Rebel that lost the plot

Poor old 20Twenty. Its marketing people are learning the lesson that you can`t please anyone. First MoneyWeb (and The Citizen, which uses its content) tore into the online bank for not being appeasing enough in its advertising, for being too "tough" and uncompromising. And now I`m about to complain that it`s holding back too much, when what we need in banking is a breath of fresh air.

How do we figure our stances? MoneyWeb`s thought process is something along the following lines: 20Twenty made a tentative comeback almost two weeks ago. The next day, it was still standing, a situation quite different from the mass-influx of interested parties and resultant belly-up of its servers in 2001.

The article asked: could it be that the public was reticent to try it out again, given the bank`s previous misfortune? And accepting that this is so, it then castigated 20Twenty for not assuring the public that it`s here to stay. It even accused 20Twenty of sweeping its past under the carpet.

To re-launch with a campaign that`s almost identical to the original launch campaign won`t wash with many of the 20Twenty faithful.

Carel Alberts, special editions editor, Brainstorm

From my point of view, the reality is quite the opposite. 20Twenty`s stance is much too accommodating of its new corporate masters, and hence, if it`ll forgive me, its advertising is a bit humdrum. For example: "Why pay for banking services you don`t use?" While this is informative and no doubt compelling to someone who needs to shave banking costs off his monthly bill, it`s not exactly hard-hitting. It`s not special, interesting or revolutionary either.

No more, I fear, will we see the likes of "Banks are dead. Long live banking". Never again the fun of a bum depicted on a billboard on De Waal Drive, with the copy advising drivers to "sit, we`ll move your account for you". In fact, this is simply repeated in the new copy: "It`s not hard to change banks. We do it for you."

And the one that I especially don`t like: "We think big. Just look at our partner Standard Chartered." (To be fair, I include the one that recreates some of the attitude and cockiness of the old 20Twenty: "We changed what we disliked about banking.")

Having seen 20Twenty`s systems architecture and trusting its preparation this time around, I don`t doubt for a minute that it will withstand any onslaught of interest. I have the highest respect for the bank`s product conceptualisation. So why is it being the shrinking violet? The campaign is positively corporate, for crying out loud.

Is it Standard Chartered`s involvement? If so, it took away the single most attractive aspect of 20Twenty`s value proposition - the fact that it spoke the customers` language and avoided corporate happy-speak. CEO Christo Davel categorically denies this is the case. Like marketing lead Di de Villiers, he talks about a slow build up rather than a big bang.

"We put a lot of preparation into our operational side of things, to make sure we don`t get caught off-guard again," he said - a stance which accounts in two ways for the fact that it`s still standing - the systems are more robust, and the campaign is keeping interest at a slow simmering pace rather than a quick boil.

But none of this tallies with De Villiers` next statement, namely that 20Twenty "still owns the attitudinal territory of revolutionary banking", or that "[we] didn`t want to go out there with an apologetic attitude. We`re a bold brand, and that would just go against everything we stand for."

She`s some wordsmith, I`ll say that for her, but I feel differently.

You can`t ever "still" lead any mind space without having done anything different recently. You`re remembered as long as the shortest memory in the weedhouse. So, to re-launch with a campaign that`s almost identical to the original launch campaign won`t wash with many of the 20Twenty faithful.

It was through 20Twenty that I learned about The Cluetrain Manifesto, a book that explains how bright young companies can become marketing stars by architecting a huge buzz through good customer service, a revolutionary approach and attitude, never hiding behind a corporate facade, and allowing their customers to have their say and help spread their gospel.

It`s a leap of faith, but 20Twenty did all this. To recap: First, it created a tremendous viral campaign with some excellent advertising, a brash and bold attitude and "befriending" selected journalists, whom it inspired with straight talk. Unfazed by its own frightening success, it then took to answering every e-mail, phone call and fax it got from an incredulous, almost frenzied public. It posted every comment from anyone who asked or said anything about the service, good or bad, and through this combination of good marketing, good faith, hard work and a good concept, it won many loyal friends.

When 20Twenty`s parent bank Saambou folded, the sympathy was not exactly palpable. But when it almost dragged 20Twenty down in its wake, the moral support was impressive. It came in the form of a friendly media, the 94% of customers that stayed on and even a supporter Web site.

All of which proved that 20Twenty "got it". It understood a new generation of Web-savvy, choice-insistent and up-and-coming affluents who want their say.

I`m sorry to say I don`t think the current campaign remains true to this founding vision. It`s indicative of a company that is older than its upstart roots, more reticent than that unbelievable leap of faith ever suggested, and stodgier than anyone in Cape Town would ever admit to being.

It`s not a train smash, of course, just ill-advised. And if it is the consequence of 20Twenty feeling the least bit of cramping of its style by having arrived through Standard Chartered, it must go back to basics. If it is staying its hand because of respect for a parent which is in the top 25 of the FTSE-100, listed in Hong Kong and London and employs 30 000 people, then I think it should reclaim its mind space. What good is respect if it hems you in?

Related column:
Architecting fame