ABA Banking Journal Competitiveness Survey 2008 - (Page S16) RDC (cont’d.) bank competitiveness through technology is as much about the results as it is about the technology. That’s why some of the key findings regarding results are set off in boxes. On page S11, for instance, there is the box, “RDC Results: A strategic look,” that examines the overall payoffs that banks have seen from offering remote capture service. There, we present what they told us about overall profitability, new business generated, repeat business retained, and more. On pages S14-15, by contrast, we drill down. In the box, “RDC Results: By the numbers,” the tables spanning the bottom of those pages get at some hard numbers, and present averages and mediand with ans for increasing flair all institutions reporting, and by asset size, for four key measures. If you are offering remote capture, compare your fourth-quarter 2007 customer numbers to these exhibits. Of course, results don’t produce themselves, and for those just considering remote capture, or those tinkering with their present offerings, this section provides data regarding how banks are structuring their remote capture programs; how they charge for the service; and how they market the programs. Community bank marketing of remote capture service continues to evolve. As Exhibit 32 on page S14 shows, marketing through bank websites, which rose RDC & THE CUSTOMER: When product meets user Exhibit 42 >What check services does your bank Image replacement document (IRD) Image exchange (IE) 50.3% 70.9% Exhibit 43 offer through remote deposit capture?* >What type of remote capture software does your bank use? 14.5% Back-office conversion (BOC) 7.3% Accounts receivable conversion (ARC) 6.7% Point-of-purchase conversion (POP) Bank size makes a difference in services offered. BY ASSET SIZE IRD IE BOC ARC POP BY ASSET SIZE Thick client (P.C.-based) 28.1% Thin client (Internet-based) 71.9% Under $500 million $501-999 million $1 billion-up 70.9% 45.5% 12.7% 8.2% 6.4% 78.8 48.5 15.2 3 6.1 59.1 77.3 22.7 9.1 9.1 THICK THIN Under $500 million $501-$999 million $1 billion-up 31.3% 22 19.2 68.7% 78 80.8 REGIONAL TREND Exhibit 45 IRD IE BOC ARC POP Northeast Southeast Central Midwest Southwest West 67.9% 72.7 80 66.7 70.4 65 57.1% 60.6 36.7 59.3 37 5 17.9% 12.1 16.7 3.7 22.2 15 14.3% 14.3% 3 9.1 6.7 0 7.4 3.7 11.1 7.4 0 5 >Which type of scanner do you deploy more of? *Banks could choose multiple answers. Manual scanner 32.1% Automatic scanner 55.7% Exhibit 44 >Has offering remote capture affected deposit cutoff deadlines for customers using it? BY ASSET SIZE YES About even 12.3% sell RDC via websites 42.4% Under $500 million 45.7% $501-$999 million 64.3 $1 billion-up 64.3 Exhibit 46 Don’t know 8.6% Yes 51.3% BY MARKET TYPE YES No 40.1% Urban Suburban Rural-suburban Urban-suburban Rural BY REGION 64.3% 55.6 50.6 50 44.4 YES >Does your remote capture service permit scanning of nonpayment items such as invoices? Yes 8% Banks over $1 billion were almost twice as likely to do this. Central Southeast Northeast West Southwest Midwest 64.5% 62 58.1 48.3 43.2 31 No 92% by nearly ten percentage points over last year’s survey, has grown more sophisticated. As part of the research we sampled websites of banks offering remote capture and found the use of online video demonstrations growing more popular. One bank’s innovative video showed checks being imaged on the customer desktop, and the faces of those same checks being displayed, one by one, on their PC’s screen. A video can be worth a thousand words. But while marketing has a role, the technology is about performance, not about the sizzle; there’s another aspect of the RDC product that can’t be ignored, and that is the customer. The business customer is where the scanner meets the need, so to speak. In the box above, “RDC and the customer,” we explore in depth remote deposit capture from the user’s perspective. For instance, in Exhibit 42, we see what types of check services are offered through Competitiveness Survey 2008 S16 MARCH 2008/ABA BANKING JOURNAL
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.