Another Work Question using YOU as a customer panel
 

As a banking customer, how strongly would you react if, rather than charging a flat fee for Online Bill Pay, you were instead charged the cost of the stamp IF (and only IF) the payment had to go out in the mail (most Online Bill Payments are fulfilled electronically but a not-insignificant percentage of the time your bank has to print and mail a paper check).

My current Online Bill Pay service is free.
But if I was charged for it and they wanted to do the stamp charge instead, I'd be okay. My bills are few. It would actually be less than what some banks charge for the service.

I agree with GC. Mine is also free but I think only one of the checks I send goes out as a paper check, HOA dues, and I'd have no problem if the cost was the stamp cost. I'd still use it as it's still easier for me that writing and posting an actual check.

What they said

What he said

This.

I'm about to run out of paper checks and when I do I'll switch my rent over to electronic pay. As it is the only checks I write are for rent. I'd rather pay for the stamp versus paying for another book of checks and buying stamps and mailing the check myself.

If it's just the cost of the stamp, that would be fine, though I would be suspicious that this was a foot in the door to get people use to paying a "transaction fee" leading to the slippery slope of bank making money by sending paper checks as a "service" discouraging them from pushing the use of electronic transactions which would not get the additional service fee.

I agree with Ghoulish Delight, but disagree with DreadPirateRoberts

My payment area shows me what businesses I set up require paper checks.

There's always the option to pay the company directly. Though the one company that requires a physical check also charges $2.50 to pay it through their website.

Thanks for the replies everybody.

I am a gold-level member at a credit union, don't pay for anything other than my mortgage, and I like it that way.

Hmm. I know what bank Alex works for. I know what bank I bank at.





I formally change my answer to, "Hell no! If my bank starts charging me for bill pay I will immediately withdraw all of my accounts and start a smear campaign so damning and effective you'll be begging to watch some election attack ads just to remind yourself that there's a shred of decency left in the world."






Of course, I don't currently pay anything, so perhaps the hypothetical changes Alex is talking about (which start with "instead of a flat fee") don't really apply to me.

I know nothing specific and if anything is changing in that regard I'm not currently involved (Bill Pay is not my area).

What I do know is that the world of "free" banking we all enjoy was built on the foundation of banks being allowed to screw people who are stupid about money. Congress has at least significantly jeopardized that foundation. Fees are going to return for many services that have been free over the last 20 years and were subsidized by (congressionally determined) excessive merchant fees for card swipes and (congressionally determined) excessive overdraft fees.

I'm just thinking through some things because the benefits of Bill Pay for banks are secondary. As a line item it loses the bank money (even when done electronically, moving money is not free; plus there are middle men). So I've been thinking through how I might change the system if it comes up (my job requires that three times a year I present a new $5MM NPV idea, regardless of whether it actually goes anywhere).

Would said hypothetical flat fee be < than the cost of a stamp?

When online bill pay started I recall there being some sort of fee to use it. For some reason a BofA commercial and $5/month sticks out in my mind.

I suspect if one bank does it others will follow and the customers who still get it for free will be the ones with ridiculously high balances in their checking and/or savings accounts.

I have a credit union that has always been strict about their lending but if they want to start charging me I'll probably pay if it's less than $5 a month just so I don't have to deal with writing checks and buying stamps again.

Online Bill Pay started out as a fee-based service for most banks because of what I said above: it doesn't make any money for banks and particularly in the early years would have been predominantly print-and-mail based which is, in aggregate, hugely expensive (a large bank is processing a couple million payments a day). But competitive pressure combined with the fact that the fees on bad money people (who generally have low balances and aren't otherwise of great value to banks) to make "sticky" features more valuable than the simple math indicated.

GD: There is no specific flat fee that I am party to being discussed so I couldn't say. It truly is hypothetical on my part (really, I'm trying to think through proposals for an area that isn't my product; whatever I say would likely be shot down immediately as something they already have worked through). That said, as with all flat fee services it would depend on how much you use it. There are people who use bill pay and generate one paper payment a month. Any monthly fee above $0.44 would be more expensive. There are other people who generate dozens (and even hundreds) of such payments a month. Any realistic flat fee would be a savings for them. But I'd guess a flat fee would be, for the vast majority of people, more expensive than pay-as-you-go.

But that was kind of the reason I wanted to ask the question. Interested to know, if like ISP data plans, pay-as-you-go is anathema to most people despite the fact that for most people it would be cheaper.

Ah okay, I thought you meant flat fee/payment rather than flat monthly fee. Like, every payment incurs a 5 cent fee.