Marketing Checking Accounts
to Members:
A Guide for Credit Unions
Jinkook Lee, Ohio State University
William A. Kelly, Jr., University of Wisconsin–Madison
Prepared for the Center for Credit Union Research
and the
Filene Research Institute
P.O. Box 2998
Madison, Wisconsin 53701-2998
(608) 231-8550
www.filene.org
Copyright © 2003 by Filene Research Institute.
ISBN 1-880572-68-0
All rights reserved.
Printed in U.S.A.
Filene
Research
Institute
and
Center for
Credit Union
Research
The Filene Research Institute is a non-profit organization
dedicated to scientific and thoughtful analysis about issues
affecting the future of consumer finance and credit unions. It
supports research efforts that will ultimately enhance the wellbeing of consumers and will assist credit unions in adapting to
rapidly changing economic, legal, and social environments.
Deeply imbedded in the credit union tradition is an ongoing
search for better ways to understand and serve credit union
members and the general public. Credit unions, like other
democratic institutions, make great progress when they welcome
and carefully consider high-quality research, new perspectives,
and innovative, sometimes controversial, proposals. Open inquiry,
the free flow of ideas, and debate are essential parts of the true
democratic process. In this spirit, the Filene Research Institute
grants researchers considerable latitude in their studies of highpriority consumer finance issues and encourages them to candidly
communicate their findings and recommendations.
The name of the institute honors Edward A. Filene, the “father of
the U.S. credit union movement.” He was an innovative leader
who relied on insightful research and analysis when encouraging
credit union development.
The Center for Credit Union Research is an independent
academic research center located in the School of Business at the
University of Wisconsin–Madison. The Center conducts research
and evaluates academic research proposals on subjects
determined to be priority issues by the Research Council of the
Filene Research Institute. The Center also supervises Filene
Research Institute projects at other universities and institutions.
The purpose of the Center’s research is to provide independent
analysis of key issues faced by the credit union movement, thus
assisting credit unions and public policymakers in their long-term
planning.
Progress is the constant replacing of the best there is with
something still better!
— Edward A. Filene
i
ii
Acknowledgements
Special thanks go to Ed Collins, Lockheed Georgia Employees
CU; Mark Outler, MACO Educators FCU; Kenneth Merritt,
State Employees Credit Union; and Hal Fried, Union College, for
their very helpful discussion of and comments on an early version
of this report. Also, the authors would like to acknowledge the
contribution of the late Karen Oetzel who was the moderator of
the focus group study.
iii
iv
Table of
Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01
CHAPTER 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07
CHAPTER 2: Why Consumers Choose an
Institution for Checking Services . . . . 09
CHAPTER 3: How Consumers Choose an
Institution for Checking Services . . . . 21
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Focus Group Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Filene Research Institute Administrative Board/
Research Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Filene Research Institute Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
v
vi
Executive
Summary
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to provide information to assist credit
unions in marketing checking accounts. To do this we determined
both why and how consumers decide where to obtain checking
services, and developed the implications of these findings.
ALL CONSUMERS
To determine why consumers choose where to obtain checking
services, we use data from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey
of Consumer Finances. The data indicate that among all
consumers, the criterion most commonly cited as most important
in making the decision about where to obtain checking services is
convenience (primarily office location), with 44.83% of
respondents citing this as their chief criterion. Other choices for
the most important criterion are low fees and minimum balances
(18.35%), having a wide range of services available at one location
(16.0%), and personal relationships (8.9%). However, we also
find that these figures for all consumers mask large differences
among sub-groups of households, and that credit union marketers
should focus on key sub-groups to develop the most effective
marketing strategies.
KEY SUBGROUPS
When we evaluate household segments based on characteristics of
the households or their accounts, we find that these characteristics
strongly influence what they cite as their most important criterion
for where to obtain checking services. We also find that a key
characteristic that influences decision criteria is whether a
household has a checking account at a credit union only, a bank
only, or at different institutions.
1
Households with Checking Services Only at a Credit Union
Compared to households with checking services only from a bank,
households with checking services at a credit union only rank
convenience (primarily office location) as less important for
choosing where to get checking services. In particular, they rank
personal relationships, low fees and minimum balances, and
having a wide range of services available at one location, as their
top criterion more often than convenience.
Households with Checking Services Only at a Bank
For households with checking services from a bank only, the
results are reversed, with convenience (primarily office location)
as the most important criterion, followed by many services, low
fees and minimum balances, and personal relationships.
Households with Checking Services at Multiple Types
of Institutions
Households with checking services at multiple types of institutions
exhibit the same pattern of decision criteria as those with bank
only checking services, but they differ from those with credit union
only services even more than from those with bank only service.
A CREDIT UNION NICHE
Credit unions appear to be providing checking accounts to a
particular niche in the market, one quite different from those
getting checking services elsewhere. The households in this niche
group value personal relationships, low fees and minimum
balances, and a wide range of services. Convenience, and in
particular office location, is a much weaker influence for this
group than for other households.
2
OTHER IMPORTANT INFLUENCES
These results are based on a special statistical technique that
allows us to determine the independent influence of characteristics
that influence consumer criteria for where to obtain checking
services, while controlling for other influences. However,
examining relationships without these controls can also be useful,
because they allow for more detailed information on relationships
and more intuitive interpretation of influences on decision criteria.
In particular, we find the following variables are related to
decision criteria for determining where to obtain a checking
account: years with institution, size of checking balances,
education, total financial assets and age. For example:
• Households with over ten years at their institution are much
less likely to list fees as an important decision criterion for
where to obtain checking services, but are much more likely
to regard having a wide range of services as important.
• For those with over $5,000 in their checking account, having
a wide range of services is the most important criterion.
• Those with less than a high school education value
convenience more than low fees.
• Households with total financial assets under $5,000 value
personal relationships very highly. Groups on the opposite
end of the spectrum, with over $100,000 in total financial
assets, place a high value on personal relationships as well.
• The young (age 18-34) prefer low fees and are less interested
in a wide range of services. But they also are more
influenced by personal relationships in deciding where to
obtain checking services.
3
HOW CONSUMERS DECIDE
These results, based on data from the Survey of Consumer
Finances, indicate why consumers decide where to obtain checking
services. However, to be most effective credit union marketers
need to understand the decision-making process itself, that is, how
consumers decide where to obtain checking services. To gain
insights into this process, we use four focus groups to provide
important results for developing and implementing marketing
strategies for checking accounts. In particular, we find that two
types of perceptions of the marketplace lead to two types of
decision-making processes. We call the consumers using these two
processes “relationship shoppers” and “product shoppers”.
