For years, credit unions have built their case around local ownership, relationships, and purpose. The harder question is whether those same values influence the decisions we make when we are the customer.

Every credit union leader has answered some version of the same question: Why should someone choose us instead of Bank of America, Chase, SoFi or another financial institution with more scale, more technology and more marketing muscle?

Our answer rarely begins with scale. We talk about being local. We talk about knowing our members. We talk about decisions being made closer to the people affected by them. We talk about investing in communities instead of maximizing returns for outside shareholders. We talk about relationships, ownership and purpose.

Those are good answers. In fact, they may be among the most important competitive advantages credit unions have left.

But they create an uncomfortable question for those of us leading credit unions:

Do those same things matter when we are the customer?

Because sometimes our own purchasing decisions suggest they don't.

We ask consumers to look beyond size and convenience when choosing a financial institution, while we often default to size and convenience when choosing our own partners. We ask members to value relationships, flexibility, community investment and mission alignment, but when we evaluate technology companies, core processors, consultants, card providers and other major partners, those considerations can quickly become secondary to a much simpler rationale:

They're big. They're safe. Everybody uses them.

Maybe that's worth examining.

The Core Processor Is a Pretty Good Place to Start

There may be no better example than the core.

Core processing is one of the most consequential vendor decisions a credit union makes. It influences how quickly we can introduce products, integrate new technology, access data, automate processes and ultimately deliver the member experience we keep saying needs to improve.

Yet the market is remarkably concentrated.

Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City found that the “Big Three” core providers, Fiserv, Jack Henry and FIS, served nearly half of surveyed credit unions. Fiserv alone served approximately 31% of credit unions in the study.

Concentration isn't inherently bad. Large providers become large for reasons. They bring resources, scale, experience, security infrastructure and established products that smaller providers may struggle to match.

But the Federal Reserve researchers pointed to the strategic consequence of that concentration: because financial institutions depend so heavily on their core providers, their ability to modernize can depend significantly on how responsive those providers are to their needs.

That should sound familiar to almost any room full of credit union executives.

I've heard variations of the same complaints for years.

They aren't flexible enough.

It takes forever to get something changed.

We can't integrate the thing we want.

We're too small to get their attention.

They don't understand what we're trying to accomplish.

Then core renewal time arrives and we sign another contract.

That isn't an indictment of Fiserv, or any other large provider. In fact, some credit unions have excellent relationships with these companies, and the right large provider may absolutely be the right strategic choice.

The issue is the logic behind the choice.

If our argument to a consumer is, “Don't automatically choose the biggest institution simply because it's the biggest,” why would we automatically choose the biggest institution simply because it's the biggest?

There are other core providers. There are CUSOs. There are providers built specifically around credit unions. There are platforms competing on openness, integrations, customization and responsiveness. Some will be a terrible fit. Others might be a better one.

The point isn't that credit unions should abandon large technology companies.

The point is that “everyone uses them” should make us more curious, not less.

We Might Be Recreating the Very Problem We Ask Consumers to Resist

Think about the pitch we make to a prospective member who banks with a megabank.

They might tell us their bank is convenient. Its app works. There is an ATM everywhere. It has enormous resources. Switching would be a pain.

We don't respond, “Good point. Bigger is probably safer.”

We explain that there are tradeoffs to scale.

We tell them a smaller institution can know them better. Decisions can be made differently. Their business matters more. Their dollars can have a greater impact. When something goes wrong, there are actual people who care whether the problem gets solved.

Essentially, we are asking consumers to include alignment in their buying decision.

There is evidence that this matters. A 2026 national survey from America’s Credit Unions found credit unions enjoyed a 73% favorable rating compared with 56% for large national banks, and credit unions outperformed big banks by 17 percentage points on trust and 16 points on community connection.

People apparently do see a difference.

But here's where this gets uncomfortable: if those qualities are genuinely valuable, their value shouldn't disappear when we move from the seller's side of the table to the buyer's side.

A credit union choosing a core processor isn't fundamentally different from a consumer choosing a financial institution. Both are evaluating price, capabilities, security, convenience, service, technology and risk. Both are also deciding what kind of organization they want to depend on.

Yet we sometimes ask members to place value on things we barely score ourselves.

