Consumer Duty at Three Years: What Has Actually Changed for Adviser Marketing

The first year of Consumer Duty was largely about readiness -- the FCA wanted to see that firms had processes, governance frameworks, and documented approaches. Year two shifted toward evidence -- the regulator started asking for data showing outcomes, not just policies describing intentions. Year three is about substance.

The areas receiving the most regulatory attention in 2026 are fair value assessments (can you demonstrate that clients receive reasonable value for your fees?), communication testing (have you tested whether your target audience actually understands your marketing materials?), and vulnerability identification (do your marketing and onboarding processes identify potentially vulnerable clients early enough to adjust the journey?).

For marketing specifically, the FCA has been most interested in how firms target different audiences. Running the same pension transfer ad to a 35-year-old with a £15,000 pot and a 58-year-old with a £450,000 defined benefit scheme raises questions about whether the communication supports good outcomes for both. The FCA does not expect bespoke ads for every individual, but it does expect evidence that targeting and messaging are designed with the likely audience in mind.

The practical takeaway: if your marketing team cannot explain who each campaign is designed for and why the messaging is appropriate for that audience, you have a gap.

The most visible change is transparency. Three years ago, most adviser websites buried fee information, avoided discussing minimum case sizes, and used vague language about costs. Today, the top-performing firms lead with transparency -- not because the FCA requires specific fee disclosure in marketing, but because transparent messaging attracts better-qualified prospects.

Displaying indicative fee ranges on service pages filters out prospects who cannot afford your services before they waste your time or theirs. Stating your minimum investment size or case value prevents the frustration of a prospect discovering in the first meeting that they do not qualify. Explaining what happens in your advice process reduces anxiety and builds trust before the first conversation.

The second change is in how firms handle the gap between lead generation and advice delivery. Consumer Duty requires that the entire client journey supports good outcomes. That includes what happens between form submission and first meeting. Firms that respond within hours with clear next steps, provide preparatory information, and set expectations for the meeting process are delivering better outcomes than those that leave prospects in limbo for days.

The third change is in targeting and segmentation. The lazy approach of running broad campaigns to anyone interested in financial topics has given way to tighter targeting that matches specific audiences with specific propositions. This is better marketing and better compliance simultaneously.

The firms that have turned Consumer Duty into a marketing advantage share common characteristics.

They treat compliance as a design constraint, not a sign-off step. Their marketing teams build campaigns with Consumer Duty principles embedded from the start rather than bolting disclaimers onto finished creative. This produces cleaner, more focused campaigns that perform better and require fewer compliance revisions.

They measure client outcomes, not just lead volume. These firms track what happens after the lead arrives: did the prospect receive advice? Was the advice suitable? Did the client achieve a better outcome than they would have without advice? This data feeds back into marketing decisions -- they invest more in channels and campaigns that produce clients with good outcomes and less in those that generate volume without quality.

They are transparent beyond what compliance requires. They show fees, explain processes, state who they do and do not serve, and address common objections proactively. This transparency reduces wasted time for both adviser and prospect and builds trust before the first meeting.

They document and test their communications. Not just legally review them -- actually test them with members of their target audience. Do prospects understand the message? Do they know what to expect? Would they feel informed enough to make a good decision? Firms that test their communications catch problems that legal review alone misses.

Despite three years of Consumer Duty, some marketing practices persist that create unnecessary risk.

Using urgency tactics that pressure decisions. "Limited availability -- book now" or "Only 3 consultation slots remaining this month" creates artificial pressure that conflicts with supporting informed decision-making. Genuine scarcity (a real waitlist, a seasonal capacity constraint) can be communicated factually. Manufactured urgency cannot be justified under Consumer Duty.

Running identical campaigns across wildly different audiences. The same equity release ad shown to a 55-year-old with a £150,000 mortgage and a 78-year-old in a care home raises different Consumer Duty questions. Segment your campaigns, tailor your messaging, and be prepared to explain why each audience sees what it sees.

Collecting leads with no plan for prompt, quality engagement. Under Consumer Duty, generating a lead creates an implicit obligation to handle that prospect well. If your follow-up process is slow, disorganised, or inconsistent, the prospect is not receiving the standard of service the regulation expects. Either fix the process or reduce lead volume to a level you can handle properly.

Treating Consumer Duty as a compliance team problem. Marketing teams that rely entirely on compliance sign-off without understanding the underlying principles produce campaigns that technically pass review but miss the spirit of the regulation. Invest in helping your marketing people understand Consumer Duty well enough to self-assess.

The FCA has signalled that its Consumer Duty focus in 2027 will intensify around data and evidence. Firms will increasingly need to demonstrate -- with data, not assertions -- that their marketing and distribution approaches produce good outcomes.

For marketing teams, this means building tracking that connects advertising spend to client outcomes. Which campaigns produced clients who received suitable advice and achieved their objectives? Which channels generated leads that disproportionately failed to convert or produced complaints? This attribution chain is not just good marketing practice -- it is becoming a regulatory expectation.

The firms preparing now are building CRM systems that track the journey from ad click to completed advice case. They are tagging leads by source campaign and monitoring outcome metrics by channel. This investment serves both commercial and compliance purposes -- you optimise marketing spend and satisfy regulatory evidence requirements with the same data infrastructure.

Consumer Duty is not going away, and the bar will continue to rise. The firms treating it as a one-off compliance project are falling behind those treating it as a permanent operating principle. The good news: the principles that Consumer Duty rewards -- transparency, quality targeting, prompt engagement, and genuine focus on client outcomes -- are the same principles that produce better marketing results regardless of regulation.