Relationship Shoppers
“Relationship shoppers” tend to perceive that products and prices
are pretty much the same across institutions. Therefore, they shop
for the institution they prefer to deal with and tend to acquire
most of their products there. The decision making process of the
“relationship shopper” lends itself to having a primary financial
institution. Credit unions should market to this group by stressing
institutional characteristics.
Product Shoppers
“Product shoppers” tend to perceive significant variations in
products and prices across institutions. This group tends to shop
several institutions, comparing prices and product features. The
decision making process of product shoppers lends itself less well
to having a primary financial institution. Credit unions should
market to this group by focusing on particular product features
and prices.
4
Other Important Influences on Decision Making
In addition to perceptions of prices and quality in the market
place, other types of consumer perceptions influence the decisionmaking process. Perceptions about membership, community
ties, convenience, and trust can all influence this process in
important ways.
5
6
CHAPTER 1:
Introduction
It is well known that households that have a checking account at a
financial institution are more likely to obtain other products there
as well. Our product study is designed to determine what
influences household decisions on where to obtain a checking
account. We use the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of
Consumer Finances for data on consumer attitudes regarding
where to obtain a checking account. This provides information on
why consumers choose where they obtain their checking services.
However, for the most effective marketing strategy, information
on how consumers make this decision is also valuable. Therefore,
we conducted four focus groups to gain insights into how these
decisions are made.
Analysis of the resulting data provides
implications for credit unions to better design strategies for
marketing checking accounts to members and potential members.
7
8
CHAPTER 2:
Why Consumers
Choose an
Institution for
Checking
Services
DECISION-MAKING CRITERIA
Based on data from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of
Consumer Finances, we evaluated ten criteria that households use
for deciding where to obtain a checking account. We then
combined this with data on characteristics of these households and
their accounts to analyze what criteria were the most important
influences and how these influences varied by characteristics of
the household.
ALL HOUSEHOLDS
Among all respondents, by far the most important criterion for
where they obtain a checking account is the location of the
institution’s office, with 43.63% giving this as the first criterion
(Table 1). The second and third criteria most often cited as most
important for where to obtain a checking account are low fees and
minimum balances (18.35%) and the availability of a wide range
of services (16.0%). Personal relationships are fourth in the list,
with 8.9% of respondents giving this as the most important
criterion. Personal relationships include the institution being
recommended by a family member or friend. They also include
feeling being known by the institution. For example, the institution
might be small, a family member or friend may work there, or
there is a connection with the institution through work or school.
9
Table 1
Most Important Factor in Opening a Checking Account
Reason
Location of office
Feature
Percent*
Location of office
43.63
Payroll deduction/direct
deposit
1.20
Convenience
Sub total
44.83
Low fees and minimum
balances
Low fees and minimum
balances
18.35
Wide range of services
Able to obtain many
services at one place
16.00
Recommended by family
member or friend
3.56
They know me; family
member or friend works
there; small institution
3.94
Connections through
work or school
1.40
Personal relationships
Sub-total
8.90
Safety
Absence of risk.
2.07
Have banked there a long
time
2.68
Bank bought by another
institution
1.19
All others
5.98
Sub-total
9.85
Others
Total
100.00
*Percent of people giving this factor as the most important. Source: Survey of
Consumer Finances, Federal Reserve Board, 1998.
10
INDEPENDENT INFLUENCES ON
DECISION CRITERIA
These findings for all respondents are important for credit union
marketers to take into account. However, marketers can develop
better-focused plans by breaking down the information by
characteristics of the account holder or of the account. We do so
here using a statistical technique that indicates the relative
strengths of the influence of each characteristic, independent of
the influence of any other characteristics. Statistical details are
provided in the appendix, and we summarize the key results
below.
Having a Checking Account at a Credit Union Only
We find a number of characteristics of respondents and their
accounts that influence their primary criterion for where to obtain
a checking account. The single most powerful influence is whether
the respondent has a checking account at a credit union only, as
opposed to having one at a bank only, or at multiple types of
institutions. We find strong evidence that households with a
checking account only at a credit union are far more likely than
those with an account at a bank only to cite characteristics other
than convenience as the most important criterion to determine
where to obtain a checking account. The criteria they are most
likely to cite, in order of the strength of influence, are: personal
relationships, low fees and minimum balances, and having a wide
range of services available at one location. Those who have
checking accounts at multiple institutions have preferences
precisely the reverse of those with only credit union accounts.
Households that have a checking account with multiple
institutions are substantially more likely than those with an
account at a bank only to cite convenience as the most important
criterion to determine where to obtain a checking account.
Criteria they are least likely to cite in order of the weakest
influence first are relationships, low fees, and many services.
11
Figures 1 and 2 quantify the strength of these influences on
the decision of where to obtain checking services. Figure 1 allows
us to compare households with a checking account at a credit
union only with households with a checking account at a bank
only. The strength of influence of each characteristic is shown on
the vertical axis. For example, the bar labeled “relationships” is
the highest. This indicates that compared to convenience, it is most
likely to be cited by those with only credit union checking accounts
as the most important criterion for where to obtain checking
services. Low fees and minimum balances are nearly as strong an
influence, and the availability of a wide range of services at one
location is third.
The graph is set up so that a rating near zero means that the credit
union only checking account households rate a given characteristic
nearly the same as a bank only checking account household.
Figure 1:
CU Only Compared to Bank Only
12
Figure 2 allows us to compare households with a checking account
at multiple institutions to households with a checking account at a
bank only. Again, the strength of each characteristic is shown on
the vertical axis. In this case, the bar labeled “personal
relationships” is the lowest. This indicates that compared to
convenience, it is least likely to be cited by those with multiple
institution checking accounts as the most important criterion for
where to obtain checking services. Low fees (and minimum
balances) are less likely to be cited than convenience, but more
likely to be cited than relationships. A wide range of services is
also less likely to be cited than convenience but more likely to be
cited than the other two characteristics.
