When it comes to banking, human behaviour can be quite irrational – a fact marketers have understood for decades.

The big, solid, bank that you’ve “always banked with” can be difficult to break up with. They have long enjoyed what marketers call strong ‘brand loyalty’.

That view has been challenged in recent years, however, as online banking brands, and numerous spin-off brands compete for the attention of savers and borrowers.

• RBA holds rates steady ahead of Christmas
• Shorten’s climate-change mission
• Honeymoon continues for Turnbull govt: poll

Many see this as a technology-driven disruption, with innovative brands supposedly scooping up customers on the strength of better banking apps, or point-of-sale payment technologies.

However, the CEO of the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA), Wayne Byres, recently argued that it’s not primarily a question of technology.

He said we’re seeing “a new generation of consumer who looks at a brand in a different way, and trust is placed in many new brands that have become very big, very quickly”.

It would be nice to think so. Australia’s banking industry represents nearly 10 per cent of the nation’s entire GDP, and yet continues to be dominated by the big four lenders.

The big four banks enjoy incredible levels of brand loyalty. Photo: AAP

Research from mortgage broker AFG for the three months to September showed the big banks and their subsidiaries increased market share from 69.1 per cent of the mortgage market to 74.5 per cent.

Those were the same months in which APRA announced new measures to “level the playing field” between big banks and their smaller and regional competitors – higher capital reserves and stricter risk weighting for the big four’s mortgage books.

Those changes began to filter through in October in the form of out-of-cycle rate increases – between 15 and 20 basis points depending on the bank – which drew the usual hot-air condemnation from politicians.

But what’s really changed? If the market is still three-quarters concentrated in the big four, will a slightly higher interest rate really push customers into the arms of their small competitors?

Some hope so. The Customer Owned Bank Association (COBA) released survey results on Monday that said up to 40 per cent of customers aged 20 to 34 were thinking of switching banks to get a better deal.

But as the marketers know, ‘thinking of switching’ and ‘actually switching’ are quite different things – even when customers aren’t happy with their existing bank.

And they’re not happy, apparently. The COBA survey found that more than twice as many customers (61 per cent) found their member banks and building societies were providing a “very satisfactory” service.

Just 28 per cent of big four customers gave their bank the highest praise.

Your smaller bank may be owned by one of the big four. Take the Westpac-owned Bank of Melbourne, for example.

There is a second problem with APRA’s attempt to ‘level the playing field’, however – namely the profusion of bank brands owned by the big four.

While the big banks claim their various off-shoots ‘compete’ with their main brands, it’s doubtful that’s what disgruntled customers are looking for when they finally get motivated to move their business.

The problem, according to COBA, is that it can be difficult to work out who owns the brand you’re about to engage with.

“We have found repeatedly that there is a genuine consumer desire for more prominent information to help consumers be more aware of the ownership of banking products,” COBA CEO Mark Degotardi told The New Daily.

“We think it is an important consumer issue to ensure that Australians don’t have to wade through pages of fine print to work out who owns who.”

To illustrate the problem, Mr Degotardi points to COBA’s submission to the recently released Financial Systems Inquiry which spelled out the confusing spaghetti bowl of ownership.

“Westpac’s sub-brands include St George, BankSA, Bank of Melbourne and RAMS. NAB has UBank and CBA has BankWest and Aussie Home Loans (AHL). CBA’s takeover of AHL means that one of the leading mortgage brokers in the market is subject to the interests of the largest lender in the market.”

Consumers tempted to leave the big four, then, might be rushing back into the majors’ arms once more.

Does that matter? Each customer will be the judge. But if liberating the banking sector from a few oligopolistic boards is APRA’s goal, there is not, at present, much cause for optimism.

Read more columns by Rob Burgess here