been offered, the CSR weren’t able to find the offers in the bank’s CRM system. Talk about a terrible customer experience.

For financial institutions looking to deliver better customer experiences, the first and most crucial step is to ensure that their disparate channels, lines of business, and other divisions are able to seamlessly and efficiently work together—politically and technologically. Today’s banks are in the same position that Sony was in ten years ago. They have all the pieces that they need to create the next great “banking solution” (whether it’s mobile payments, revitalized branches, or something nobody has thought of yet).  However, if financial institutions hope to avoid following in Sony’s footsteps (and getting marginalized by an alternative provider) they will need to foster an enterprise-level focus on creating a great customer experience.

What these private label programs need is a more efficient process for handling diverse brand requirements. This would increase profitability by lowering costs. I’ve recently seen increasing interest in credit card origination systems designed to do just this. The idea is actually quite simple. A single loan origination system facilitates every step in the process, automating as many of those steps as possible and making manual underwriting more efficient when it is necessary. The difference is that the system will apply unique attributes to the process depending on the private label brand or co-brand. For example, specific credit risk attributes could reflect different underwriting commitments, alternative data sources might support under-banked markets or VIP programs, and branding should be specific to each partner. A consolidated system provides one more significant benefit; a smaller staff is able to manage all of the accounts and portfolio while still providing a unique experience to the customers of each brand. This further reduces cost and improves efficiency, but also improves customer interactions.

Over the years we’ve seen many private label credit card programs shut down because they fail to provide the expected ROI. In many cases, a more efficient account opening and servicing process would have resulted in a profitable card program. Looking specifically at some of our clients, we are seeing issuers reduce the incremental cost of adding a co-brand card to their underwriting platform by as much as 90% by using a multiple-brand platform. Ongoing savings of reduced IT support and staff training further add to the savings.

Automating the account opening process for credit card underwriting is critical to create a strong ROI. Underwriting processes from the largest issuers to the smallest and from affinity to private label contain a surprising number of inefficient manual processes. In some cases the inefficiencies are large and noticeable, such as printing out applications that require a manual review and completing their underwriting in a fully manual environment. These inefficiencies are typically a side effect of taking an opportunistic approach to automating business processes; that is, automating processes that yield strong ROI, but never stepping back to look at the big picture. Credit card issuers seeking to improve the ROI of their partner platforms should certainly start by looking for these white elephants.

In many instances the inefficiencies are subtle and much harder to identify. The most common subtle inefficiency that we’ve encountered is with underwriting screens that were designed for a different process. The result is that underwriters must switch between multiple screens and sometimes pull data manually from different sources in order to complete the application. While the impact can seem trivial at first glance, it can easily double or triple the time necessary to complete each application. The problem is that few underwriting systems provide a reasonable way to update manual review screens and queues quickly, inexpensively, and without IT support. The ideal system should enable the institution to tailor the review screens to their unique business processes and ensure that underwriters spend no more time than is absolutely necessary to complete each application.

Whether building a platform for private label, co-brand, affinity, or even a corporate branded card, the core requirements to provide a solid ROI remain consistent. Automation must be systemic and effective, manual processes must be efficient and minimize their impact on the automated process, and new products and partners should be easily added at a moderate cost. Certainly implementation of a platform like this will require a more significant upfront investment, but the improved ROI of every new product launch will reward that investment for years to come.