Please sign an e-petition against advertising on ATMs (Cash Machines)

[waterman1]

Hello fellow consumers,

Sick of yet more advertising? Sick of banks trying to use you in yet another way?

I have launched an e-petition on the No. 10 website. Please visit it and sign up!

Petition to: urgently review the legality and regulation of third party advertising on Automated Telling Machines (ATMs).

Here's the script:

Did you know that certain banks have started to use their cash machines (ATMs) to show advertisements when you get your cash. They are using you to earn fees from the advertisers to help pay for their ATMs. Poor banks, earning £billions in profit and need to blast us with ads to make ends meet!

Over 44% of all ATMs are being adapted to show ads, so expect a lot more in future. Did you know that there are over 2,500,000,000 (2.5 billion) ATM transactions carried out every year in the UK and soon pretty much every one of them will be an ad as well?

The most prolific offenders so far are Nationwide, HSBC, and Alliance & Leicester, although other banks have tried it.

Soon, The Royal Bank of Scotland (NatWest, Bank of Ireland) is going to turn 2500 ATMs located at Tesco stores throughout the UK over to Tescos and other advertisers. Expect to see adverts for "instore" offers when you stop to get your cash. The ads are short but punchy, very colourful and memorable - they have to be to work. But the point is not that they are short, or inoffensive, but that they are shown to you without giving you any choice in the matter. Under electronic communications regulations, that's actually against EU laws. You are legally entitled to be able to opt out of any such unsolicited direct marketing.

I believe this is actually an infringement of The Banking Code which effectively promises that your contract with a bank when you use one is "confidential" and basically rules out them "selling" your attention to any third party. Further, banks have so great a hold on our basic finances - mortgage, loans, credit cards etc - it is completely wrong for them to begin brain-washing us as to how we spend our cash when we get it from a cash machine. It's greed and its being done without anyone's consent. When did they ask your permission to do this? No bank ever sent me a letter suggesting I should buy hand cream or use a cheap airline or visit the Tesco bogofs, so why should I put up with it when I go to the cash machine!

Please object and sign my petition. I am looking for 200 signatures to guarantee a reply from No. 10 to all signatories, and thereafter the more people that sign the better.

Advertising on ATMs affects up to 30 million ATM users in the UK, and that's basically anyone and everyone. If we don't object now, expect ATMs to become billboards blasting out ads night and day.

The banks are trying to get back some of the money they took from you in bank charges and had to reimburse because that was illegal. Don't let them get more money by the back door of ATM advertising.

Anyone with any questions about this, please leave a message. But please sign.

Petition to: urgently review the legality and regulation of third party advertising on Automated Telling Machines (ATMs).

Finally, here's a word from the lady responsible for these ads, who recently became a paper millionaire when her company floated on the stock exchange. This is an extract from a magazine and is entirely her own text, but I have bolded the killer quote.

From Business XL magazine, October 2007:

Name: Ana Stewart
Title: Chief Executive
Company: i-design, a specialist in advertising on ATM screens and receipts

Advertising is such a competitive space at the moment. What we’ve done with ATM:ad is come up with something original, allowing banks such as HSBC and Nationwide to generate new sales from advertising on their ATM screens and receipts.

Advertisements run during the transaction, which means advertisers know they are reaching customers one-to-one. And it is measurable since advertisers can see how many customers they reach. Furthermore, customers are captive – they aren’t going to run away, because they are waiting for cash – and you reach them when they have cash in hand to spend.

Seventy-five per cent of bank customers take their money out of cash machines. Our solution provides a great way for banks to generate new revenues. We’re the only player in this market offering an end-to-end solution, generating all the advertising and content via our London-based media sales and production teams, who work with our customers.

In total, the company has sold software licences for 8,000 ATMs, plus 2,200 in-branch internet kiosks and has the exclusive media sales rights for 2,500 of those ATMs.

We’ve proved advertising on an ATM works and we are starting to see a lot of interest from abroad, which is one of the benefits we’ve seen from floating on AIM earlier this year.

:o This lady is a real charmer!

[Conniff]

I see nothing wrong with advertising on ATMs. If it helps to keep them free, then let them do it.

[barracad]

Ditto - I would rather spend a couple of seconds watching an ad than pay £1.75 to withdraw £10 of my own money, which is what I was charged once before.

Also, I have to say that online petitions on the Number 10 website are pretty ineffective and even if you get 200 signatures it won't make much difference.

[waterman1]

Thanks for your comments.

Like possibly millions of users you think that you would rather watch ads than pay a charge.

The former (ATM ads) is an effective form of psychological manipulation, the latter (the charge) is hard cash debited from your account. People will riot over £1 taken without just cause, but they will think that they can ignore 5 seconds of brainwashing as its 'less harmfull. But multiply the numbers of 5 seconds by the number of ATMs users and you end up with a collective of thousands of years of advertising across the UK.

