Audience research
Part of Researching finance audiences without asking about anyone's wealth
Auditing rival finance content for sources, permissions and disclosures
Audit finance content competitors in England through public claims, sources, permissions, disclosures and corrections without copying their work.
Competitor research should reveal unanswered adult tasks and standards to meet. It should not copy formats, collect followers' personal data or infer revenue from views. Use a fixed public sample and record what can actually be observed.
What to take away
- Fix a public sample before browsing and record what can be observed.
- Do not assume high viewing proves the reader task was completed.
- Check evidence quality by capturing the source nearest each material claim.
- Examine commercial influence and follow the journey from post to landing page.
- Group gaps by reader task and select only when primary sources exist.
Fix the sample before browsing
- Define the money topic, adult audience and England relevance.
- Set the research date and channels included.
- Choose a consistent number of recent items or a fixed publication window.
- Exclude private groups, paid products and disguised participation unless separately authorised and disclosed.
Search results and recommendations are personalised. Save the query, location setting and date, then explain that another researcher may see a different set.
Fix the sample before browsing
- Define money topic, adult audience, England relevance
- Set research date and channels included
- Choose consistent item count or window
- Exclude private groups and paid products
- Save query, location setting and date
- Run negative-control search without creator terms
Include a negative-control search for the same task without creator terms. This shows whether an official service, regulated firm or established publisher occupies the result set. It also prevents the audit from treating creator accounts as the whole information market.
Keep one sheet for every item. Use these columns:
- Item ID and research date
- Channel and public handle
- Reader task
- Content type (explains, compares, promotes, recommends)
- Stated audience and eligibility
- Material claim and nearest source link
- Source type (regulator, provider, dataset, commentary)
- Commercial signals and the position of any disclosure
- Named legal entity and date of the FCA check
- Writer, reviewer and last update
- Score and evidence note
Record the reader task
- Note the event or document that starts each item.
- Identify the action promised to the reader.
- Mark whether the page explains, compares, promotes or recommends.
- Record the stated audience and any eligibility boundary.
High viewing does not prove the task was completed. Use comments only as public observations, never as a source of identifiable financial stories.
Record the reader task
- Note event or document starting each item
- Identify action promised to the reader
- Mark explain, compare, promote or recommend
- Record stated audience and eligibility boundary
- Use comments only as public observations
Check evidence quality
- Capture the source link nearest each material claim.
- Record whether the source is a regulator, provider, dataset or commentary.
- Check dates, geography and whether the cited page still says what the content claims.
- Note missing calculations, units and update triggers.
FCA Financial Lives 2024 is useful context for UK consumer needs. It is not evidence for a competitor's audience size or accuracy.
Check evidence quality
- Capture source link nearest each material claim
- Record source typeregulator, provider, dataset, commentary
- Check dates, geography and cited page wording
- Note missing calculations, units and update triggers
Examine commercial influence
- Look for payment, gifts, commission, discount codes and own-brand promotion.
- Note where the disclosure appears before a reader engages.
- Follow the complete journey from post to landing page.
- Separate a provider's claim from the creator's judgement.
The ASA's August 2026 social-media advertising guidance, titled Recognising ads: Social media and influencer marketing, explains that affiliate material is advertising and that a biography disclosure alone may be inadequate. Use it as an assessment criterion, not as a legal verdict on a sampled item.
Verify firms and permissions
- Resolve the legal entity named in financial-product content.
- Check contact details and relevant permissions against the Financial Services Register.
- Record the date of the check and any ambiguity.
- Do not present authorisation as approval of every product or claim.
The FCA explains how to use Firm Checker and the Financial Services Register. A qualified reviewer must assess whether a communication is a financial promotion and whether any approval route is adequate.
Inspect editorial accountability
- Can readers identify the writer, reviewer and last update?
- Is there a correction route and visible correction history?
- Are review methods and untested areas disclosed?
- Can a reader distinguish general information from personal advice?
Score only observable features and attach the evidence. Do not award an accuracy point because a page looks polished.
For example, a sampled post on pension top-ups promised a comparison but linked only to a provider's blog. The nearest source was commentary, so the item failed the source check.
The disclosure passed because the ad label sat above the fold. The item failed accountability because no reviewer was named. Two fails out of three checks meant the topic was skipped, not copied.
Revisit a small sample after a defined interval. Record removals, corrections, changed disclosures and broken source links as changes, not proof of motive. Screenshots may preserve the audit trail, but they do not grant permission to republish another person's work or a follower's identifiable comment.
Turn the audit into one decision
Group gaps by reader task, not competitor name. Select a gap only when primary sources exist, adults confirm the need and the publication can answer within its role. A crowded topic may still deserve a clearer correction process; an empty topic may be empty because it is unsafe or too individualised.
Keep the research sheet private if it contains copied extracts or usernames. Publish methods and aggregate observations in original language. The output should be a better brief, not a disguised replica of another creator's work.
Before you act
- Define the money topic, adult audience and England relevance.
- Set the research date and channels included.
- Record the reader task and any eligibility boundary.
- Capture the source link nearest each material claim.
- Look for payment, gifts, commission and own-brand promotion.
- Resolve the legal entity and check FCA records.
Common questions
Why should I include a negative-control search?
It tests whether the result set runs wider than creator accounts. See Fix the sample before browsing for the method.
How should I treat comments on competitor content?
Use comments only as public observations, never as a source of identifiable financial stories. For the completion point, see Record the reader task above. Keep the research sheet private if it contains copied extracts or usernames.
What must a qualified reviewer assess about financial promotions?
A qualified reviewer must assess whether a communication is a financial promotion and whether any approval route is adequate. Do not present authorisation as approval of every product or claim. Use the ASA guidance as an assessment criterion, not as a legal verdict.