Figure 2:
Multiple Institutions Compared to Bank Only
Since Figure 1 compares households with checking accounts at
credit unions only to households with bank only checking, and
Figure 2 compares those with checking at multiple institutions
with those using bank only checking, we can compare credit union
13
only households with multiple institution households. We see that
credit union checking users are far more likely than multiple
institution checking users to cite personal relationships, low fees
and minimum balances, and many services as their top criteria for
deciding where to obtain checking. Further, the gap between their
preferences is widest for personal relationships, next widest for
low fees and minimum balances and least wide (though still quite
wide) for a wide range of services.1
These results are striking. Credit unions appear to be providing
checking accounts to a particular niche in the market that is quite
different from those getting checking services elsewhere. The
households in this niche value personal relationships, low fees and
minimum balances, and a wide range of services. Convenience,
and in particular office location, is a much weaker influence for
this group, compared to other households.
What does this mean for credit union marketers? One implication
could be that credit unions should market the three characteristics
that are most important to those who have a credit union checking
account only. Another implication could be that to get a greater
percentage of members and potential members to open a checking
account, credit unions need to have more office locations. Shared
branching could be an important influence in this respect.
Since households that have a checking account only at a bank give
convenience as their chief criterion for where to obtain checking,
attracting checking accounts from this group means providing the
type of convenience needed. The category we use for convenience
in the analysis described above includes responses to questions
about office location, payroll deduction and direct deposit. Of
these responses, the great majority concern office location.
Therefore, shared branching could be of special help in appealing
to this group.
1
Note that the number on the vertical axis provides a statistical index of relative
strength of influences. However the number does not have a direct intuitive
interpretation beyond this.
14
Education, Income, and Assets
The same statistical technique described above also determines
the independent effect of some additional influences on decision
criteria, controlling for any other influences. In particular we find
that education and income affect household decision criteria
about where to obtain a checking account. For example, those
with less than a high school education and/or with less than
$20,000 in household income are more interested in office location
than in having a wide variety of services. In contrast, those with
some college and/or household income of $40,000 - $65,000, value
a wide range of services more than they do office location.
Households with between $5,000 and $99,000 in total financial
assets value convenience over personal relationships.
RELATED INFLUENCES ON HOUSEHOLD
DECISION MAKING
These results are based on a special statistical technique which
allows us to determine the independent influence of characteristics
that influence consumer criteria for where to obtain checking
services, while controlling for other influences. However, we also
find the data in Table 2 useful for understanding influences on
decision criteria. The table shows the relationships between
various characteristics of households and their accounts, and their
decision criteria. Looking at this data does not control for the fact
that influences may be correlated and does not determine which of
two correlated influences may have more effect. However, the
relationships are useful because they allow for more detailed
information on relationships and more intuitive and concrete
interpretation of influences on decision criteria.
Years with the Institution
Table 2 indicates that the number of years with an institution
affects the importance of low fees and a wide range of services in
determining where a household obtains a checking account. For
15
example, of those with over ten years with their institution, only
11.7% give low fees as the most important criterion for obtaining
a checking account, compared to 27.3% for those who have been
with their institution two years or less. We see a similar contrast in
the importance of a wide range of services available at one
location. For those with more than ten years at their institution,
18.43% give a wide range of services as their top criterion for
where to obtain a checking account, compared to less than half
that many for those at their institution two years or less. However,
the number of years at the institution has relatively little effect on
the importance of personal relationships or convenience in
influencing their decision on where to obtain checking services.
Size of Checking Account Balances
Checking account balances also influence what households regard
as the most important criterion for where to obtain checking
services. In particular, the percentage citing low fees as the most
important criterion drops from 18%-20% to 14.4% when the
balance is over $5,000, and having a wide range of services is
typically the most important criterion for those with $5,000 or
more in their checking account. The influence of location and
personal relationships on the decision does not appear to be
affected noticeably by the size of the checking balance.
Effects of Education and Total Financial Assets
Those with less than a high school education value convenience
more than low fees, compared to those with more education. This
is consistent with findings in an earlier Filene study that indicate
consumers who use check cashers are more influenced by
convenience than they are by fees.2 Households with less than
$5,000 in total financial assets show little interest in having a
wide range of services available at the institution where they
obtain checking services. This refers implicitly to services of the
2
John Caskey, Lower Income Americans, Higher Cost Financial Services,
Filene Research Institute, 1997.
16
Table 2
Decision-Making Criteria Across Different Characteristics of Account and Account Holders
Low
fees
Range of
Personal
services relationships
Other
reasons
Convenience
Total
Type of Institution
Chi-square
156.53**
Banks
15.85
14.62
7.86
12.29
49.39
100%
CUs
31.33
23.13
15.38
9.18
20.98
100%
Multiple Institutions
21.05
17.89
8.62
11.65
40.79
100%
Number of Checking Accounts
18.28**
1
17.95
15.65
9.17
12.24
44.98
100%
2 or more
19.04
16.63
8.40
11.36
44.57
100%
Years with Institution
150.12**
0-2 years
27.30
8.27
8.52
10.09
45.83
100%
3-5 years
23.50
15.14
7.64
10.04
43.66
100%
6-10 years
22.88
16.99
9.41
8.89
41.83
100%
11 years or more
11.70
18.43
9.25
14.45
46.16
100%
Balance at Checking Account
91.10**
less than $200
18.19
14.32
8.94
13.32
45.23
100%
$200-$999
20.55
13.94
10.64
10.79
44.08 100%
$1,000-$4,999
18.50
16.80
7.12
12.04
45.53
100%
$5,000 or more
14.44
19.36
10.37
11.94
43.88
100%
Education
37.56**
less than high school
15.32
12.50
7.75
11.78
52.66
100%
High school graduates
17.19
16.43
7.40
13.73
45.24
100%
some college
19.89
16.44
10.08
9.74
43.86
100%
BS or more
19.23
16.64
9.75
11.90
42.47
100%
Income
80.73**
less than $20,000
16.56
13.77
8.42
14.14
47.11
100%
$20,000-$39,999
19.16
14.42
8.89
13.50
44.03
100%
$40,000-$64,999
20.43
17.63
8.21
10.53
43.20
100%
$65,000 or more
17.08
18.28
9.94
9.45
45.24
100%
Total Financial Assets
151.56**
less than $5,000
26.69
4.31
16.86
19.05
33.09
100%
$5,000-$24,999
16.03
13.81
7.93
14.66
47.57
100%
$25,000-$99,999
19.75
16.30
8.61
10.62
44.72
100%
$100,000 or more
15.87
21.22
12.25
10.97
39.69
100%
17
Table 2 Continued
Low
fees
Range of
Personal
services relationships
Other
reasons
Convenience
Total
Age
135.93**
18-34
27.06
10.75
11.66
9.05
41.48
100%
35-49
19.50
16.68
9.52
11.70
42.60
100%
50-64
17.39
18.87
6.92
10.65
46.18
100%
9.17
17.10
7.32
16.35
50.06
100%
65+
Marital Status
58.04**
married
19.27
16.76
8.15
10.10
45.73
100%
separated or divorced
19.25
16.11
9.68
13.55
41.41
100%
6.94
17.68
9.85
21.32
44.21
100%
21.37
12.25
10.03
10.52
45.84
100%
widowed
never been married
Race/Ethnicity
13.17**
Non-Hispanic whites
18.32
16.14
8.95
12.17
44.43
100%
African Americans
17.95
16.24
8.73
9.85
47.22
100%
Hispanics
17.11
14.23
8.44
16.41
43.80
100%
Other non-whites
22.19
14.68
8.79
3.75
50.59
100%
598
674
393
525
1,660
3,850
N
Chi-square
* p < .0001, ** p < .001, *** p < .0
18
type normally offered by depository institutions. The earlier
Filene study also found that low wealth households often
appreciate more basic transactions services, such as providing
money orders, envelopes, and stamps to pay bills. Personal
relationships are more important to this low wealth group in
determining where to obtain checking services. This is consistent
with the earlier study’s finding that patrons of check cashing
services respond to personal relationships.3 They may have less
confidence in dealing with financial matters, and personal
relationships put them more at ease.