That is how down trodden people are about banks. They accept the least worst alternative when in fact you have to do neither. Banks rely on giving you the impression that in accepting for example advertising, you will somehow stave off the demon of charges.

Banks are not your friend. They would rather you paid a charge AND watched the ad. Ads will never replace the fee that the banks want from ATMs, but the good news is that you don't have to accept either.

Although the ads are short, and silent, they are highly effective, as they stimulate brand recognition - remind you of a product or service you already know just when you have cash in your hand. It's incredibly powerful. It's at least 10 times more likely to make you buy or do something than junk mail. Some people say it is 200 times more powerful than other forms of advertising.

I don't think that anyone with complete freedom would ever opt to be advertised to. Fair enough, if you want to be bombarded with ads, and give up your rights forever, and those of any children you have or may have, go on. The fact is that when you give up that right, you are not thinking of or supporting those that don't want adverts on ATMs.

The only way forward is to argue for choice in the matter. The rights of consumers, set out in The Banking Code, have been hard won. Section 8 says that every bank user must be asked whether or not they want to receive solicitations from the bank, every 3 years. It is everyone's absolute right to accept, decline and in fact change your mind at any time.

So, I say to anyone who thinks the ads are OK, you can't do anything about it, "it's better than being charged", that this is you being manipulated into Hobson's Choice.

The fact is ads are not an alternative to charges (which have been ruled out by the large networked banks), they are contrary to The Banking Code, which are your rights, and in accepting them you are denying your own right to choose.

People give up their freedoms too easily. You may not mind today, but you could change your mind, and then regret it.

As for e-petitions, they are a means of expression for ordinary persons in a democratic society. Simply to register an epetition means negotiating a process through the No. 10 office. They do not automatically mean anything will get done, but so long as they highlight issues and promote debate and choice, no one is harmed. At the end of the day, I am asking for a debate and a recognition of choice for those that object to ATM advertising, nothing more.

To those that want to be bombarded by advertising, and manipulated, in the belief that they are avoiding some other greater penalty, I say, that is your right too, and if there is a way for you to get what you want while protecting our own rights to avoid this, enjoy! However, don't be surprised when the rules change and you find that your giving in gave the banks the impression that you didn't care, and they make their next move.

Note: the only ATMs that currently charge are those that are Independent deployers, who don't have the benefit of being a large bank or building society to cover their overhead costs. In contrast, this whole discussion revolves around the financial institutions that are members of The Banking Code and who operate large ATM networks.

[waterman1]

To anyone who reads this, whatever your viewpoint, please ask for a copy of The Banking Code next time you go into your bank. (The code is being revised and a new edition was due to be issued on March 1st.)

[Conniff]

I honestly can't see the problem here. The banks don't have to even have cash dispensers if they don't want to, they are supplied for our convenience, and as it is their machine I can't see how anyone can dictate to them what they display. You have a choice in that you do not have to look at the advertising, or can go into a bank and withdraw cash.
I would dispute your figures that they have such influence on people.

Fair enough, if you want to be bombarded with ads, and give up your rights forever, and those of any children you have or may have, go on.

That is an attempt at emotional blackmail and I don't think that will work either.

What 'rights' and where are they laid down?
Why are you not including hordings, magazines and television in your campaign?

[barracad]

I don't think we're the ones being brainwashed here - the fact is, there is no such thing as 'free' banking - there never has been, and there never will be. It wasn't that long ago that all cash machines charged you if you used a bank other than your own, and people simply didn't want to be charged for using them. The banks had to fund the machines from elsewhere, as with a lot of other services they provide, and a lot of this funding no doubt came from the unlawful charges they have been levying against the most vulnerable members of society. As this is likely to be stopped then they now have to look at alternative funding - of which this is one example.

I still stand by my own personal opinion - I would much rather have a couple of seconds advertising than pay a fee to withdraw cash - in the same way as if I need to call Directory Enquiries, rather than paying ridiculously expensive charges I will ring the free service which means I have to listen to a short ad before my query is dealt with.

I have studied marketing for long enough to know that I won't be manipulated by such ads. Furthermore your claims that these ads are 10 times more effective than direct mail I find hard to believe and suggest that this figure is complete make-believe. Direct mail is so successful because it is unique in the way it engages all five senses - ATM ads cannot do this.

Finally if you think that your petition will highlight anything then you only need to look at this as an example of how seriously these things are taken.

I wish you luck in your venture, but I really don't know what you're expecting to achieve other than potentially reintroduce fees to use ATMs.

[waterman1]

Thanks again for your interesting comments.

