Why a single headline tells you everything about the system we are fighting to change
This week, a new claim appeared across the trade press:
“95% say financial advice helps them hit financial goals.”
(Opinium survey of 8,000 UK adults, commissioned by St. James’s Place.)
To the casual observer, it reads like a national truth.
To those of us working in consumer protection, citizen investigation, and structural reform, it reads like something very different:
A carefully engineered narrative designed to defend the old system.
This headline is not research.
It is propaganda, produced by an industry under pressure — from regulation, from victims speaking out, and increasingly from AI-empowered citizens who can see the patterns for themselves.
Let’s unpack what’s really happening.
1. When the largest vertically integrated advice firm commissions a survey, the headline is already written
Commissioned surveys are not neutral.
The commissioning organisation:
- defines the questions
- defines the audience
- defines the interpretation
- defines what gets published
- defines what is omitted
With SJP behind the research, the outcome was never in doubt.
If you ask people already paying for advice whether advice “helps them feel more confident”, almost all will say yes.
That doesn’t mean the outcomes were good.
That doesn’t mean the fees were fair.
It simply means the questions were engineered to produce a positive feeling.
This is expectation bias, weaponised.
2. The headline talks about ‘hitting goals’ — but not what those goals were, who set them, or how success was measured
This is the central methodological flaw.
The survey does not tell us:
- whether respondents had financial plans
- whether plans were independently verified
- whether advice fees delivered value
- whether goals were achieved objectively
- whether respondents even understood what good advice looks like
Instead, it measures sentiment, not outcomes.
It’s like asking someone leaving a restaurant, “Did the meal make you feel good?”
Before they open the bill.
Real outcomes look like:
charges, suitability, performance, legal compliance, and evidence-based value.
These don’t appear in the survey.
3. Sample bias: 8,000 “UK adults” — but selected how?
Headlines often hide the real trick.
The term “UK adults” is intentionally vague.
We don’t know:
- how many were existing advice clients
- how many were SJP clients
- how many had previously been marketed to
- what demographics were included or excluded
- whether respondents understood the distinction between advice, guidance, and product sales
- whether feelings were influenced by sunk-cost and loyalty bias
Without transparency, this is not population research.
It’s a branded sentiment exercise.
4. It distracts from the real FCA data — and the crisis the industry is facing
While the industry publicises a “95% satisfaction” story, the regulator reveals something else entirely:
- 335k clients offloaded in 2024
- Suitability reviews delivered only 83% of the time
- Vast quantities of fees charged without service
- Systemic issues around ongoing advice fees
- Firms scrambling to reduce liabilities ahead of Consumer Duty accountability
These are the numbers that matter.
If “95%” were truly hitting their goals, we wouldn’t see:
- orphaned clients
- historic mis-charging
- mass redress schemes
- regulatory scrutiny
- financial harm on an industrial scale
The data tells a story — and it’s not the one in the headline.
5. The headline reinforces the industry’s favourite myth: the ‘advice gate’
The traditional industry relies on a narrative:
- Advice is essential
- Advice is scarce
- Advice is exclusive
- Advice is safe
- Advice is always worth paying for
This is the gatekeeping illusion.
In reality:
- The model is built on ongoing fees, not outcomes.
- AI now performs much of the data work advisers were once paid for.
- Holistic planning, human capital work, and life planning don’t require product sales.
- People can plan their lives and finances with tools like Planning My Life, Financial Life Coach, and the GAME Plan, often more safely and transparently.
The survey serves one purpose:
to scare people away from independence, self-direction, and AI-enabled empowerment.
6. Why this matters for victims — and for Get SAFE
This is exactly the kind of narrative that leaves victims doubting themselves.
For years, the big institutions have relied on:
- propaganda headlines
- legal shields
- intimidating language
- asymmetric advantage
- unchallenged authority
These headlines feed the belief that “the system must be right.”
When victims challenge misconduct, they are treated as anomalies — even when thousands experience identical patterns of harm.
Get SAFE exists because the headlines never tell the truth.
The real stories do.
7. The industry knows AI is levelling the field — and this headline is a defensive move
AI is exposing:
- patterns of misconduct
- missing evidence
- timeline manipulation
- systemic bias
- breaches of duty
- unlawful charging
- sloppy processes hidden behind jargon
And for the first time in history, ordinary citizens can see it all.
The industry’s response?
Commission a feel-good survey to reassure the public that nothing has changed.
But everything has changed.
The old model is losing legitimacy.
8. A structurally trustworthy alternative already exists
The Academy of Life Planning has spent 12 years building a model that removes the conflict of interest at the heart of traditional advice.
Through:
- Planning My Life (PML)
- Financial Life Coach (FLC)
- Holistic Wealth Planners trained in the GAME Plan
- AI co-piloted tools
- transparent, product-free planning
- Get SAFE’s citizen investigator methods
…we are demonstrating what the future looks like:
Empowered, self-directed, AI-supported financial planning that puts the individual, not the institution, in control.
No gatekeeping.
No propaganda.
No selective surveys.
Just structural trust.
9. The truth behind the 95% myth
This isn’t about whether financial advice can be helpful.
Good planning absolutely changes lives.
The issue is who benefits from the narrative.
A headline like this:
- reassures investors
- protects the old model
- discourages scrutiny
- marginalises victims
- delays reform
- undermines AI-enabled empowerment
- supports fee extraction and dependency
It is a shield, not a fact.
The real question isn’t “Do you feel more confident after advice?”
It’s:
Does the system deliver value, fairness, transparency, and justice — or not?
The FCA’s own findings already tell us the answer.
10. A final word to readers
If you are unsure whom to trust, or whether you can plan your own future safely, remember:
Propaganda needs headlines.
Truth needs evidence.
At AoLP and Get SAFE, we work with evidence—
your documents, your timelines, your lived experience—
and we use AI to give you the clarity the system has denied you for decades.
Ready to explore a fairer, more human way to plan your life and money?
If you’ve been offloaded by your adviser, feel unsure about the value you’ve received, or simply want a planning approach built on purpose, transparency, and empowerment — we’re here to help.
The Academy of Life Planning supports individuals and families through
- self-directed planning (PML),
- guided expert support (FLC), and
- a global network of Holistic Wealth Planners who put your life before your money.
Contact the Academy of Life Planning to find out which approach is right for you.
Let’s rebuild your financial confidence — on your terms.
Academy of Life Planning 