Consumers have never exactly adored their bank. When a consumer conjures up a brand of emotion, banks don’t exactly make the list, as does, say, an Apple or a Honda.

Let’s face it, banks suck. Who actually wants to deal with a bank? If you had to choose between first going to the dentist or stand on line at your bank to make a deposit, you’d think long and hard about the decision.

But that negative perception has been amplified by the erosion of trust spewed by the credit crisis. Forget about making banks “un-suck.” The first priority is changing the “mechanics” of perception about banks.

Consumers just don’t get banks. I have enough trouble understanding how banks work, and I’ve been writing about the industry since 1993. The average consumer doesn’t understand, which is why I think most consumer will view positively an effort to educate them about the safety and soundness of an institution. The results of the notorious stress tests separated the wheat from the chaff in banking, as it were. The starting point for a brand resurrection should be those results. What you are saying to consumers by focusing on your safety and soundness is, “Let’s forget about the service, let’s forget about the branch network, here’s how I am. We’re going to change the paradigm by explaining to you how it works. And this is the first of many changes in paradigm.”

You may counter that consumers couldn’t possibly grasp the intricacies of the SCAP, and I cannot disagree with that assessment. But such a safety-and-soundness approach is more about the starting point. A rebuilding of brand begins with a rebuilding of approach and with honesty. The beating heart of banking is safety and soundness. Everything will fall into place from there.