So called packaged accounts have already tried this bundled subscription model once and got “burned” by regulators to different degrees across Europe. That history is worth remembering — but it is not a reason to sit this one out according to some leading banking consultancies.

According to them, the case for subscription pricing in retail banking is stronger now than it was in the 2000’s. Three independent pieces of research, from Celent, Simon-Kucher, and BCG, are converging on the same conclusion: subscription models would drive enterprise value of banks, improve margins and deepen customer relationships.

‍

Not a rebrand of the monthly fee

The first thing to get right is what subscription pricing actually is and isn’t. Celent is blunt about this: “subscription pricing is not a marketing rebrand of the monthly maintenance fee common to banking services in many markets. The move to subscription pricing is part of afar wider rethink of the customer value proposition and the underlying banking business model.” Slapping a new label on an old account fee changes nothing for the customer or the P&L. What changes the P&L is customers paying, up front and by choice, for a defined level of service — predictable for them, plannable for you.

Celent’s research also points to a behavioral quirk that works in the bank’s favor: “Interestingly, consumers are often willing to pay more for this predictability, as most overestimate their likely usage. The gym membership phenomenon is a good example here: A customer may pay $30 a month for unlimited access if one-time access is $8, despite most people ending up using the gym fewer than five times a month. Similarly, for banking, a subscription that includes all ATM fees in the US for a set monthly cost may appear attractive even if actual average monthly usage would suggest a lower amount in one-off fees. Consumers generally prefer the predictability.”

The same logic applies to a banking bundle that rolls in ATM fees, card protection, or FX-free spending: the perceived value of “I never have to think about this again” often exceeds the sum of the parts.

Why the timing has changed

Simon-Kucher’s recent analysis of the UK market lays out why according to them the moment has shifted since packaged accounts fell out of favor. Four factors stand out.

First, the market rewards this kind of revenue. As the firm puts it, “opt-in subscription income streams are perceived by investors to be more reliable and of high quality... Shifting the revenue mix to recurring subscription income can enhance the enterprise value of the bank.” At a time when interest income rides on central bank policy and interchange sits under regulatory pressure, a subscription line is one revenue stream a bank actually controls.

Second, subscriptions deepen relationships in a way single products don’t. Customers with more products from one bank are demonstrably stickier and more likely to buy again. A subscription is simply amore direct way to sell the relationship rather than the transaction.

Third, consumer behavior has caught up. Simon-Kucher notes that “the average UK consumer now pays for at least three monthly services, with some spending up to £300 per month”. Banking is arguably one of the few remaining monthly costs not already framed as a subscription customers have opted into.

Fourth, the infrastructure finally supports it. Modular, cloud-based product layers mean packages can be built, tested, and adjusted continuously, rather than locked in for years at a time.

The market examples back this up. Santander’s Edge Explorer account bundles 24-hour remote GP access; Lloyds pairs itsPremier tier with Bupa digital health services and lets customers choose a lifestyle benefit — a streaming subscription, cinema tickets, dining rewards; Revolut has built out Plus, Premium, Metal, and Ultra tiers with fitness, wellbeing, and lifestyle add-ons layered on top of the banking core. None of these has “won” outright yet, which is itself the opportunity: Simon-Kucher’s assessment is that the category is “active, evolving, and full of experimentation, but there is still no model that has truly won.”

‍

A European pattern, not a British one

It would be easy to read all of this as a British story taking the origin of the papers. It isn’t — the same building  blocks show up across the EU’s largest banking markets, in some cases more deeply than in the UK.

France is, if anything, the deeper version of this story. The “package bancaire,” or offre groupée de services, is the default current account at every major traditional bank (BNP Paribas, SociétéGénérale, Crédit Agricole, Crédit Mutuel, CIC, LCL) bundling core banking with a non-core service that is almost always card loss or theft insurance, occasionally extended to travel or purchase cover. France even has its own version of the FCA’s transparency push: a standardized fee-disclosure document, the Document d’Information Tarifaire, became mandatory in 2019 specifically so customers could compare package pricing. And French consumer advocates raise almost the identical objection UK regulators raised about packaged accounts: a 2025 pricing comparison found packages actually beat unbundled pricing for a standard customer at only 11% of the banks studied — value that looks more like inertia than a genuine deal.

But consumer appetite for subscriptions is strong across Europe. A 2024 survey of 5,000 European subscribers found UK consumers hold an average of 3.3 paid subscriptions and spend €814 a year on them — ahead of the pack, but only just. Germany matches the UK on subscription count at 3.3, and the European average sits at 3.2 subscriptions and €696 a year. France (3.0 subscriptions, €780) and Spain (€720) aren’t far behind either.

Read together, the UK case Simon-Kucher builds isn’t really a UK case. It’s a description of where the whole European retail banking market sits in the same cycle: legacy bundles built around insurance, a shared regulatory push to make them transparent and fair, and now a shared opportunity to rebuild them around something customers actually want.