When deciding where to obtain checking services, personal
relationships are also more important to those with total financial
assets of $100,000 or more, compared to those in the $5,000 $99,000 range. In this case, the desire for personal relationships
may relate to the larger amounts of money this group is dealing
with, and a consequent need for reassurance that services will be
provided effectively and problems will be resolved promptly.
Convenience is relatively less important to this group in deciding
where to obtain checking services.
Age
Age is also related to the most important criterion for deciding
where to obtain checking services. This is useful for marketing
purposes, because data on age is often available to credit unions.
However, we should note that age is highly correlated with other
variables, and that after controlling for the influence of other
variables it does not appear to exercise a large independent
influence on decision criteria. However, keeping this in mind, we
can see in Table 2 a number of relationships between age and
criteria for where to obtain checking accounts. Relative to other
age groups, the young (18-34) prefer low fees and are less
influenced by the range of services, while the reverse is true for
seniors (65+). Also, the young are more influenced by personal
3
Ibid
19
relationships, probably because of inexperience and less
confidence in dealing with financial matters. Older households
(50+) are less concerned with personal relationships and more
concerned with convenience when deciding where to obtain
checking services.
20
CHAPTER 3:
How Consumers
Choose an
Institution for
Checking
Services
THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
To design the most effecting marketing strategies for checking
accounts, credit union marketers can benefit from data on what
influences household decisions about where to obtain a checking
account. However, to be most effective, marketers should know
not only what influences consumers’ decisions in this regard, but
also how consumers make this decision.
One model of how consumers make decisions assumes that they
gather the relevant information, compare prices and features
offered by different providers, and then make a decision. This is
the traditional economic model, and it is relevant to the extent
that consumers are rational and well informed. In reality, time
spent to become well informed is time not spent doing something
else that also has value to the consumer, and rationality is limited
rather than infinite for most people. Therefore, consumers exhibit
decision-making processes based on uncertainty, imperfect
information, and imperfect understanding. To take this into
account, credit union marketers should consider what consumer
perceptions of reality are, as well as reality itself. While
perceptions are less tangible and are difficult to measure, we
believe they provide useful insights to marketers.
To develop such information, we conducted four focus groups to
probe in more depth consumer perceptions of the marketplace
and how perception affects the way in which consumers make
decisions. While focus group data is not conclusive, we believe it
provides useful insights into the consumer decision-making
process, and has important implications for credit union
marketing.
21
PERCEPTIONS OF THE MARKET PLACE
The “Relationship Shopper”
One type of consumer tends to perceive that the products and
services of different institutions are pretty much the same.
Consumers with this perception tend not to shop for each product
they want. They are more likely to shop at the institution they
prefer to deal with, and then get most of their products there. We
call shoppers with this perception and behavior pattern
“relationship shoppers”.
Marketers can attract relationship shoppers by messages that
stress the benefits of dealing with the credit union as an institution.
Benefits might include high quality service, putting the members’
interest first, personal service, a complete array of products, and
attractive rates and fees. Since these consumers perceive that the
products of different institutions are all about the same, they do
not come to the credit union because it provides superior products
and price. The credit union may attract them more effectively by
marketing the benefits of the credit union as an institution that has
the characteristics they find attractive in a relationship.
The “Product Shopper”
A second type of consumer tends to perceive the market for
consumer products as being a place where prices and products
vary significantly from one institution to another. Consumers with
this perception tend to shop for each product they want, in order
to find a good price and desirable features. We call shoppers with
this perception and behavior pattern “product shoppers”.
To more effectively attract product shoppers, credit unions should
focus on the details of specific features and prices. This could also
include institutional characteristics related directly to product
features. For example, location and hours may be of particular
importance for checking accounts. However, product shoppers
tend to use a variety of institutions to find the features and price
that best satisfy their needs for a product. These shoppers check
22
rates and fees in newspaper ads and at the Web site of several
institutions. They tend not to obtain a product until they have
collected specific information on the product characteristics that
are most important to them.
Implications for a Primary Financial Institution Strategy
One marketing strategy can be to become the primary financial
institution for all members. However, the two types of consumers
described above suggest that marketers may wish to adjust this
strategy to reflect different patterns of consumer behavior. The
“relationship shopper” fits the strategy of becoming the member’s
primary financial institution very well. However, the “product
shopper” raises different issues. Offering the biggest variety of
product features and the best price for every product variation
would generate the best results for becoming the primary financial
institution for the “product shopper.” However, the cost of this
strategy may outweigh the advantages. Therefore, credit unions
should recognize that becoming a significant provider of services
for the product shopper is a good strategy, but becoming the
primary financial institution is the best strategy for the
“relationship shopper.”
Marketing Messages
The most effective marketing strategy includes a mix of marketing
messages and channels that provides attractive features for both
groups. The messages may be very different in content without
being mutually exclusive. The more specific issues of perception
suggest ways to tailor messages and channels.