First, ATMs are an essential service provided by banks and could not simply be withdrawn. Cash drives the economy and access to cash 24 hours a day is something that banks are obliged to do. And what is better from a consumer's point of view is that everything about an ATM, as with every aspect of banking, is governed by rules, in this case The Banking Code, so they absolutely cannot do whatever they wish with them. So on that point Banks can be challenged about advertising and other issues.

Anyone wanting to follow this debate must understand The Banking Code and how the regulation of banks works. Banks are not "free" commercial organisations like other retailers. Knowing The Banking Code in detail gives consumer's the ability to negotiate with banks on equal terms.

As for the issue of emotional blackmail, fine it's true I have pulled the heartstrings a bit. However, the decisions you make today do have consequences for those that will come after us, and unless your children will not require the services of a fair and reasonable banking sector in years to come, then you should make choices that do not weaken the consumer's position. In this case signing an epetition for choice in ATM advertising is a way of making a valuable point. I think it will make a difference, so watch this space.

As for referring to an e-petition that asks the PM to juggle ice cream standing on his head, that is funny but has no substance and will never work. I think that you will find that asking for a debate on what sort of services an ATM offers is a very significant point - it affects 30 million card using adults in the UK, having a total of 110 million cards valid for use at ATMs, and 2,500,000,000 ATM withdrawals per year. Today, 75% of all cash in circulation comes out of ATMs. In a couple of years it will be over 80%.

But please don't take my word for it - do some research. you may also find that advertising does work, even if you feel you are uniquely resistant to it. Most people are not. And as for direct mail, it cannot possibly work if you throw it in the bin before opening it. Try avoiding an ATM ad, you will probably struggle. Dark glasses may help!

[Conniff]

Hi again Waterman.

I can't see anywhere in the banking code anything to do with advertising except for their own or their groups financial services where they say they wont mislead you.

I haven't personally seen any advertising on an atm except 'you may top up your Vodaphone mobile phone here', which I class as a service.

I don't need to do any research, I don't disbelieve anything you say, I have no reason to.

What I don't see is what is wrong with advertising on an atm, but not wrong when advertising on tv, hordings or in magazines, which you are not including in your petition.

[waterman1]

Hi Conniff.

Well, its complicated. Banks that subscribe to the BC are very much constrained in what they can do (compared to any other commercial retailer) because its MONEY that's involved. Banks, or more correctly financial institutions, are highly regulated in every aspect of what they can do precisely because they have the fundamental hold over an essential resource, cash. The Code covers all aspects of retail banking and also ATMs, also small business banking.

When it comes to advertising, they are allowed to "tell" you about other services and products, but this is very limited to a narrow class of financial services related to their "objects" i.e. banking. They most certainly are not supposed to start advertising cheap flights, hand creams, government propaganda (yes it's true) or anything in fact that is an unrelated product. They must also have the explicit consent of a customer (an ATM user is a customer whether they bank with the bank owner of the ATM or not).

Ask yourself, did banks ever advertise those sorts of things in the bank? on the internet bank site? did they ever tell you about cheap flights in a letter to your house? (NOTE - this does not involve credit card magazines which are different).The use of ATMs for this type of advertising is opportunistic and I am persuing an action against the banks on various levels to prove that ATM advertising is, if you like, an abuse of the very privileged and sacro sanct customer-bank relationship.

There was a famous court case in 1924 (Mr Tournier versus a bank) that proved that banks have an absolute duty not to use or abuse the fact that you are a customer to get a benefit from that relationship in any way except in the context of doing banking business with you. To use ATMs as a weapon of exploitation, to earn money from you when you take money from a cash machine by making you watch an ad - during a vital everyday service - is very much an abuse of the client-bank relationship. The banks that do it are breaking The Banking Code.

Anyway, there are other reasons why ATM advertising is wrong that I will not go into here. However, I am glad that you have not seen any of these ads, but I can assure you will soon if this is not stopped. To that end, I believe you have nothing to lose in signing up to my petition which argues only that ATM users should be given a say in the matter, and a choice if necessary in order to skip the ads if you don't like them. That brings me to my final point, ATM ads, the way they are displayed gives the consumer no choice, and you will find that if you read the "guidance" on how to interpret the Banking Code, and also the PEC Regulations 2003, that all persons have a legal right to "choose" what they see and hear, and if necessary opt out.

