Unfortunately, if things are falling apart, the only way to turn a profit is to reduce headcount, and that is not sustainable. That works on Wall Street but not with a private company. You do not have investors to impress and no stock price to move , only members who have given more than most and deserve an experience that reflects that commitment.
While expanding membership eligibility may address volume concerns in the short term, it risks diluting the brand's unique identity and the trust that took decades to build.
It is increasingly difficult to demonstrate genuine care for members and their financial well-being when it becomes harder to differentiate from competitors. For the first time in my life, I am looking at other options.
Giving three billion dollars back to members sounds significant until you do the math. Spread uniformly across 14 million members, that is roughly $214 per member per year, while USAA simultaneously raised my home insurance premium by $1,000 with no prior claims. The net result is a loss of $786 before I even start counting.
Meanwhile, member attrition is often attributed to external factors, but internal dynamics are worth examining too. Until member service metrics are quantified and honestly compared with competitors, nothing changes, and the members who built this company will keep doing the math and ask, "What do I get in service to justify the extra cost ?" Right now, no one can answer that question. Pretty sad.
OP: @ke+1krm5bf35
Bumping this up for visibility.