Zimpapers Logo

Delta Milayo Ndou Digital Dialogue
The imminent introduction of bond notes is a subject that is fraught with miscommunication, confusion, anxiety and general public hysteria. Understandably so given that many of us rightly use the past as a reference point in anticipating future local currency outcomes. Legitimate concerns have been raised from various quarters with regards to the issuance of bond notes and particularly the emergence of a parallel black market trading on the public’s lack of trust or confidence in the prescribed currency, which has, by way of decree, been assigned equal value to the US dollar.

Blame for this crisis has been apportioned right across the board with Government, the RBZ and local banks catching flak for cash shortages while unnamed and as yet unpunished elites have received mention as culprits in the externalisation of cash.

By RBZ’s own admission “the gap between the demand and supply of foreign exchange is engendering undesirable practices that include illicit cash dealings and rent-seeking behaviour that are exacerbating the inefficient use of scarce foreign exchange resources within the national economy”.

Stanbic Bank, however, has chosen to wash their hands clean and pre-empt any blame that their clients might lay at their feet by issuing communication to the effect that their clients should not expect funds to be immediately available for withdrawal even though they make deposits.

In simple terms, they are depositing at their own risk and should be aware that making a deposit does not entitle them to access their money as and when they may desire to. Of course, this being the age of all things digital, Stanbic’s clients took to social media to voice their displeasure with this “Pontius Pilate” move in which their bank has chosen to wash its hands off regarding availing withdrawals as and when its clientele requires making them.

Commenting on the bank’s stance, one Kudakwaishe on Twitter noted, “This is disheartening. So basically @StanbicBankZW has distanced itself from this mess.”

It all started with a text message to the bank’s clients inviting them to visit their nearest Stanbic branch, which was duly screenshot and shared online. Because, well, in the digital age people do not just discuss what they have seen, they like to produce evidence to fully back up their narrations and of course, dare us to contradict them.

Using addendums to pass the buck
The text message that Stanbic sent to its valued clients and that inadvertently caused an outcry among cyber publics led by the influential Fadzayi Mahere (whom no bank, brand, institution or person should ever desire to cross swords with) read: “Due to dynamic market conditions, it has become vital to advise you of the bank’s revised conditions of business. Please visit your branch to collect your letter.”

Much to the chagrin of many of the bank’s clients, if the social media responses are anything to go by. From Twitter the responses were as follows; @Mai_Ryan demanded to know: “@StanbicBankZW Why didn’t you make us sign when you limited our cash withdrawals?” whilst one MaTshabangu remarked “@StanbicBankZW says I should visit my branch to get a letter about revised conditions of business due to dynamic market conditions. Why not e-mail”.

Then one Rumbidzai asked “Who says such things? Honestly @StanbicBankZW do you still want us as your clients when you make such statements?” and she also added; “So I can deposit USD, but you can’t promise me I will get USD when I want. Why must I keep bringing my money to your bank? @StanbicBankZW”.

The most emphatic reaction to that Stanbic communiqué came from Fadzayi Mahere who advised fellow Stanbic clients, in particular and possibly everyone else whose bank might pull a similar stunt arguing people have a right to refuse and object to any changes to the existing terms and conditions.

She did not stop there, but helpfully crafted a template response for the bank’s clients to return the buck to Stanbic and called for Stanbic Bank clients to “start building the record for the MOTHER of all class actions”. I will have to render it in full:

Dear Mr J Tapambgwa
Thank you for your letter dated 1 November, 2016. I have chosen to expedite matters and avoid any doubt by responding to you directly.
1. As you yourself accept, there is an existing contract between Stanbic Bank and I. I do not agree to any change in its terms. The existing contract reflects legal principles that are as old as banks themselves.

2. In the light of my rejection of your proposal, I call upon you to confirm to me in writing by the 30th of November, 2016 that you will abide by your duties in terms of the law. Should I not hear from you by then, I shall take it that you have repudiated your obligations and will pursue suitable remedies.

I look forward to hearing from you.
Warmest wishes
(Insert name)
cc. Relationship Manager (Insert branch)’

I fully support this stance by the bank’s clients because I don’t think it is good form for any bank at this point to try and exempt itself, excuse itself, indemnify itself and distance itself from the obligation of serving its clients in every respect particularly in the thorny matter of withdrawals.

Meanwhile, as of yesterday, one Twitter user @matigary was claiming (with pictures to back it up) that: @StanbicBankZW (is) hijacking clients in cash Qs 2 cajole them 2 sign new T&Cs 2 give up US$ for Bond. Unethical”.

RBZ needs a 24 /7 cyber-public relations team
Separate from, but related to the Stanbic Bank fiasco is the issue of communication and how the RBZ is not visible on online platforms where discourses on the bond notes abound and where, inevitably, miscommunication flourishes.

It is insufficient, in my view, to have media pushing messages that the RBZ is unavailable to clarify should online communities require further clarification. It may seem that I am privileging online communities ahead of other publics and stakeholders, but I am of the view that most Zimbabweans who are online tend to share the information they receive with their relatives, friends and other persons in their spheres of influence offline.

Does it not make sense then to use these online communities as conduits to ensure the correct information is cascading to offline audiences? In many cases, those who are active online usually tend to be opinion leaders within their families by virtue of always being (or at least giving the impression that they are) in “the know”.

My thinking, which may be flawed of course, is that the RBZ needs to invest in having round-the-clock cyber relations personnel who can engage online communities and respond to the avalanche of questions, queries, comments and requests for clarifications that are flooding social media platforms.

Obviously, this would only be necessary in the short-term as the regulatory body seeks to ensure that facts about the bond notes are not distorted or miscommunicated. Through its website, the RBZ can offer a live chat feature allowing those seeking information to get it in real time, similarly having dedicated Facebook and Twitter presence would be immensely helpful.

Of course the risk of attracting unsavoury messages is there, but that’s the whole point of engaging in PR — you have to engage with your publics especially over an issue as emotive as the bond notes.

For RBZ, the temptation to remain aloof and to use the media as a buffer between itself and the public whose confidence it is hoping to win is one it should resist at all costs. Come out RBZ and face the music or rather, face the people — well the online people at least.

Delta is Head of Digital at Zimpapers. Follow her on Twitter: @deltandou