John Do Of course, providing banking services like a card account does create costs for the provider. But especially in combination with the account plans, I don’t agree that the price for this should be factored into an annual card price.
I think the price is not justified when comparing it to Bunq’s other options. (I am explicitly not comparing it to the Travel Card, which is a clever marketing tool to get new users intrigued.)
There’s just nothing left than card design and material and the user’s experience of something special.
There is a general ethical problem around marketing something as good for the environment when it’s the most expensive and not at all inclusive product while it’s also clearly a vehicle to drive revenue with exceptional margins—when at the same time the basic product lacks these environmental benefits.
It’s like if Apple would have different standards for their “cheap” MacBooks while only the Pro line would have arsenic free glass for example.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not against the metal card and that people want something like this. It’s a beautifully designed product. But I am dubious about the statement that it’s better because of less plastic. I’d like to see some actual numbers how the lifespan outweighs energy consumption and a harder do recycle sandwich product.
The sad part for me personally is that I wouldn’t have expected PR trickery like this from Bunq.
I am aware that this is a difficult topic. When competitors offer fancy cards made out of shiny materials and a lot of users want that from their bank as well. And then this bank positions itself as a bank that is different, inclusive, responsible. They tried to justify that they gave up on arguing against the metal card trend with planting trees instead of cashback. Which is not a bad idea. But it smells like greenwashing, because it probably is. I believe they could have offered a metal card without this drama.