23
PERCEPTIONS OF MEMBERSHIP
Non-members may not know whether they are eligible to become
members of the credit union. Further, although the term
“member” tends to create a positive perception after a person
joins a credit union, it could also create psychological barriers for
some potential members who perceive membership as being
closed to them. Marketing messages should not assume that nonmembers know whether they are eligible to join. Marketing
messages to non-members should include eligibility information,
and invite them to join.
PERCEPTION OF COMMUNITY TIES
Consumers tend to show preferences for either a communitybased or a national institution. Young, mobile people usually
prefer large, national institutions and mid-age to older adults,
especially women, favor a local institution. In older, settled
neighborhoods, marketing messages might emphasize the credit
union’s community-based character. Effective communications
channels might include those with more women in the audience,
such as ads positioned near grocery store ads or in publications
and media programs popular with women. To attract younger,
more mobile people, national shared ATM and branch networks
could be featured.
24
PERCEPTIONS OF CONVENIENCE
For consumers who prefer personal service for particular
activities, such as depositing a paycheck, convenience is based on
office location. For those who rely on ATM’s, surcharges are not
an issue but having a wide network of ATMs available is. The term
“convenience” may be too broad to be effective in directing
marketing strategy. Marketers need to understand what different
members and potential members really mean by the term
“convenience” in different circumstances. This may be as specific,
for example, as the difficulty or ease of turning across traffic to get
to a branch. Marketers need to define “convenience” in more
specific items. Focus group research is one way to reveal different
meanings of the term convenience. Convenience could mean
something quite different, depending on preferences for
depositing a check in person, traffic patterns near a branch, and
members’ work schedules.
PERCEPTIONS AND INSTITUTIONAL CHOICE
Consumers can be divided into two groups based on their
approaches to selecting a financial institution. A first group
decides between credit unions and banks, then goes on to choose
a particular institution. A second group decides on an institution
among a mix of credit unions and banks. Credit union staff may
think of consumers using the first approach because staff is aware
of differences between banks and credit unions. However,
consumers may be unaware of these differences. As a result, credit
union marketers can safely assume that consumers would choose
from among a mix of banks and credit unions rather than selecting
between a group of banks and a group of credit unions and then
selecting the particular institution. Until awareness of differences
between banks and credit unions becomes more pronounced, a
safe assumption is that the decision process follows this pattern: ‘I
need a product. Which specific institution (rather than type of
institution) comes to mind first?’
25
PERCEPTIONS OF THE YOUNG
Young consumers have less knowledge of financial products than
older consumers, but they also tend to be more skeptical of
advertising. As a result they tend to rely on word-of-mouth
recommendations from parents, friends, or work supervisors.
Marketers may consider a strategy of approaching young
consumers indirectly, through family members and friends.
Marketing strategies regarding the young should also take into
account that they are technologically savvy. In particular, they
tend to be more aware that electronic access is cheaper for the
credit union, and may perceive fees for electronic usage more
negatively than other groups.
TRUST
Credit unions are generally perceived as very trustworthy.
However, the question is when and how much this trustworthiness
constitutes a competitive advantage to emphasize in marketing
messages. The competitive advantage depends on the extent to
which consumers are concerned about trust issues in other types of
institutions. There does not appear to be a significant trust issue
among consumers for depository institutions. However, the value
of trust as a competitive advantage is very important when
corporate governance affects the value of investments.
26
APPENDIX
MULTINOMIAL LOGIT ANALYSIS OF DECISIONMAKING CRITERIA
Ln (C1/C5 ) = the probability of considering “low fees and
minimum balance requirements” as the most important decisionmaking criteria rather than “convenience”*
Ln (C2 /C5 ) = the probability of considering “range of services” as
the most important decision-making criteria rather than
“convenience”*
Ln (C3 /C5 ) = the probability of considering “personal
relationships” as the most important decision-making criteria
rather than “convenience”*
Ln (C4 /C5 ) = the probability of considering “other reasons” as the
most important decision-making criteria rather than
“convenience”*
Analysis of Variance
Variables
DF
Intercept
Type of institution
(commercial bank as base)
CUs
multiple institutions
No of checking accounts
Years with institution
Balance at checking
account
Age
Income ($65,000 or more
as base)
less than $20,000
$20,000-$39,999
$40,000-64,999
Total financial assets
($100,000 or more as base)
less than $5,000
$5,000-$24,999
$25,000-99,999
Chi-square
4
*27.14
8
*105.70
Parameter Estimates
Ln (C1/C5)
Ln (C2/C5)
Ln (C3/C5)
Ln (C4/C5)
0.1892
**-0.9889
***-0.6399
**-1.0084
*0.7478
***-0.2277
0.0174
0.0037
*1.0101
*-0.5263
0.0651
***0.0161
***0.4414
-0.1892
0.0603
*0.0201
4
4
2.21
*70.36
*0.9345
***-0.3216
0.0579
*-0.0313
4
0.87
2.87E-9
-1.87E-7
1.12E-7
2.68E-7
4
**18.39
**-0.0142
0.0014
***-0.0141
-0.0038
12
17.12
0.1706
0.0597
-0.0405
***-0.4076
0.0623
***0.3212
-0.0713
0.1317
-0.0993
-0.1109
***0.2285
0.0920
0.3645
-0.1335
0.0776
-0.6446
0.2196
-0.1241
0.5953
***-0.5311
***-0.4091
0.5759
-0.1765
***-0.5380
12
*68.03
27
Analysis of Variance
Variables
DF
Education (BS as base)
less than HS
HS graduates
some college
Marital status (married as
base)
divorced
widowed
never been married
Race/ethnicity (nonHispanic whites as base)
African Americans
Hispanics
Other non-whites
Log likelihood
12
12
12
1E4
Chi-square
Parameter Estimates
Ln (C1/C5)
Ln (C2/C5)
Ln (C3/C5)
-0.0707
-0.0470
0.0715
***-0.3029
0.1326
0.1166
-0.2339
-0.1386
***0.2722
0.0571
-0.1596
-0.0595
0.0145
0.2059
***-0.2639
-0.0815
-0.2406
0.1342
0.2033
-0.1988
-0.0406
Ln (C4/C5)
17.24
-0.2980
0.1254
-0.0325
20.72
0.1003
0.1197
0.3559 ***0.3008
-0.2214 ***-0.3142
14.52
0.0667
0.2322
-0.4162
-0.1175
***0.4130
-0.3469
10,374
*Note that the percentage of respondents who listed items related to “convenience” as the most important criterion for
choosing where to obtain a checking account was 44.83%. However, of this percentage, 43.63 percentage points were
for office location and 1.20% was for payroll deduction and direct deposit. Therefore, in the text discussion of the
results in this table, we often refer to “office location” instead of “convenience” since this is more specific.
