The Wells philosophy is the epitome of customer centricity.

Business 2.0: Bank different – Jun. 12, 2006

Wells Fargo CEO Dick Kovacevich tells Business 2.0 Magazine that there’s no such thing as bad customers – just companies that don’t work hard enough to turn them into good ones.
…
he argues, if a customer is truly unprofitable, that’s the company’s problem, not the customer’s.

Their approach follows Aneace’s philosophy of treating each interaction, as an opportunity.

Every transaction is an opportunity to engage a customer – both to satisfy a transactional need and also to sell him something. And the transaction  actually gives you an understanding of customer needs or another new  opportunity. If you come in and cash a check from Fidelity, one of our tellers or someone should ask “Could we introduce you to an investment consultant  to see if we can do a better job for you than Fidelity?” and so on. So store  traffic is good even though it can be more costly, because transactions give  us an opportunity to understand and satisfy a customer’s need, and  therefore make new sales. And I would just ask two rhetorical questions: Who over time have been the  better merchandisers, retail stores or banks, in terms of their ability to attract customers and serve them well? Most people would say retailers have been  more effective than banks. And I’d ask the second rhetorical question: How many retailers don’t want customers in their stores? …

You’ve recently introduced some new Internet-based tools, like a report that categorizes spending whether it’s done through a checking account or credit card and scanners that let small businesses deposit checks electronically. Why don’t we see that kind of innovation in banking more often? You know, I started in business working at General Mills (Research).

I don’t think the banking industry is particularly at the leading edge. We probably learn more from other industries than we teach them. That’s why I’m on the Target (Research) board. I think retailers are 20 years ahead of banks in their thinking. Please don’t tell your readers, but our checking accounts aren’t really much  different than Bank of America’s (Research),
OK? It’s the way we distribute our products that’s different. We have a lotmore in common with other distributors of commodity products than we do with other banks. Most of the products that Target and Wal-Mart (Research) carry are similar, and the way you buy them is similar. Or take Home Depot. The products aren’t what distinguishes Home Depot (Research); it’s the way they put a plumbing store and a paint shop and so on under one roof. And so we’re doing that with financial services. We’re taking what were commodity products delivered through multiple sales forces and putting them all under one roof so the consumer can come in and choosewhichproducts make sense. Before, you had to go to a banker, a broker, or an insurance agent for a CD, a mutual fund, or an annuity, and yet they were all trying to  satisfy some sort of a long-term savings need. The risks and rewards are  different, and you had to pay three different salespeople to bring those to you, and then you had to decide which one made sense because you figured the salespeople were all biased, right?

Now you can come to a Wells Fargo and we can talk to you about the costs and benefits of a mutual fund vs. a CD vs. an annuity and give you some advice – and e’re agnostic because we’re not just selling CDs. We can say “OK, what’s best for you?” Other businesses have figured out how to do that in retail, and we have now figured out how to do it in banking. Eventually, maybe some of our competitors will too.