‍

It isn’t only current accounts

BCG’s research shows the same shift happening in products that look nothing like a packaged current account. In NorthAmerica, “some mortgage service providers are shifting their pricing basis from a traditional transaction-fee model to a subscription-based model tied to key attributes such as loans-under-service levels.” The effect, in BCG’s words: “a subscription model reduces discretionary discounting as well as standardizes pricing for customers - while also enhancing annual recurring revenue (ARR) and total revenue, and creating differentiated offerings to further boost cross-selling.”

Wealth management is moving too — in several European markets, regulation has pushed pricing “from a pay-per-transaction model funded by retrocessions to a fee-based model based on total assets”, which is subscription logic applied to advisory relationships. And in Asia-Pacific, some retail banks now sell credit cards as a subscription outright: a flat monthly fee buys the customer card access up to a limit, interest-free. Three different products, three different regions, one shared mechanism - replace variable, negotiated, or hidden pricing with a flat recurring fee the customer chose.

‍

The share-of-wallet math gets stronger, not weaker

Here is where the case compounds. PwC’s research on share-of-wallet strategies puts a number on a problem every retail bank recognizes: on average, banks capture only 10% to 20% of a customer’s total financial wallet, even when that customer holds a primary account with them. The best-performing banks reach 60%. That gap - 40 to 50 points of wallet share sitting with competitors - is the single largest pool of addressable revenue most banks have, and PwC estimates that initiatives targeting existing customers generate a return north of 70%, against roughly 10% for new customer acquisition.

Subscription pricing is a direct lever on that gap, for a simple reason: a subscription is, by design, a bundle. Every well-built subscription tier packs the bank’s own products under one recurring fee, savings, protection, FX, lifestyle perks, sometimes lending, which is precisely the cross-sell PwC’s research says drives share of wallet up. PwC’sown data shows why this compounds over time: relationship tenure “increases from about 18 months for one product to seven years for three or more products”. A subscription that nudges a one-product customer into three products isn’t just adding a monthly fee - it is buying that customer’s loyalty for years, not months. Where a bank might once have needed a separate cross-sell campaign for each product, a subscription sells the bundle in a single, opt-in motion, at the moment the customer is most receptive: the point of sign-up.

‍

Getting the design right

None of this happens by accident, and both Celent and Simon-Kucher are clear that the execution is where subscription pricing succeeds or fails.

Shifting to subscription pricing means shifting what you measure. Celent: “This requires a change in key performance metrics away from individual product profitability... to focus on future customer value (e.g., annual recurring revenues), customer lifetime value, and customer churn”. Their comparison to Netflix is worth sitting with: a bank optimizing for individual product profit is quietly rewarded when a customer doesn’t use a benefit; a bank optimizing for subscription retention needs that customer engaged, the same way Netflix needs you watching, not just paying.

Simon-Kucher frames the practical questions banks need to answer before launch: What’s the objective? Near-term revenue or long-term relationship value? Who is the target segment, and what do they actually want? What goes into the bundle? Safe essentials or something customers find genuinely engaging? How is it structured? Single tier, gold/silver/bronze, use-case bundle, or fully modular? And critically, how much to charge, which “requires specialist research” into willingness-to-pay and price elasticity rather than a guess anchored to the old maintenance fee.

Both papers converge on the same failure mode from the last cycle: packaged accounts were “sold by banks,” stuffed with products regulators later decided customers didn’t need or understand. The fix isn’t more compliance paperwork to get away with it — it’s building something customers choose to buy not get sold on by banks.

‍

The takeaway

Subscription pricing in banking is not a rebrand, and it is not a bet on an unproven category. It is a structural answer to two problems banks already know they have: revenue streams too exposed to rate cycles and interchange regulation, and share of wallet stuck well below what the best performers achieve. Get the segmentation, the bundle, and the pricing research right, and a subscription model turns a single sign-up into the kind of multi-product relationship that, on PwC’s numbers, sticks around for years rather than months. The banks already moving, aren’t waiting for the model to be “won”. They’re capturing the share while it’s still there to capture.

Sources: Celent, “Developing Next-Generation Retail Banking Pricing Strategies - The Need for Enterprise Pricing”; Simon-Kucher, “The Return of Subscription Pricing in UK Banking: Time for a Fresh Look” (January 2026); BCG, “How Banks ‘Superpowers’ Can Lead to Win-Win Outcomes in Pricing” (February 2023); PwC, “From New Customer to Great Customer: Share of Wallet Strategies Get a Long-Awaited Upgrade” (2020); UK Financial Conduct Authority, Financial Lives 2024 survey; Les Clés de la Banque and MoneyVox on French “package bancaire”pricing; Verbraucherzentrale on German current-account bundling; Directive 2014/92/EU (Payment Accounts Directive)and the EU Insurance Distribution Directive; Bango, “European Subscription Wars: Super Bundling Awakens” (2024).

‍