This works well as a bluff, but of course you need to be ready to follow through in case they call the bluff. Which if you are, you may as well switch banks for real anyway.
The main thing is that they do care about retention.
And besides that, banks need capital reserves in the form of customer deposits; if too much money flows out then they will have to either acquire customers or pause their real moneymaking activity (loans).
Your account doesn't make them significant money. Retail banking in general makes boatloads of money, and deposits are central to this now that we're out of zero-interest-rate-land.
USA's fractional reserve requirement is now 0%. UK has also gotten rid of their reserve requirement as well. In the UK, the limit to what the bank can loan out is more determined by the market cap of the bank (committed shareholder value). Cash is only strictly needed to cover ... customer deposits.
So in the UK, if a bank gets rid of customer deposits entirely, then it kind of doesn't need any cash anymore. It can just lend money out of thin air based on its total net worth (market cap).
Talking about banking in general is generally a huge mistake. While deposits may be central, retail deposits are irrelevant for the banks that do > 70% of banking.
> now that we're out of zero-interest-rate-land.
Doesn't matter to them.
We’re talking about an individual sticking it to the bank he has an account with by cancelling it. Retail sounds entirely relevant here.
Citibank interest rate on savings accounts is less than 1%, more like 0.1%. They're telling you load and clear "We don't want your money" - you can't argue with that empirical evidence, straight from the horse's mouth.
I don't follow; why would regulations on consumer accounts change the price of commercial customer accounts?
Just loop in your regulators. This costs them far more and properly documents the problem for follow-up in case it becomes a pattern. Possibly more annoying than moving accounts. But far more effective (unless you have nine figures with the firm).
Was this opening sentence necessary? It is not germane at all to the rest of the article. Ironically, it is itself virtue-signalling (for some definition of virtue), just to a different audience.
The article itself is a nice, well interesting, dive into the topic; kinda unfortunate.
It would be very surprising behaviour for a British guy living in the UK
Sometimes called "pink capitalism" or "rainbow capitalism", where a company will show the rainbow pride flag for Pride Month, but not put any more substantial effort towards diversity, plurality, LGBTQ rights, etc.
I expect nothing from companies, and it's nice to see that virtue signal. If they're signalling, it means they think we haven't been exterminated yet. But I don't expect good works from anything for-profit. It's just business.
Edit: The author using the phrase "surveillance capitalism" is generally a left wing thing. I don't hear right-wingers rallying against capitalism (let's not even get into the weeds of defining "capitalism" the word) even when they happen to oppose surveillance
And apparently not targeted all that well, since half the comments here think it is a right-wing (anti-multiculturalism) sentiment, and the other half a left-wing (anti-corporate-reputation-laundering) sentiment.
I'd love to believe that he really is just this new to tracking pixels and this flabbergasted about the practice, but between all the hammering on about surveillance capitalism and how this is now the darkest timeline, I really do struggle to suspend my disbelief.
It only got more difficult to do so once I double-checked that e.g. Gmail and Apple Mail both neutralize this without any additional configuration required by the user, that the (mal)practice of tracking pixels is approximately two to three decades old at this point, and that the guy's blog has been around since about exactly that long too.
It's fine, Capital One. I did open your emails, I just didn't load your shady tracking pixels.
My experience with IT in banks is that this entire "feature" of tracking who's opening/not opening emails must have went through about 50 people, and it must have taken at least a year from the idea forming in someone's head, going through all the administrative bureaucracy, getting approved, developed, tested, and rolled out.
Is it that HSBC has 0 competent people who could have mentioned that "tracking pixels are unreliable, especially in 2025/26"? Or is it that everybody who mentioned this was overruled by middle/upper management because they know better? What about the http:// part? I imagine there must have been a few developers saying we should not be serving anything under http://.
For every HN technically inclined people you have dozens of other customers who will give any email (thinking it's just writing "John.smith@bt.co.uk" or something) - or worse- and they have to find a way of identifying those customers
The automatic payment you set up has processed successfully.
Senior leadership wouldn't believe me, kept harassing my team to explain why so and so who said they opened the email didn't have an open event, and why so and so who said they didn't open the email did have an open event.
Authors wouldn't believe me because email open was the highest scoring metric they had. Less than 3% of recipients would land on the page for the publication, but >50% would "open" the email that has a teaser and a call to action to open the webpage. If they had to go off of the click through metrics which are accurate it'd make it sound like they were bad at their job.
So everyone used open rates because it made them feel good. Either that they were writing engaging content, or made them feel like they actually had a handle on who was/was not reading their mail.
No metric would have been better than this metric.
In the chain of command for a feature like this, that's quite possible.
> Or is it that everybody who mentioned this was overruled by middle/upper management because they know better?
Or just learned helplessness, they don't bother because they know it's not worth trying.