28
Focus Group
Methodology
Four focus groups were conducted, with a total of 32 participants.
Of these, 18 were female, 28 were Caucasian, two were African
American, and two were Hispanic. The data from the Survey of
Consumer Finances indicated that age was significantly associated
with criteria for deciding where to obtain checking services.
Therefore, the participants selected for two of the focus groups
were 18-49 years old; and those for the other two were 50 or older.
The four groups consisted of five, six, ten, and eleven participants.
Participants were recruited by the survey research center of a
large research-oriented university using a sample stratified by age
with participants selected within age groups via a random-digit
dialing process.
The groups were facilitated by a moderator with extensive
experience leading focus group studies, specifically about financial
markets. The researchers developed a moderator’s guide and
discussed it with the moderator before the sessions. The sessions
took place in January and February of 2001, in a city with a
population of approximately 100,000, and lasted about two hours
each. All four sessions were audio taped and three out of four
were videotaped.
The process of analysis was to identify trends and patterns that
reappear among various focus groups. The researchers considered
the frequency of comments (how often a subject is discussed), the
extensiveness of the comments (how many individuals mention
the subject), and the intensity of comments (whether a topic is
discussed with passion or depth of feeling). Audio tapes helped
researchers identify the intensity of participants’ comments on
specific topics. To ensure reliability of analysis, co-authors of the
study independently analyzed the data using the verbal protocols
described above and compared outcomes. Results of the focus
groups indicated that decision criteria were similar to those in the
sample in the Survey of Consumer Finances. However, the
information gleaned was used primarily to determine how rather
29
than why participants made decisions about where to obtain
checking services.
30
About the
Authors
JINKOOK LEE
Jinkook Lee is Professor, Department of Consumer and Textile
Sciences, at the Ohio State University. She earned a Ph.D. in
consumer economics from Ohio State in 1993, with minors in
statistics, marketing, and economics. Dr. Lee has been a visiting
scholar at the Federal Reserve Board, conducting studies on
consumer economics issues.
Dr. Lee’s research spans a considerable area in the literature on
consumer economics and consumer choice. She has been
published in numerous academic journals, including the Journal of
Consumer Affairs, Journal of Marketing Management, Family
and Consumer Science Research Journal, and Journal of
Consumer Policy.
Dr. Lee has received numerous awards for her research, including
awards from the University of Tennessee, the Ohio State
University, and the American Council on Consumer Interests. She
has recently been the recipient of a major grant from the National
Institutes of Health to study the effect of economic status on the
health of senior citizens.
WILLIAM A. KELLY, JR.
William A. Kelly, Jr. is Director of the Center for Credit Union
Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison. He received his B.A.
in economics from Rice University. After serving in the U.S. Air
Force, he earned a Ph.D. in economics from the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He taught economics and finance,
serving on the faculties at Rice University, The University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Penn State University, and
Clemson. His teaching and research fields were Money and
Banking, and Financial Markets and Institutions.
During his academic career, Dr. Kelly published numerous articles
for publications that include, The American Economic Review,
The Atlantic Economic Journal, Revista Internazionale Di
Scienze Economiche E Commerciali, The Southern Economic
Journal, The Financial Review, Financial Management, Growth
and Change, The Cato Journal, The Wall Street Journal and The
Journal of Urban Economics.
31
He is also the author of Macroeconomics, a textbook published by
Prentice-Hall. Dr. Kelly has extensive credit union experience as
Executive Director of the Filene Research Institute, VicePresident and Senior Economist, Economics and Statistics
Department of CUNA & Affiliates.
32
Filene
Research
Institute
Administrative
Board
CHAIRMAN
Gary J. Oakland, President/CEO
Boeing Employees’ Credit Union
VICE CHAIRMAN
Thomas R. Dorety, President/CEO
Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union
PRESIDENT
Michael B. Kitchen, President/CEO
CUNA Mutual Group
VICE PRESIDENT/TREASURER
Daniel A. Mica, President/CEO
CUNA & Affiliates
SECRETARY
Daniel F. Egan, Jr.
Chairman, American Association of Credit Union Leagues
President/CEO, Massachusetts Credit Union League
President/CEO, New Hampshire Credit Union League
President/CEO, Rhode Island Credit Union League
DIRECTOR
Lawrence D. Knoll, President/CEO
Midwest Financial Credit Union
DIRECTOR
Michael M. Knetter, Dean
University of Wisconsin–Madison
PRESIDENT EMERITUS
Richard M. Heins, Director Emeritus
CUNA Mutual Group
Research
Council
Eldon R. Arnold, President/CEO
Citizens Equity Federal Credit Union
John A. Bommarito, President/CEO
TRW Systems Federal Credit Union
David Brock, President/CEO
Community Educators’ Credit Union
33
Joseph C. Cirelli, President
US Airways Federal Credit Union
Edwin J. Collins, President
Lockheed Georgia Employees’ Credit Union
Olin F. “Rick” Craig, President/CEO
America First Credit Union
Mary T. Cunningham, President
USA Federal Credit Union
Sharon Custer, President
BMI Federal Credit Union
Charles F. Emmer, President/CEO
Ent Federal Credit Union
W. Craig Esrael, President/CEO
First South Credit Union
Charles Grossklaus, President/CEO
Royal Credit Union
Michael Hale, President/CEO
Andrews Federal Credit Union
Robert H. Harvey, President/CEO
Seattle Metropolitan Credit Union
Hubert H. Hoosman, President/CEO
Educational Employees Credit Union
Daniel R. Kampen, President/CEO
U.S. Central Credit Union
Timothy R. Kramer, President/CEO
AEA Credit Union
Harriet B. May, President/CEO
Government Employees Credit Union of El Paso
Frank Pollack, President/CEO
Pentagon Federal Credit Union
Vincent Rojas, Jr., President
Kern Schools Federal Credit Union
34
Marcus B. Schaefer, President/CEO
Truliant Federal Credit Union
Jack Sheets, President/CEO
Elkhart County Farm Bureau Credit Union
Patsy Van Ouwerkerk, President/CEO
Travis Credit Union
David Vigren, President/CEO
ESL Federal Credit Union
A. Lee Williams, President/CEO
Aviation Associates Credit Union
Stephan L. Winninger, President
State Employees Credit Union
Ex-Officio:
Fred B. Johnson, President
Credit Union Executives Society
FILENE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Robert F. Hoel, Ph.D.
