I want a coffee maker but I’m being offered a washing machine.

This does not happen at Amazon. At Amazon they are very clear about what you are looking for and if you look it up just once, they will remind you of it later. And the next time they display it again. And then they recommend complementary items or related products looked up by people who also bought what you are buying.

So, if you are looking for a coffee maker, they will show you all kinds, but they will not show you a washing machine.

Besides, how easy it is to buy on Amazon, isn’t it? Sometimes too easy, you cannot get lost.

If these models work, I wonder why they are not replicated in other sectors.

Can you imagine an Amazon model in an online broker?

– Hi Carmen!

– Based on your buying trends

– Related to items you have seen

– Rate your purchase

– Treat yourself

– Based on your wish list

– …

Indeed, it cannot be the exact same model. However, I am convinced that if investment platforms or online brokers were focused on the client rather than on the product, people’s investment would definitely increase. If the entity knows that I like to invest in technology companies, I would find it very useful if, when I log in, it showed me not only the information on how my portfolio is performing but also other investment alternatives that are in line with my preferences. In addition, it would tell me if there are other companies that meet the investment criteria I am interested in, and also inform me about market trends (best sellers, …), etc.

I remember 20 years ago when we carried out our first project that consisted of building an online broker for a financial institution, where we provided our backend platform. The client told me: “in this first version, we are going to offer coffee for all”, meaning that there wouldn’t be any customization in the offer.

I recently heard this expression again at a meeting and I thought to myself ‘it’s unbelievable, despite the evolution in other sectors, we still hear “coffee for all.”’

I know that financial institutions have a dilemma: how to invest more in an area that is not profitable (or not as profitable as they would desire it to be)?

I have a typical question: What comes first, the chicken or the egg? Meaning should the investment into offer customization to increase operations come first, or until operations do not increase, there shouldn’t be any investment?

Many of the investment platforms seem to be duplicates of others, and most times they do not offer what the client is really looking for, which, in turn, would translate into the client feeling unique, or that their entity takes them into consideration.

If I don’t feel looked after by my bank, why am I with bank A and not B? In other words, I will go to the highest bidder.

There are many types of customers.

Some people do not care about the service, they want a platform that works, that gives them the maximum benefits at the minimum cost. And they will change based on this.

However, there are many customers (myself included) for whom the service makes such a difference. I prefer to pay a little more to feel better treated. And, if I feel that I’m being taken care of, I won’t look for other alternatives.

That’s why Amazon is as successful as it is. Shop with two clicks and return it just as easily.

That’s why Apple is so successful. It is the most expensive retail proposal in the market, but the in-store and post-sale services definitely stand out. Here we are not only talking about customized offer but also about service. This is a very broad topic, worthy of another day’s discussion.