Honestly, I don't understand this rebranding. Are they making things other than banking simple? I love the idea of making banking more simple and easier, and that's why I thought their previous name, BankSimple, was better. Can someone help me understand this?
I think this is just a PR (over-)reaction to the current negative image of "banks" and provides some space between Simple and the "banking" practices it skewers in its marketing. (It is somewhat problematic to say "banks are bad for you" and "we're not a bank" when your name screams "we're a bank")
I guess it's also somewhat logically defensible, since FDIC-insured credit unions are just as qualified to be Simple's back-end partners. Though it still feels like a dodge, given how foggy the relationship is between Simple and their partner institutions. It feels like they want people to not think about Simple accounts supporting places like BofA, while still being free to partner with BofA in the background.
That said, I wonder if they've considered a "community-focused" account option, where people can specify that they only want their funds to be deposited with credit unions, accepting whatever slightly worse terms come with less competition.
It's extremely unlikely that we'd ever partner with an institution like BofA. We chose bank partners who are comfortable with our vision, and that includes not charging outrageous fees and engaging in other customer-hostile practices. The big banks have shown time and again that they're not in business to act in the best interest of their customers, and that makes them poor partners for us.
We don't currently have plans to allow customers to select the institution with which their funds reside, but it's something we'll take under consideration. Thanks for your thoughts.
> "We chose bank partners who are comfortable with our vision, and that includes not charging outrageous fees and engaging in other customer-hostile practices."
I don't mean to snipe, but you did partner with Visa, right? I understand that real life doesn't always present ideal choices, but that was rather part of my point. That people might switch to Simple with the idea that they won't be supporting those kinds of institutions, when via a partner deal, they may still be.
Or, in other words, if BofA woke up tomorrow and offered Simple a great customer-friendly back-end deal, while remaining customer-hostile to individuals who deal with them directly, would Simple's philosophy prevent a deal? And how happy would a customer be, if they switched from BofA to Simple only to find out that their money is technically in a BofA account?
And please don't take the criticism as something that it's not; I'm only posting because Simple sounds interesting and I'd like to see it do well.
We're focused on banking right now, but one of the things we like about the Simple name is that it gives us room to grow.
Another thing the new name gets us is freedom from both legal issues around the term "bank" and negative associations with the retail banking industry.
Plus, people kept mixing up "BankSimple" and "SimpleBank". That was driving me nuts :)
