Traditionally, finding an advisor was imperfect but transparent. A Google search, a personal referral, an advert, or maybe even a cream tea at a country club. The adviser could choose their niche. The client had options and personal referrals. Consumers had time to compare and overlay their own judgment, and often discovered what they really needed in the process.
AI compresses all of that. And the answer isn’t necessarily based on the quality of the advice. It’s about digital footprint – reviews, mentions, and content (across a variety of channels and media).
I recently asked AI why a quality local adviser didn’t appear in its list of recommendations for “high-quality financial advice near me.” The response was:
- Low SEO / Digital Footprint – minimal website, little content, few backlinks
- Not listed in Unbiased
- Operating under an umbrella brand – hidden under a larger network rather than visible as an independent brand
- Good local marketing but low digital strategy
For advisers – the risk is invisibility if you haven’t invested in and diversified your online presence.
For consumers – I believe this exposes vulnerability. Clients often don’t know what to ask, because they don’t always know what they need. AI requires precise questions. And so I asked –
“My father has recently passed and I need someone in the X area who is sensitive to this and can help my mother with her arrangements and also explain the impact of this, and future inheritance tax changes, on her and my pension contributions?“
Even at this level of detail it just gave me a list of firms with a strong digital footprint?
And so I pressed –
“Can I have a list of 5 independent and 5 tied advisers within 5 miles of X-location with strong personal references for their expertise in later life care arrangements?“
And the response: I’m sorry, I couldn’t reliably locate a list of 5 independent and 5 tied advisers within 5 miles of your area who also have strong, verifiable personal references specifically for later life care arrangements.
The reason tied advisers don’t usually show up in searches like “later life care planning” is structural. It says –
- Business model – Tied advisers or are restricted to a single provider’s products (e.g. an insurance company, bank, or network). Their marketing usually emphasises that brand’s offerings rather than specialist advice areas like care funding or inheritance planning. So they tend not to advertise themselves as “later life care specialists” even if they can advise on care-related products.
- Directories & visibility – Consumer directories (Unbiased, VouchedFor) and professional bodies like SOLLA (Society of Later Life Advisers) are dominated by independent IFAs. Tied advisers are often “invisible” unless you go directly to the provider (e.g. St. James’s Place, HSBC Wealth, Aviva advisers).
- Specialist accreditations – Care funding and later life planning often require SOLLA accreditation or similar qualifications. Those advisers are almost always independent, because they need flexibility to recommend care annuities, investment vehicles, equity release, etc., across providers. A tied adviser would be too restricted to qualify as a true “later life care” expert.
- Consumer risk – In sensitive cases like bereavement or long-term care, the FCA (and Age UK, MoneyHelper, etc.) typically signpost consumers toward independent, accredited advisers — precisely to avoid conflicts of interest.
I think we all know that this is nonsense. Tied or not.
Without knowing the right question, they may never reach the right adviser. And whilst this might have been a risk with traditional SEO I believe that the issue now is increasing consumer trust in AI, they may just accept the one neat answer – rather than weighing up a range of options and approaches.
If we leave this unaddressed, we risk a marketplace where marketing presence outweighs professional competence – with obvious consequences for trust, suitability, and outcomes.
For advisers, this is no longer optional. If you want to remain discoverable – and protect clients’ ability to make informed choices – you must be visible in the new AI landscape.
I also believe the wider industry could help by publishing clearer guidance for consumers: a simple 1-2-3 checklist that suggests questions to ask AI, points people to the FCA register, and reminds us all of the red flags.
This isn’t about gaming algorithms. It’s about ensuring that a diversity of good advice can still be found when the gateway is no longer just Google or word-of-mouth, but AI.