OpinionSep 25 2014

Why does the trade press go in for reader-bashing?

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
comment-speech

Some trade press writers provide a consistent stream of brickbats, usually aimed in the direction of their readers.

Offending those who ultimately pay your wages would rarely be touted as a successful strategy. Although it is a bizarre strategy, it typically works because said outraged (and somewhat masochistic) readers create enough paper and digital traffic to support the readership statistics.

This in turn eases the sale of advertising space and other event sponsorship opportunities, which aid the continuing publication of the trade papers, filled with more brickbats. And so the cycle continues.

Occasionally labelled as apologist or appeaser, I see no reason to spend my life spewing bile just because it helps the readership statistics. Neither do I see any benefit in writing vitriol just to raise the blood pressure of a group of people whose blood pressure is already well elevated – for a number of perfectly good reasons.

Actually, I have better things to do than deliberately create snarky articles just so that I can get equally snarky (to put it mildly) comments back by emails, anonymous letters in the post or face-to-face.

Occasionally labelled as apologist or appeaser, I see no reason to spend my life spewing bile just because it helps the readership statistics

And this week all credit is due to the Personal Finance Society for arranging speakers from the FCA for their regional programme, and all credit is due to the FCA for agreeing to provide the speakers.

Apparently, Mr Gould reads the trade press too. That must be enlightening. And he’s very happy to debunk some of the myths perpetuated therein, including the one about the FCA setting price caps on what advisers charge. They do not. I have said so for years, but maybe hearing it from the horse’s mouth might begin to get people to actually believe it.

What is sad is that of 1,600 members in my local region, there were 130 in attendance. This means that 1,470 people in Hampshire and Dorset alone have not heard exactly what the FCA expects from advisers when thinking about costs and the suitability of investment advice, or what questions the FCA includes in its file checks.

Frankly, while I am grateful for the openness exhibited, I would be a whole lot happier if we could see the full FCA file check list, instead of edited highlights. There is no reason why we should not. After all, both regulators and advisers have clients’ best interests at heart, and sharing that content to raise professional standards should not be a matter of national security.

Gill Cardy is network development director of ValidPath