By Carreen Winters and Richard Robbins

According to a recent article in the New York Times, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, discussed the Occupy Wall Street protests in a call with industry analysts. Frustrated that reversing the industry's shattered image is a "tall order," he invited analysts to write up any "good ideas" and "we'll take them into consideration."

Of course, it's easy to dismiss Occupy Wall Street as a fringe group of unshowered, misguided kids with dreadlocks and bongos. In fact, an anonymous banker was quoted in the NY Times story saying the protesters are a "ragtag group looking for sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll." He couldn't be more wrong.

While the protests were initiated by and have attracted eccentric characters, the sentiment behind Occupy Wall Street has resonated with mainstream America. A recent Quinnipiac poll found New York City voters agree with the protesters by a 67 - 23 percent margin. Nationally, a Time poll showed 54 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Occupy Wall Street.

It's easy to mistake the lack of leadership as a lack of message – or lack of media-savvy. But today, movements can be built and sustained using online tools rather than traditional top-down organizations. And while the Occupy movement doesn't (yet) have specific demands, it has successfully defined big banks and "Wall Street" as the root of many of our problems.

Further, social media has permanently shifted power to the masses as it relates to organizing and disseminating information. Mobile phones and social media fueled the "Arab Spring," and the same tools are empowering the Occupy movement to grow support despite little initial mainstream media attention.

The frustration and anger in the US is palpable and rising. Continued high salaries for bankers and residual anger that taxpayer dollars were used for the bailout ensure that banks will continue to be an easy target. And self-inflicted wounds, like Bank of America's instituting a $5 monthly debit card fee – which they eventually withdrew – in the same week they paid $11 million severance to two fired executives, haven't helped the cause.

Since Dimon requested good ideas, here are 3 suggestions to "take under consideration:"

#1 – Educate. Most Americans don't understand the role big banks play in the global markets, in job creation, or in their daily lives. Without this understanding, and with media-friendly examples of egregious foreclosures or excessive banking fees, the media and protesters have defined big banks as "evil." Something is very wrong when Starbucks creates a program to lend money to small businesses because they say the banks aren't. JPMorgan Chase, and the financial industry overall, would do well to educate the public about the important role of financial services for the US economy and to change the perception that banks aren't currently lending.

#2 – Engage. Occupy Wall Street was born from a generation of Americans who feel they've done all the right things, and that the system has failed them. They have student loans, few prospects, and feel their voices aren't being heard. Rather than just asking industry analysts for ideas to improve its image, for example, Chase could organize "Meetups" in local branches to allow customers to suggest ways for the bank to help with job creation and other local community issues. Of course, it's important for Chase to take action and invest based on good ideas. Genuine listening and collaboration with local communities can work wonders for brand restoration.

#3 – Differentiate. Great opportunities exist for JPMorgan Chase to differentiate itself. Create a "customer bill of rights" clearly explaining customer-friendly practices. Develop a consumer advisory board. Commit to not charging debit card and other fees to low-net worth customers. Develop and publicize programs to make foreclosures an absolutely last resort. Step up investments in local communities, with a special focus on job creation. Use social media and the web to invite customer feedback and to make executives accessible to customers and the general public.

Occupy Wall Street shows signs of being a sustained movement, where dissatisfied citizens focus their anger on banks and bankers. Only credible education, engagement, and differentiation will allow banks like JPMorgan Chase to start turning around the negative perceptions.

* * *

Rich Robbins is VP, senior digital strategist and director of Digital Social Innovation at MWW Group. Carreen Winters is executive VP of corporate communications for MWW.

Thinkman2 (11/07):
If you've exoerienced this outfit, these suggestions will sound like a foreign language to Dimon who has not a clue!

Bill Huey, Strategic Communications (11/07):
Yes, I remember that NYT piece, and this quote from an anonymous money manager: "Financial services are one of the last things we do in this country and do it well. Let’s embrace it."

Is this what Wall Streeters really believe the American public ought to think about the swindlers who gave us AIG, TARP, and the most profound and lasting economic downturn of our lifetimes?

In a rich, fat country where only a decade ago economists and business types were proclaiming that we had tamed the business cycle? Is that what they really think?

If so, God help us all.

I can suggest three things right now:

1) Re-instate Glass Steagall. Jamie Dimon will squeal like a stuck pig, but banks need to get out of trading and stick to banking.

2) Forget the whole idea of Too Big to Fail. Bailing out AIG and its counterparties was the biggest legalized swindle in the history of this country. It should never happen again.

3) Hold the big dogs accountable. Half the guys in the room with Paulson and Geithner that fall weekend in 2008 didn't even know they were in trouble or about to go under.

Yet they're all still working, and some of them are still CEOs. That should be as unacceptable as a convicted felon running for President.

Wes Pedersen (11/07):
From Fannie May and Fannie Might, new cries for taxpayer bailouts and grotesque bonuses for the CEOs. If enraged citizens want to storm the citadels of economic sabotage, these two outfits ought to be high on the list of targets.

Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (11/11):
Wes is almost correct, given the egregious ways in which the Fannies handled things. But it would be more useful to accept that the financial moguls absolutely loved this outright robbery of the American public that inevitably led to the mis-named bubble thathad to happen. The lending institutions happily hoisted the ads selling the idea of "No money, No problem", knowing darned well theyhad a rapid repository to send even bad loans to for real cash...often overlooking the idea of legitimate credit checks. It went by in a flash that the mortgage industry put together an expensive PR program to blame the consumers for getting more loans than they could afford, when credit checks would have stopped most of the problem, Memories of the S&L history abound as the too similar actions of the financial sector in these matters occurred. No, Wes, no matter how much you attack the Fannies, it's important to know who gave them their birth and nurturing, and it was not all Barney Brank and company. And so you now have the "occupiers", professional communicators or not, who are making some real points.

Wes Pedersen (11/17):
Joe, I always appreciate your "yes, but" responses. However, I see no reason for the "but." Far more important than the PR flap is the fact that huge amounts seem to have been paid by the Fannies to influentials in and out of Congress. A current story, for example, reveals that over a ten-year period, Fanny Mae paid Newt Gingrich at least two million for "advice."

Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (11/21):
Wes, it is for good or ill, a typical Yiddish approach to accept one reality but to point out a more overreaching reality. If one goes back to the "why" Fannie was set up, when housing was marvelous, to buy up all those mortgages from lenders and bundle them into mortgage backed securities for investment by the same people who sent them the loans in the first place. That the lenders saw this action as free money, they made what were subprime loans and got rid of them, and then cried about lying consumers even though the lenders failed to do adequate credit checks. That Fannie and/or Freddie hired the likes of Gingrich is a fairly recent .thing, long after the roots of the debacle were being planted. I have told you and others about jy interview with Kiplinger around 2005 when I warned of sa coming disaster and was told I was "ouit of my damned mind." Hence, there is a legitimate "yes but."

BTW, Chase is the only bank I know of that does not, a a matter of policy they stay, give the recipient of their correspondence the courtesy of a signature on correspondence. Could they be hiding something?

Wes Pedersen (11/22):
Joe, I sympathize with your ire over Kiplinger's flat-out refusal to consider your analysis and your conclusion. I went through much the same thing with another audience when I predicted the recession.