Executive Director
CENTER FOR CREDIT UNION RESEARCH
William A. Kelly, Jr., Ph.D.
Director
35
36
Filene
Research
Institute
Publications
Aldag, Ramon J. and Antonioni, David, University of WisconsinMadison. Mission Values and Leadership Styles In Credit
Unions, 2000.
Amburgey, Terry L., University of Kentucky and Dacin, M. Tina,
Texas A&M University. Evolutionary Development of Credit
Unions, 1993.
Barrick, Murray R., University of Iowa. Human Resource
Testing: What Credit Unions Should Know, 2002.
Barron, David N. and West, Elizabeth, University of Oxford; and
Hannan, Michael T., Stanford University. Competition,
Deregulation, and the Fortunes of Credit Unions, 1995.
Burger, Albert E. and Dacin, Tina, University of WisconsinMadison. Field of Membership: An Evolving Concept, 1991.
Burger, Albert E., University of Wisconsin-Madison; Fried,
Harold O., Union College; Lovell, C. A. Knox, University of
Georgia. Technology Strategies of Best Practice Credit Unions:
Today, the Near Future, and the Far Future, 1997.
Burger, Albert E., University of Wisconsin-Madison and Kelly, Jr.,
William A., CUNA Research & Development. Building High
Loan/Share Ratios: Challenges and Strategies, 1993.
Burger, Albert E., University of Wisconsin-Madison and Lypny,
Gregory M., Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. Taxation
of Credit Unions, 1991.
Burger, Albert E. and Zellmer, Mary, University of WisconsinMadison. Strategic Opportunities in Serving Low to Moderate
Income Individuals, 1995.
Burger, Albert E., Zellmer, Mary and Robinson, David,
University of Wisconsin-Madison. The Digital Revolution:
Delivering Financial Services in the Future, 1997.
Caskey, John P., Swarthmore College. The Economics of Payday
Lending, 2002.
Caskey, John P., Swarthmore College. Lower Income Americans,
Higher Cost Financial Services, 1997.
37
Caskey, John P., Swarthmore College; Humphrey, David B.,
Florida State University; Kem, Reade, research assistant. Credit
Unions and Asset Accumulation by Lower-Income Households,
1999.
Caskey, John P., Swarthmore College and Brayman, Susan J.,
assistant. Check Cashing and Savings Programs for LowIncome Households: An Action Plan for Credit Unions, 2001.
Colloquium at Stanford University. Consolidation of the
Financial Services Industry: Implications for Credit Unions,
1999.
Colloquium at the University of California-Berkeley. Financial
Incentives to Motivate Credit Union Managers and Staff, 2001.
Colloquium at the University of California-Berkeley. Three
Innovative Searches for Better Incentive Programs, 2001.
Colloquium at the University of Virginia. Attracting and
Retaining High-Quality Employees: New Strategies for Credit
Unions, 2001.
Colloquium at the University of Virginia. Fresh Approaches to
Bankruptcy and Financial Distress – Volume I: Why Don’t
More People Declare Bankruptcy?, 2000.
Colloquium at the University of Virginia. Fresh Approaches to
Bankruptcy and Financial Distress – Volume II: Working With
Members in Financial Distress, 2000.
Colloquium at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Financial
Stress and Workplace Performance: Developing EmployerCredit Union Partnerships, 2002.
Successful
Turnarounds from Bad Credit to Good: What We Can Learn
from the Borrower’s Experience, 2001.
Compeau,
Larry
D.,
Clarkson
University.
Dacin, Peter A., Texas A&M University. Marketing Credit Union
Services: The Role of Perceived Value, 1995.
Donkersgoed, William L. and Hautaluoma, Jacob E., Colorado
State University; and Pipal, Janet E. Consensus Building
Strategies for Productive CEO-Board Relationships, 1998.
38
Feinberg, Robert M., American University. The Effects of Credit
Unions on Bank Rates in Local Consumer Lending Markets,
2001.
Feinberg, Robert M., American University. The Effect of Credit
Unions on Market Rates for Unsecured Consumer Loans, 1999.
Filene Research Institute and The Center for Credit Union
Innovation, LLC, in cooperation with the National Credit Union
Foundation. 15 Steps to an Effective SEG Program, 2003.
Fried, Harold O., Union College; Hoel, Robert F., Filene
Research Institute; Kelly, Jr., William A., University of WisconsinMadison. Member Satisfaction Levels: National Norms for
Comparing Local Survey Results, 1998.
Fried, Harold O., Union College; Hoel, Robert F., Filene
Research Institute; Kelly, Jr., William A., University of WisconsinMadison. Member Satisfaction Levels: National Norms for
Comparing Local Survey Results Second Edition, 2002.
Fried, Harold O., Union College and Lovell, C. A. Knox,
University of Georgia. Credit Union Service-Oriented Peer
Groups, 1994.
Fried, Harold O., Union College and Lovell, C. A. Knox,
University of North Carolina. Evaluating the Performance of
Credit Unions, 1992.
Fried, Harold O., Union College; Lovell, C. A. Knox, University
of Georgia and University of New South Wales; Yaisawarng,
Suthathip, Union College. How Credit Union Mergers Affect
Service to Members, 1999.
Fried, Harold O., Union College and Overstreet, Jr., George A.,
University of Virginia, editors; Frank Berrish, Thomas Sargent,
and James Ware, contributors. Information Technology and
Management Structure: A Case Study of First Technology
Credit Union, 1998.
Fried, Harold O., Union College and Overstreet, Jr., George A.,
University of Virginia, editors; Richard Grenci, Peter Keen, R.
Ryan Nelson, and Nancy Pierce, contributors. Information
Technology and Management Structure II: Insights for Credit
Unions, 1999.
39
Grube, Jean A. and Aldag, Ramon J., University of WisconsinMadison. How Organizational Values Affect Credit Union
Performance, 1996.
Hannan, Michael T., Stanford University; and West, Elizabeth and
Barron, David N., McGill University. Dynamics of Populations of
Credit Unions, 1994.
Hautaluoma, Jacob E., Donkersgoed, William J. and Morgan,
Kimberly J., Colorado State University. Board-CEO
Relationships: Successes, Failures, and Remedies, 1996.