This Is Bigger Than Technology

The contradiction becomes even more obvious when the stakes are smaller. A credit union wants to demonstrate its commitment to the community, so employees show up at Starbucks and surprise people by paying for their coffee.

It's generous. People smile. Somebody takes pictures. Marketing posts them on Facebook.

But think about what just happened.

The credit union used its community marketing budget to drive business to one of the largest coffee corporations in the world while potentially passing several locally owned businesses on the way there.

That doesn't make Starbucks bad. That's not the argument.

The question is why our values didn't influence the decision.

If the purpose is to spread some good in the community, buying $1,000 of coffee from a locally owned shop creates two wins instead of one. Members get the surprise, and a local entrepreneur gets revenue. The credit union isn't simply saying it supports local business. Its purchasing behavior becomes part of the support.

Research on local spending demonstrates that these decisions can have real economic consequences. A 2026 Michigan economic impact study, for example, estimated that every dollar spent at a local establishment generated an additional $0.78 in economic output. The precise multiplier varies by market, but the principle doesn't: where institutions spend their money affects where economic activity accumulates.

Credit unions know this. Often we even finance those businesses. We run Small Business Saturday campaigns. We sponsor chambers of commerce. We publish articles telling members to shop local.

Maybe we should shop local, too.

And not only when it's easy.

Mission Alignment Belongs in Due Diligence

None of this means mission should override sound business judgment.

A credit union should not select inferior technology because the vendor has a great story. It should not accept greater cybersecurity risk because a company is small. It should not pay twice as much for half the capability in the name of supporting the little guy.

Members have entrusted us with their money. Safety, performance, economics, compliance, security and reliability matter enormously.

But we have created a false choice if we believe rigorous business decisions and mission-aligned business decisions are opposites. Interestingly, NCUA doesn't treat them that way.

Its guidance on third-party relationships says that before entering into a vendor relationship, credit union officials should consider whether that relationship complements the credit union's overall mission and philosophy and how it relates to the strategic plan. The guidance also tells leaders to consider alternatives, member impact, the vendor's business model and even whether that business model can adapt as technology and regulation change.

That sounds less like a compliance checklist and more like a strategic question.

So perhaps vendor scorecards need another column.

Alongside price, functionality, security, implementation, financial strength and references, add Mission and Strategic Alignment.

Then actually score it.

Does this organization understand the cooperative model? Does its business model align with ours? Will we matter to this company after the contract is signed? How responsive is it when a client needs something outside the standard roadmap? Does its technology give us the freedom to build the member experience our strategy calls for? Does the company strengthen the credit union ecosystem, our local economy or organizations whose success we believe matters?

And one question I would love to see every credit union board ask before approving a major vendor relationship:

If this vendor were a financial institution, would the reasons we're choosing it also be reasons we'd tell someone to choose a megabank over us?

If the answer is yes, that's worth discussing.

Your Purchasing Decisions Are Part of Your Brand

Credit unions spend enormous amounts of time trying to communicate what makes them different. Maybe we should spend a little more time making decisions that demonstrate it.

Brand isn't the tagline on the wall. Culture isn't the values listed in the employee handbook. Community commitment isn't the oversized check we hold for a photograph.

Those things become credible when they influence decisions.

Who gets our deposits?

Who gets our technology contracts?

Who gets our consulting dollars?

Who caters the board meeting?

Where do we buy employee gifts?

Which businesses benefit from our community promotions?

Which companies do we choose when there is an easier, larger, more familiar option and a smaller, more aligned alternative?

This doesn't require some purity test in which a credit union only does business with locally owned companies and CUSOs. That's neither practical nor necessarily responsible.

It requires something simpler:

Our values should have a vote.

Not the only vote. But a real one.

Because every time we tell a member to choose the credit union even though another institution may be bigger or more convenient, we are making an argument that relationships, ownership, community and purpose have economic value.

I believe they do.

But if we're going to ask members to make decisions based on those values, credit union leaders have to be willing to do the same. So at the next strategic planning session, don't only ask:

Why should someone choose our credit union?

Once you've written the answer on the whiteboard, leave it there.

Then pull up your vendor list.

And ask whether you believe your own answer.