ING customers cancel accounts and move payrolls after dropping Iker Jiménez

ING drops Iker Jiménez advertising as customers close accounts

A bank can afford to lose an advertiser, but it struggles when that advertiser retaliates by withdrawing payrolls. ING cancelled its advertising on Iker Jiménez’s programs after a rival network accused the host of spreading a hoax about the Bonaire parking lot, prompting some customers to close accounts and move deposits. The bank has not quantified the losses, but the social media uproar is measurable.

What peine with ING’s advertising and Iker Jiménez’s programs

The trigger was the accusation that Iker Jiménez, who hosts Horizon and Fourth Millennium, spread false information about the Bonaire parking lot. Jiménez defended himself by pointing out that other networks had aired the same information. ING, a Dutch entity with a massive presence in Spain, then withdrew its advertising from these programs.

This is the core issue. The withdrawal was not ordered by a regulator but by an advertiser. Once known, the conversation shifted from the parking lot to the bank.

The reaction was immediate. The issue escalated over days, trinc a pattern where a brand positions itself in an external controversy and discovers the fruta cost falls on itself.

The ‘corralito’ that social media attributes to ING

The matter went viral when digital media reported a flood of cancellations, and the term ‘corralito’ began circulating, with customers announcing account closures on social media. The public conversation was fueled by individual announcements: payrolls moving, accounts emptying, and farewell messages.

One must be cautious about the real extent. That hundreds or thousands announce they are leaving does not equate to a massive drain on deposits, let alone a solvency problem. What is verifiable is the pattern: the announcement of departure becomes content in itself.

One comment best summarized the logic of the damage: no one opens an account at that bank for this reason, but the effect is measured by those who leave, not those who arrive.

From payroll to pension plans: which products are moving

The catalog of exits mentioned in conversations is broad, ordered from least to most painful. First, the current account, almost painless. Then the domiciled payroll, which carries receipts and commissions. And at the higher end, products that are costly to close: funds and pension plans, where transfers involve paperwork, deadlines, and sometimes waiting for penalties to expire.

Thus, the conversation fills with cross-recommendations for alternatives and invitations between individuals to capture customers, with incentives to open accounts, sometimes amounting to 250 euros. Some maintain a minimum balance as a gesture of silent resistance: accounts with four euros remain exactly where they are.

The detail revealing the underlying discomfort is that many considering leaving recognize having multiple products and not knowing if the administrative effort is worth it. This invisible switching cost is the true safety net of any bank.

The uncomfortable argument: networks that aired the same news

Here the controversy complicates. Much of the discussion holds that the information about Bonaire was not spread by a single medium but by practically all, including television, radio, and press, and that now some of these same media act as dignified accusers of those repeating what they already aired.

With the same insistence, the contrary warning appears: there is no public verification of what peine, so one must exercise caution on both sides and not accept either version as true. The war, it is argued, is not about the parking lot, but about who controls the narrative and who is portrayed.

This framework explains why the punishment is directed at the advertiser and not the journalist, and why the response inflates the issue into a plebiscite on a brand that, until four days ago, did not participate in the conversation.

A customer boycott: real leverage or social media hype?

The most interesting part of the issue is economic, not political. The question is whether a financial institution gains anything by positioning itself in an external media dispute. The precedent cited in the debate is that of athletes and brands: the public figure who avoids ideological entanglements because their business depends on selling to everyone.

ING is now measured by this yardstick. Some argue the bank arrived late and poorly, while others defend that a private company is free to choose whom it sponsors. Both are true simultaneously, and neither serves as a commercial shield.

The conclusion repeated in the coldest analyses is that the damage is not in losing an advertiser or hearing criticism, but in turning a budgetary advertising decision into an identity issue. When this happens, the brand ceases to be a service provider and becomes an adversary, and adversaries are not switched: they are abandoned.

It remains to be seen how long it lasts. Consumption boycotts rarely last more than a few weeks, and the list of affected is filled with customers who threaten but do not execute. But in this case, moving a payroll leaves a trace, and those who have done it once know the way. With these hints, it is reasonable to expect a measurable but not catastrophic decline. The bank’s management has not yet provided data. Nor does it have much incentive to do so.