Obviously, I support your business idea, and I look forward to it shaking banks up a bit. If the product is strong enough, a generic brand won't kill the business. I still believe
BankSimple was a better name (in my opinion), as it actually positioned you as a new player in a game to change the status quo. I can understand if there were potential legal issues with a non-bank calling itself a bank. If this is the reason a change was made, then I'm wasting my keystrokes.
My thinking is that an innovative, abstract replacement for banking will either float or sink on the strength of its offering and subsequent word-of-mouth. My mother wouldn't ever sign up for this on her own regardless of what it's called, but in time, I might be able to get her to use it if it's good. A descriptive brand name is almost irrelevant for a company like this.
Now, the other angle here is that banking might simply be their entree into the abstraction business at large. So maybe today I bank through Simple, but in a few years I buy insurance through them. And maybe my cell phone plan.
There's a lot of confusion and noise interfering with the efficiency of consumer markets as mediums of value exchange. Abstraction, quantification, and objective selection could be a neat way to cut down on some of the inefficiency, misinformation, and confusion.
Obviously, I support your business idea, and I look forward to it shaking banks up a bit. If the product is strong enough, a generic brand won't kill the business. I still believe
BankSimple was a better name (in my opinion), as it actually positioned you as a new player in a game to change the status quo. I can understand if there were potential legal issues with a non-bank calling itself a bank. If this is the reason a change was made, then I'm wasting my keystrokes.
Send me a beta invite!