ING clients seek alternatives after Iker Jiménez ad controversy

ING pulls ads from Iker Jiménez as clients eye the exit

A bank that grew by selling immediacy finds its own network turning against it overnight. ING has stopped advertising on the program hosted by Iker Jiménez trinc a social media storm, and part of its customer base is responding with the only lever they have: moving their money. The removed ad isn't the main story. It is that several clients claim the entity is not letting them close their accounts. From there to calling it a "corralito" (bank run) is a short step.

What peine with ING and the Iker Jiménez advertising?

The entity withdrew its ads from the presenter's slot, a move read on social media as backing down under pressure, sparking a mass account cancellation campaign. As one participant summarized, the bank has the right to place its ads wherever it wants; the client has the right to cancel when they choose. That second right—the ability to leave—is exactly what is being questioned.

Among the responses, it is noted this is not the first such episode: Axe took five years to reverse course, and questions arise whether Gillette, Bud Light, or Disney are similar cases. The difference here is that the product is not a razor blade or beer. It is people's money, which changes the calculation for anyone considering leaving.

Can you close an ING account whenever the client decides?

According to circulating testimonials, closing an account is not proving as fast as opening one. Some claim they have withdrawn all funds, filed complaints, and are ready to visit branches to collect cash in hand. The most repeated hypothesis is that the entity temporarily froze closures to cool things down, hoping indignation would dissolve, as almost everything does on social media.

There is no confirmation from the entity, so it should be treated as what it is: an unverified suspicion. Those downplaying the issue argue that outrage has an expiration date and the pattern repeats monotonously: explosion, trend, forgetfulness. Against this weighs an uncomfortable detail. An account closure does not undo itself with time.

This is where the middle path appears most often: not closing, but zeroing out the balance and transferring investment products. If pension plans and portfolios move elsewhere, the bank loses fees, which is where it really hurts. Less epic than a closure, but far more profitable for the client.

Why "corralito" isn't the exact term (but makes sense)

A corralito is an official restriction on accessing one's own money. Here, no rule limiting withdrawals has been proposed; what is reported are operational hurdles to formalizing the closure. Confusing the two is an exaggeration, and exaggerating gives free ammunition to those who want to dismiss the matter as a social media tantrum.

Ignoring the second issue because the first was exaggerated shows notable naivety. The sequence also has commercial logic: a zero-balance account dents the balance sheet less than a closed account, and tomorrow they can always try to win the client back with a promotion.

Alternatives sought by clients: from quarterly broker fees to BBVA's 4%

The list of names grows constantly. Remunerated accounts like Pibank, investment platforms like MyInvestor, online banking from Openbank and BBVA, and brokers for the Spanish market like Self Bank or Bankinter appear. The latter is free if you accept lending your deposited shares. Traditional banks haven't stood still either: BBVA offers a 4% for transferring pension plans with unspecified lock-in periods, while Sabadell goes up to 6% in exchange for nine years of loyalty.

The underlying motive for moving isn't just ideological, according to clients raising the point. ING's broker now requires a quarterly purchase, interested or not, to avoid custody fees; the orange account offers non-competitive interest rates, and pension plans carry higher fees than competitors. The full breakdown, product by product, with lock-ins and fine print, is being compared line by line: that is where one decides whether to leave with drama or with numbers.

The 2022 bank tax and the returned favor theory

The banking dispute has joined with political angles. It is argued that the bank tax approved in 2022 left ING out of about 70 million euros and that now, with the tax back in discussion, the entity is returning the favor by pulling ads from an uncomfortable space. This is a hypothesis unsupported by any documents.

Two facts are confirmed: the bank removed its ads, and its corporate social media account has become the target of much of the anger. Everything else is conjecture, plausible to some and hilarious to others, explaining why the conversation heated up into cross-political labels that add nothing to anyone's wallet.

---

With these elements, the open question is how many who announce closure actually trinc through. Transferring payroll or pension plans takes an afternoon and has no pleasant way back. But laziness, which retained many clients for years, no longer seems the engine it was. And a bank built on the idea that doing everything from mobile is easy faces a serious problem the day its clients discover that leaving is not.