While Wells intentions are likely valid and part of a larger strategy, to encourage elimination of paper statements this "agree or else" approach is not just un-necessary, its rude. Up to now Wells have generally got it right, with quality implementations, but somehow someone has made a mistake here.

Interruption marketing is very old-school. 

Orcmid's Lair: Wells Fargo Click-Through Thuggery

What I encountered instead were two EULA-like statements and a mandatory click-through before I could access my account on-line.The first statement was a single page E-Sign Consent document. It constituted my consent to receive all information in electronic form. The wording suggested to me that I would no longer receive paper statements.

Taking the option to decline resulted in a warning that I could be denied on-line services and reverted to whatever there was before. I have always had an on-line account, starting at the end of 1999, so I have no idea what would happen. I did not confirm that I was declining and chose to agree.

The second statement presented the Wells Fargo On-Line Access agreement. I could decline its provisions and be left in the same state as before, or I could claim that I’ve read and accepted the conditions of that agreement. The text of the agreement is 69k, has 11, 000 words, and occupies 22 pages when viewed in Microsoft Word. I obviously clicked through without reading the thing. I saved the text file to disk by pasting it into Windows Notepad.

Since I would apparently be denied access if I did not accept both agreements, I did so without any clue what the consequences of agreement are. My account appeared as normal and I was able to confirm that the expected funds transfer had been credited. I also saw that my use of an ATM machine in British Columbia during Northern Voices cost me $5.00 each time.

Technorati Tags: online_banking, wells_fargo, customer_communication