First off the fact there are six banks here is precisely the problem. The lack of differentiation is palpable. Its almost down to a colour preference … blue, green, red or the other blue.

However I have to defer to your point on investing in advertising vs product. In retrospect I made the (internal) leap that in an undifferentiated market, anything different is a good thing. The matter of investing in advertising is predicated on a decent product, and excellent service. Scotiabank happen to have both, but thats no excuse for me.

I still place excellence in product. In Banking lingo, I define product as a combination of process, channels, and account suite.

So after that reflection, I see the ScotiaBank move as an attention getter. That attention getter, will reflect in results when any new customers try out the ScotiaBank services.

I find it surprising, however, that YOU find this a smart move. The other day, you were agreeing with John Moore’s comments about Starbucks investing in the customer experience (vs. advertising). Why is it any different with Scotiabank?

There are, what, six big banks in Canada? Is it really possible that anyone over the age of 18 with $100 to put in a checking account hasn’t heard of Scotiabank? Does the bank really need to do this for branding purposes?

But…let’s play out the scenario…let’s assume a younger consumer comes out from a good experience in the theater and says “hey, I should go talk to Scotia about the mortgage I need.”

What good did that do if that consumer has a bad experience at the bank (because the branch rep is poorly trained in helping customers make smart mortgage decisions), or goes to the Web site for help, but only sees a page with the bank’s rates and 12 buttons all screaming “Apply now!”?

I thought you were the guy arguing for investing in the customer experience? Movie theaters are not financial services firms’ customer experience.