Banks and ATMs are not the same as advertising on tvs, radios, hoardings, junk mail, where you can abort the ad at will. Think of it this way, when an advertiser pays for an ad on any other medium, local radio for example, they take a chance that possibly not even a single person will be listening, watching! Of course, statistically they get hits, but the level of response is quite low. At an ATM they are getting a 1-on-1 guarantee that someone is there. That's unprecedented access to your brain, and its effective. You can't say to people close your eyes, or don't use that ATM or go into the branch, there has to be one effective solution for all. Despite what people say about the psycology of ads being avoidable and such, it really does work, and ATM ads are very effective - it's to do with people being much more readily influenced when they are holding cash, it's a primeval response in a cash-society. So, if you are holding your last £10 from your overdraft, do you buy the kids fish & chips for supper, or do you pop into the shop and buy lotto tickets as advertised when you used the cash dispenser?????? Yes you could be the 1 in 13 million who wins a major prize, but it is much more likely that the kids will go hungry.

ATMs are a special private environment where one goes to do an essential task, get money, which drives the retail economy. There is no question that interjecting an ad at that very moment of the captive person waiting for their money is the most devious and surreptitious act of gross abuse of the Banking Code that has ever been conceived, and your right, the Code does not go into sufficient detail about it, so no wonder you are puzzled. Trust me, I'm a doctor and I'm on the case!!!!

[waterman1]

Hi Barracad,

Some points for you. I am worried that you are so concerned that my campaign will somehow prompt banks to re-introduce ATM charges.

1. Banks absolutely can charge for using an ATM, it is a right enshrined in the Banking Code, but the popular revolt against them is never likely to go away so re-introduction of charges is always going to be unrealsitic. It was a greedy move anyway, and in terms of the new banking code would be "unreasonable and unfair" especially to less well off members of society.

2. The government has just "forced" major banks to place free to use ATMs in less privileged areas of the country, so I doubt if there will be a reversal of this, suddenly charging for their use.

3. Consider the recent success in getting back all the excessive charges from banks, billions paid back. Now consider what the banks, operating 96% of all free to use ATMs, can do? They would like to charge £2 per transaction, sure who wouldn't, but an ATM transaction actually only costs about 30p, so rest assured if it were ever to raise its ugly head again, on balance, banks could only charge slightly more than it really cost, so let's say 50p. That's still 50p I hear you say!!! Anyway, the money they would make from ads is around 1 or 2p per ad, so advertising is hardly worth their while.

(The independent ATM owners do not have any other means of covering the costs of the ATMs other than to charge, so they need £2 to cover their costs. Generally, the cost is justified as they provide extra ATMs in places banks would not bother with, so it is a service. Personally I avoid them like the plague, but if you are stranded miles from home, after a stag night, naked and only an ATM card to your name, that £2 charge is looking very very attractive!)

4. This one is for free and should be used by anyone challenging banks charging for ATMS.

Banks say that ATMs cost them money to position, and operate, so they need money from users to pay for them. I say nonesense. ATMs save the banks money, in perpetuity, because the alternative is to open more branches, keep them open longer and that would cost more. They would have to do that by law. So in aggregate ATMs save bank's money. Banks should be challenged to produce the figures that show that ATMs cost X while the alternative would cost them X+Y. Therefore in their accounting system, ATMs are a valuable asset, earning them a return on the investment which is equal to the value of Y every year. As an operating cost, this is extremely good for the banks, and the argument that they need an income stream to pay for them is completely and utterly fictional and would never stand up in court. I don't invent an income stream or charge my customers because I have operating costs that are artificially lower than they should be because of technology! Think about it - how many people would want to work in a bank at 3am waiting for a robbery to take place?

5. So long as banks like RBS make £10Bn profit, there's no serious chance of them ever arguing poverty regarding ATMs!

So Barracad, please sign my petition!

[waterman1]

At the risk of being called a heretic, if banks charged 50p for an ATM transaction and made the minimum withdrawal £20, that would be 2.5%. That is the same charge as a credit card company makes to the retailer, who prices the goods to cover this, or adds the fee on top if you use a card. However I say they have our collective money in the bank already, earning more money from it on the exchanges overnight, so on balance, no fees are justified.

[waterman1]

"Direct mail is so successful because it is unique in the way it engages all five senses - ATM ads cannot do this."

This comment is truly surreal. Exactly what direct mail do you receive in your letterbox that stimulates your senses of hearing?, smell?, taste? and touch? (unless you have a fetish about printed paper!) Honestly, send some over here!

[Spiceskull]

I must say that waterman is arguing his case lucidly, and in principle I agree with pretty much all he says. In a nutshell an ATM delivers a captive audience to advertisers, and that this audience is compelled to receive advertising, irrespective of their wishes, if they wish to make use of the service.

This is an abusive position by the banks, and yes, an opt out should be available. Any other service, in any other sector, is compelled to offer an opt in/opt out facility regarding advertising, even banks themselves, and the ATM issue seems to be a convenient loophole for them.

I won't sign the petition - personally I do not think it will make a difference. However, the subject is valid, and if people were to protest in other ways then maybe the advertisers would not see such an attractive proposition...