View more on these topics revamps directory pricing

Barrett-Karen-2010-700x450.jpg has revamped its pricing options for advisers wanting to be listed on its directory.

Currently only offers an ‘enhanced’ package which costs £39.99 a month and gives firms access to an unlimited number of enquiries and its media enquiry system Bluebook.

This option remains unchanged for advisers already on the directory, but is no longer available for new firms.

New firms are being given three options: ‘basic’, ‘lite’ and ‘plus’.

The basic package is free and means the firm appears in search results, but without its contact details.

The lite package costs £29 per month plus £30 for every accepted lead. Advisers can view details of new business enquiries and decide whether to accept or reject the lead.

The plus offering costs £59 per month. The first lead each month is free and subsequent leads cost £30 each.

This option also allows firms to accept and reject leads, as well as access a call tracking system and the Bluebook. chief executive Karen Barrett says: “All advisers advertising on with our current product can stay on that product and all leads they receive are all inclusive.

“Consumers remain in control of the adviser they select through the search details they input, with the best matching advisers being shown.

“We didn’t want to change our existing product, but we have had advisers telling us they want to advertise with us in a different way.”



Stephen Womack: Osborne must listen to pension tax relief views

Treasury officials will be working overtime in the next few weeks digesting the responses to the latest consultation on pension tax relief, which closed last week. Chancellor George Osborne has asked whether today’s model of tax-free contributions and growth, then taxed pension income, is still the best way to encourage a healthy savings culture. You […]


Over £9m stolen in pension liberation scams since April

Fraudsters have taken more than £9m from savers in the five months since April, twice the sum taken in the same period last year. Figures from the City of London police show that £9.1m worth of scams have been reported between April and August 2015, up from £4.5m. The figures also show that the sums […]


What would ‘Robin Hood’ tax mean for UK investors?

After being at the centre of debate for more than three years, the financial transaction tax has come back under the spotlight after shadow chancellor John McDonnell announced he would back it coming into force in the UK. The so-called Robin Hood tax would create a shift in investment behaviour as well as harm the competitive power […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 8 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. So Unbiased are only Unbiased if you pay them, else you get nothing, because the Investors who think they will see every IFA on Unbiased do not see those on the ‘Basic’ plan!!!?

  2. There are probably in a bit of a tizz seeing how Vouched for has just had a pretty substantial slug of investor money to push its proposition. Nothing, as ever, is as it seems at first sight.

    Oh and Ted – they are not only for IFAs – they are also for tied, direct and restricted advisers too.

  3. And of course when Vouched For run their top 200 IFA’s in the country slots in the papers it is only the top 200 who are willing to pay them. Rather than get my clients to go online and make some guff up, I find it much more productive if they just refer me directly, for free, to their friends, family, work colleagues, professional contacts etc, etc, etc.

  4. Hold on. Most enquiries you get via unbiased do not result in business. So, on top of a subscription model, they want to charge you £30 for each enquiry. It doesn’t generate enough business to pay for itself.

  5. Is it just me who can’t see the advantage of plus over lite options?

  6. Are they still going?

  7. Why are MAS suggesting them when they are a commercial entity with no real regard to unbiased enquiries? Hope Yelp and Facebook wipe them out as actual free unbiased testimonial services. Unbiased has always been as unclear about its remuneration as it is uninspiring about fair analysis of services.

  8. This is an ever-increasing problem within financial services that of the marketing firms advertising to something they are not!

    All of these marketing firms are unregulated even though they claim in some cases to provide independent financial advice. In reality they are selling that data on to financial advisers.

    What set unbiased apart from the others is it was a directory of advisers and it was the consumer that chose. Now they are just simply turning themselves into another marketing firm trying to make additional income on selling data.

    How many times does that data gets sold?

    Given my experience of other companies several times is the answer to that.

    Companies like this should not be able to collect data and then sell it on to advisers. Really do think there should be a tightening up of the data protection rules to prevent this type of transaction as there are so many potential problems.

    If you put pension adviser into Google you come up with so many of these companies rather than the advisers websites.

    I find it even more frustrating when our own regulator uses unbiased as a way of finding a financial adviser. Exactly how much does it cost the adviser community in fees to run the FCA, MAS and pension wise.

    So why can these bodies not come up with a user friendly registrar?

    Would be interesting if money marketing would ask that last question of FCA, MAS, pension wise and the pension regulator.

    I suspect the silence will be deafening!

Leave a comment