At these massive, unable to go bankrupt companies, you quickly lose all fucks to give. No one cares about opinion of ICs or even direct managers, Senior Management makes the calls and you either execute quietly or replaced with someone who is. When I worked for $MegaUSBank, there was two types of people. Those who realized their "spark" was draining out of them and got a new job after a few years and those who were just "Whatever, I push buttons and get paycheck." and had been there for 15 years.
Same thing happens with renting apartments. Slowly but surely, conveniences like apartment-phone-app (to open doors, to access mailboxes) get accepted by people and then they "throw the switch" and make the remaining 3% do it. Or maybe new renters must accept it to move in. And then they can deny access to apartments imeediately, track their residents, match with online activity and more...
"I want to send letters to everyone who doesn't open our emails."
"We can't really detect that. We could add a tracking pixel, but–"
"Yeah, do that, the tracking pickle thing."
The other is that the "did they open this?" feature was rolled out purely for metrics knowing that it's imprecise, and later on got repurposed for something unsuitable without looking at how the "did this email get opened?" facility actually worked.
In fact, the sheer amount of systems not working correctly in Britain is astonishing. Feels like the whole country is falling apart.
But I get their emails just fine. It's their tracking that (intentionally) isn't working.
> But we’re in the Darkest Timeline. Tracking pixels have become so endemic that HSBC have clearly come to the opinion that if they can’t track when I open their emails, I must not be receiving their emails. So they wrote me a letter to tell me that my emails have been “returned undelivered” (which seems to be an outright lie).
Tracking pixels are the key of thing that my computer filters out. So I wonder if this explains why I get paper statements for my Apple Card.
Each time one comes in the mail, it has a letter with it stating that Goldman Sachs was unable to contact me at the email address on file, which they show as my Apple ID email address. Which works fine for everyone else in the world, including Apple.
Not in my email client, mutt. I use Thunderbird once in a great while. For some reason I thought there was an option to stop that and I enabled it. Will need to check the next time I fire up Thunderbird.
But this post is entirely speculation. The author has no evidence they're basing it on tracking pixels. They're literally just guessing.
And I'm dubious that tracking pixels would be a reliable enough signal to be worth it. Doesn't Gmail download images in advance anyways? Plus, I regularly filter predictable emails or just archive them directly from my inbox based on the subject line without opening.
I'd more likely assume they have an e-mail bounce detector that just has a bug in it.
They literally admit to this and go on to provide the evidence for their guess:
> I think I can place a solid guess about what went wrong here.
And they don't provide any evidence. Not a single piece. Merely claiming it's a "solid guess" doesn't make it solid. It's based on nothing. Tracking pixels are extremely common, so there's nothing to suggest it's tied specifically to this. As opposed to, like I said, a buggy bounce detector.
I do, when the result of that attempt is to tell people to change their email addresses unnecessarily. Most people will fall for that.
The wording could obviously be better, it should use softer language with a note that if you're sure the email is correct then you can ignore the letter.
But the general concept of trying to detect unused email addresses seems valid.
That's why I fucking hate society. This is everywhere.
I work with banking data day to day and the internal systems are often just as rough. CSV exports with inconsistent date formats between the same bank's own products. Transaction descriptions that are random truncated strings with no standardisation. Every bank formats their statements differently and some of them can't even stay consistent between their own account types.
You'd think with the regulatory pressure around data accuracy this stuff would be sorted by now. But the reality is most banks treat their digital infrastructure like legacy plumbing - it works well enough that nobody wants to risk touching it.
HTTPS still typically exchanges the Server Name Identification. So you know somebody is talking to HSBC. And the rest of the URL is just an anonymized tracking ID. So I'm having a hard time seeing what the threat is this particular instance.
Like I said, even with HTTPS everyone in the cafeteria theoretically knows you're connecting to HBSC as well.
So I don't see the difference.
This is one of the reasons why in 2019 they wrote about their own demise https://web.archive.org/web/20240213185758/https://www.cimb.... against fintech (which is only slightly less archaic) and how cryptos, I don't know which ones, but maybe some yet to be born, will eventually displace them because regardless of their dominant position, the level of poor service and archaic systems is not humanly/socially sustainable for much longer.
Their leadership is mentally incapable of changing. Unfortunately, I fear that most of the population isn't either.
They hired another company to do it.
The project has been over for 4 years.
The man who determined the requirements no longer works at HSBC or the other company.
The coder doesn't even know HSBC is using his code.
My wife continues to get spam snail mail from Citi, and they offer no way to opt out. If it was my account, I would switch banks.
Back to the main topic: I think it's pretty stupid of the HSBC IT folks to assume that an email was not read because the tracking pixels were never accessed. Lots of email clients these days do not load images by default.
renewiltord•2h ago
philipwhiuk•2h ago
CGMthrowaway•2h ago
nkrisc•1h ago
CGMthrowaway•2h ago
wrs•1h ago
Almondsetat•1h ago
bummy_commenter•1h ago
gweinberg•1h ago
jldugger•54m ago
"Our open rates have skyrocketed! send more emails!"