Hautaluoma, Jacob E., Jobe, Lloyd, Donkersgoed, Bill, Suri, Taaj
and Cropanzano, Russell, Colorado State University. Credit
Union Boards and Credit Union Effectiveness, 1993.
Hoel, Robert F., Filene Research Institute and Kelly, Jr., William
A., University of Wisconsin-Madison. Why Many Small Credit
Unions Are Thriving, 1999.
Humphrey, David B., Florida State University. Prospective
Changes in Payment Systems: Implications for Credit Unions,
1997.
Johnson, Ramon E., University of Utah. Field of Membership
and Performance: Evidence from the State of Utah, 1995.
Joseph, Matt L. Changes in the Automotive Distribution System:
Challenges and Opportunities for Credit Unions, 2001.
Kane, Edward J., Boston College. Deposit Insurance Reform: A
Plan for the Credit Union Movement, 1992.
Kane, Edward J., Boston College; and Hickman, James C. and
Burger, Albert E., University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Implementing a Private-Federal Deposit Insurance Partnership, 1993.
Karofsky, Judith F., Center for Credit Union Research, University
of Wisconsin-Madison School of Business. Shopping Strategies
for Financial Consumers: a Study of Three Markets, 2000.
Kelly, Jr., William A., University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Financial Strength: A Comparison of State and Federal Credit
Unions, 1998.
40
Kelly, Jr., William A. and Karofsky, Judith F., University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Federal Credit Unions Without Federal
Share Insurance: Implications for the Future, 1999.
Kelly, Jr., William A. and Karofsky, Judith F., University of
Wisconsin-Madison; HARK Management, Inc.; Krueckeberg,
Harry F., Colorado State University (retired). Monetary
Incentives for Credit Union Staffs, 1998.
Lambrinos, James, Union College and Kelly, Jr., William A.,
University of Wisconsin-Madison. The Effects of Member
Income Levels on Credit Union Financial Performance, 1996.
Lee, Jinkook, University of Georgia and Kelly, Jr., William A.,
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Financial Product Use over
Household Life Cycles: A Guide for Credit Unions, 2002.
Lee, Jinkook, University of Georgia and Kelly, Jr., William A.,
University of Wisconsin-Madison. The Human Touch in the
Information Age: What Do Members Want?, 2001.
Lee, Jinkook, University of Georgia and Kelly, Jr., William A.,
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Life Cycle Marketing for
Credit Unions: Mid Age Households, 2002.
Lee, Jinkook, University of Georgia and Kelly, Jr., William A.,
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Life Cycle Marketing for
Credit Unions: Senior Households, 2002.
Lee, Jinkook, University of Georgia and Kelly, Jr., William A.,
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Life Cycle Marketing for
Credit Unions: Young Households, 2001.
Lee, Jinkook, Ohio State University and Kelly, Jr., William A.,
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Marketing Checking Accounts
to Members: A Guide for Credit Unions, 2003.
Lee, Jinkook, University of Georgia and Kelly, Jr., William A.,
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Where Are Households’
Financial Assets?, 2001.
Lee, Jinkook, University of Georgia and Kelly, Jr., William A.,
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Who Uses Credit Unions?
Second Edition, 2001.
41
Lee, Jinkook, University of Tennessee and Kelly, Jr., William A.,
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Who Uses Credit Unions?,
1999.
Lemmon, Nicolette, LEMMON-AID Marketing Services;
Gourley, David, Arizona State University; Ward, James, Arizona
State University. Member Acceptance of Electronic Access
Systems: Innovators versus Laggards, 1999.
Lepisto, Lawrence R., Central Michigan University. Consumer
Relationships with Financial Institutions, 1993.
Lepisto,
Lawrence
R.,
Central
Michigan
University.
Psychological and Demographic Factors Affecting Relationships with Financial Institutions, 1994.
Matsumura, Ella Mae and Dickson, Peter, University of
Wisconsin-Madison; and Kelly, Jr., William A., University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Member Segmentation and Profitability:
Current Practice and Future Possiblities, 1999.
Overstreet, Jr., George A., University of Virginia and Rubin,
Geoffrey M., Princeton University. The Applicability of Credit
Scoring in Credit Unions, 1996.
Overstreet, Jr., George A. and Rubin, Geoffrey M., University of
Virginia. Blurred Vision: Challenges in Credit Union Research
and Modeling, 1991.
Proceedings from the Second Annual Credit Union Colloquium
co-sponsored by Filene Research Institute, Center for Credit
Union Research, and the Center for Financial Services Studies.
Discrimination in Lending: What Are the Issues?, 1995.
Sayles, William W., The Center for Credit Union Innovation,
LLC. Serving Members Around the Globe, 2001.
Sayles, William W., The Center for Credit Union Innovation,
LLC. Small Business: The New Frontier, 2002.
Sayles, William W., The Center for Credit Union Innovation,
LLC. Small Credit Union Data Processors: Survey Results,
2002.
42
Smith, David M., Pepperdine University and Woodbury, Stephen
A., Michigan State University. Differences in Bank and Credit
Union Capital Needs, 2001.
Sollenberger, Harold M., Michigan State University and
Schneckenburger, Kurt, Olson Research Associates, Inc. Applying
Risk-Based Capital Ratios to Credit Unions, 1994.
Sullivan, A. Charlene, Purdue University and Worden, D.
Drecnik, Olivet Nazarene University. Personal Bankruptcy:
Causes and Consequences, 1992.
Warfield, Terry D., University of Wisconsin-Madison and
Henning, Steven L., University of Colorado-Boulder. Financial
Reporting by Credit Unions in the United States, 1994.
Whitener, Ellen M., University of Virginia. The Effects of Human
Resource Practices on Credit Union Employees and
Performance, 1998.
Whitener, Ellen M., University of Virginia and Brodt, Susan E.,
Duke University. Forging Employee Morale, Trust and
Performance, 2000.
Wilcox, James A., Haas School of Busines, University of
California, Berkeley. Subordinated Debt for Credit Unions,
2002.
Woodbury, Stephen A. and Smith, David M., Michigan State
University; and Kelly, Jr., William A., University of WisconsinMadison. An Analysis of Public Policy on Credit Union Select
Employee Groups, 1997.
Woodbury, Stephen A., Michigan State University; Smith, David
M., Pepperdine University; Kelly, Jr., William A., University of
Wisconsin-Madison. A State and Regional Analysis: Effects of
Public Policy on Credit Union Select Employee Groups, 1997.
43
44