Financial institutions have spent the past decade investing heavily in digital channels, payments, and product proliferation. Such activities are warranted, but the data from Raddon Research offers a clear and sobering observation: Primary checking remains a dominant driver of whether consumers perceive an institution as their primary financial institution (PFI).

This finding matters because PFI status is not merely a branding outcome – it is a precursor to deeper product adoption, higher balances, and long‑term relationship value. For years, our data have shown a clear tendency: The institution consumers consider their primary checking provider is also the one they regard as their PFI. In our relationship-survey results, we have seen high percentages from survey responses that made this point. An institution that had, say, 68% of its consumers considering it their PFI would have roughly 75% or so of its consumers considering the checking account primary. Not a 1:1 correlation, but sizable.

Recently we studied this phenomenon in a bit more detail. We looked at several checking features and how they relate to PFI status, very satisfied (VS) status, and whether the consumer was a promoter (a 9 or 10 rating on the 0–10 likelihood to recommend scale). 

Table 1: Type of banking user and PFI perception

Odds ratio for PFI, VS, and promoter status

Source: Raddon Relationship Survey

Table 1 shows the relationship. Primary checking status (defined in the consumer’s mind and not by any transactional data) highly influences the consumer’s perception of PFI. The 18X odds ratio indicates that consumers with a primary checking account at the institution are 18 times more likely than consumers without their primary checking there to consider the institution their PFI. That is enormous. The same influence does not exist with them being either VS with the institution or with them being a promoter. In those cases, the odds ratios are 1.6X and 1.7X, respectively.

The implication is not that satisfaction and NPS are unimportant, but that they do not substitute for primary checking. Institutions that optimize experience metrics without securing checking primacy may see limited returns in terms of relationship depth.

Satisfaction and advocacy are influenced by many touchpoints, but PFI status is fundamentally psychological. Consumers appear to define “my main bank” largely by where their checking relationship lives, not by which institution offers the best stand-alone experience in a given channel. However, this relationship may be weathering, as the odds ratio between primary checking and PFI was 37X in 2019–20.

We took this analysis further and compared various checking-related features about which we survey. Table 2 shows the odds ratios related to various features, breaking them out by Raddon’s consumer segmentation framework (see Figure 1 for segment definitions). 

Table 2: How different features affect PFI status

Odds ratio for PFI status by channel and consumer segment

Table 2: Table 3: Definitions for consumer segments

Consumer segment age and income categories

Source: Raddon Relationship Survey

For each consumer segment, direct deposit is still the strongest influence on PFI at 4.3X. Meaning, on average, consumers are 4.3X as likely to consider your institution their PFI if they have direct deposit set up with you (versus those who do not have direct deposit set up with you). Direct deposit is less influential for the Fee Driven. I would ascribe this to all the various ways people can get paid now, such as earned wage access or apps. Table 2 highlights the third most influential driver of PFI after direct deposit for each consumer segment. Based on this table, I would treat customers differently during their onboarding process.

Because ATM usage has a high influence on PFI status with the Fee Driven and Middle Market, I would offer these customers a $10 bill to deposit in the checking account they just opened. I would walk with them to the ATM and have them deposit it. For the younger, more affluent Credit Driven consumers, I would hand them a $10 check written out to them and have them deposit it with their phone as they are sitting in front of me, as remote deposit capture usage is the second most influential factor for that group. For my older consumers, I would place $20 in their checking account and have them write me a $10 bill payment, right in front of me.

The channel data supports a moderation effect based on age and income. This suggests that the path to PFI is not uniform. While primary checking is universally important, the channels that reinforce that primacy may vary by segment.

One interesting inference from the data is the continued relevance of teller transactions and ATM usage. Teller interactions show odds ratios near 2.0X across several segments, while ATM usage (walk‑up and drive‑up) often exceeds 2.5X. These results challenge the assumption that physical channels are merely legacy cost centers. Instead, they appear to function as trust‑reinforcing touchpoints, particularly for older consumers and lower‑income segments. While they may not create primacy independently, they may help sustain it once established.

The data support the experience retail-banking strategists have known for a long time: Primary checking status is extremely important. The fact that particular channels associated with checking accounts vary based on consumer segments is fascinating. The drift from the primary checking odds ratio of 37X just six years ago probably reflects the increasing competition from large financial institutions and fintechs. It likely also portends the drift is likely to continue because nothing in the community banking landscape seems to be adequately addressing this erosion. Understanding PFI drivers and adjusting processes to enhance this effect may help the industry resist some of this erosion of relevance. The next question is what does PFI status give a financial institution anyway – more to come on that in the future.