Should You Show Your Fees? Pricing Transparency and Conversion on Adviser Websites

Before the Consumer Duty, the debate about publishing fees was mostly commercial. Firms weighed the risk of losing prospects against the benefit of filtering out unsuitable ones. Since the Duty came into force, price has also become a regulatory question, because firms must be able to demonstrate that their products and services offer fair value and that customers understand what they are paying.

The Consumer Duty does not require advisers to publish their fees on their website. What it does require is that communications support good customer understanding and that price is reasonable relative to the benefits provided. In practice, that has raised the bar for clarity at every stage of the client journey, including the earliest marketing touchpoints. A prospect who arrives at a first meeting with no idea of the likely cost has had a weaker experience of understanding than one who has seen a clear explanation beforehand.

There is also a fair value dimension. Firms have been reviewing their charging structures, particularly ongoing percentage-based fees, to make sure the service delivered justifies the cost across different client sizes. Many have introduced caps, tiered rates or fixed fees for certain services as a result. Once you have done that work, it is easier to explain your charges publicly, because you have a clear rationale for them.

Regulatory attention on ongoing advice charges has added to the pressure. Firms are expected to show that clients paying for ongoing service actually receive it. A website that explains what the ongoing fee covers, how often reviews happen and what clients can expect is a natural extension of the evidence you should already hold internally.

The result is that the question has shifted from whether showing fees is commercially wise to how best to communicate price and value in a way that supports understanding. Our article on Consumer Duty in year three discusses the broader marketing implications.

None of this means silence is non-compliant. Many firms still explain fees only in the initial meeting and through their client agreement, and that can be done well. But firms that choose not to publish should be confident that their marketing does not create a misleading impression of cost, for example by emphasising a free initial consultation without making clear that subsequent advice is charged. Whichever route you take, the decision should be documented and consistent with your fair value assessment.

It is also worth noting that consumers increasingly use comparison and review sites, as well as AI assistants, to research costs. If you do not explain your fees, those sources will often provide generic figures on your behalf, and they may not reflect your proposition accurately.

To understand the conversion impact of fee transparency, it helps to think about the prospect's journey. Someone considering financial advice typically visits several firm websites, reads about services, checks credentials and reviews, and tries to form a view of whether the firm is right for them. Cost is one of the most common questions they are trying to answer.

When fees are not shown, prospects respond in a few ways. Some assume the firm is expensive and move on without enquiring. This is particularly common among people with modest assets who worry that advice is not for them. Others enquire but with a defensive mindset, treating the first conversation as a price discovery exercise. A third group enquires without thinking much about cost and is then surprised when it is explained, leading to drop-off between first meeting and engagement.

Each of these behaviours has a cost. The first reduces enquiry volume among people who might have been suitable. The second makes first meetings less productive and lowers your show rate when prospects cancel after researching elsewhere. The third creates wasted adviser time and a poor experience for the prospect, who may feel they were drawn in under false pretences.

There is also a trust effect. Prospects often interpret the absence of pricing as a signal that the firm prefers to negotiate privately or that the fee is uncomfortable to state. This is especially true for younger and digitally native audiences who are used to transparent pricing from platforms and robo-advisers. Our article on building trust before the first meeting explains why perceived openness matters so much.

On the other side, some prospects genuinely prefer a conversation before discussing money, particularly those with complex affairs or very high net worth. They expect bespoke pricing and may see a published tariff as a sign of a mass-market service. For firms focused exclusively on this segment, a different approach may be justified.

It is also important to recognise that visitors behave differently depending on how they arrive. Someone who clicked a paid search ad for a specific service is often further along in their decision and more price-aware than someone who found your site through an article. Paid traffic tends to be less forgiving of missing information, because the visitor is actively comparing firms and has other options a click away.

Understanding which of these behaviours dominate in your own funnel is the starting point. Look at your enquiry form data, first meeting notes and reasons for non-engagement. If cost is a common objection or surprise, your website is probably not doing enough to set expectations.

Before choosing a format, it is worth setting out the arguments on both sides honestly, because the decision has trade-offs.

The case for publishing fees:

• Trust and credibility. Openness about cost signals confidence in the value of the service and reduces the suspicion many people have about financial services charges.
• Better-qualified enquiries. Prospects who enquire after seeing your fees have already accepted the broad cost, so first meetings focus on needs rather than price discovery.
• Fewer wasted meetings. Advisers spend less time with prospects who were never going to proceed at your price point.
• Supports Consumer Duty understanding. Clear early information about cost helps demonstrate that customers understood what they were paying.
• Differentiation. In many local markets few competitors publish fees, so doing so can make you stand out.

The case against publishing fees:

• Lower enquiry volume. Some prospects will see a number and leave, including some who might have engaged after understanding the value.
• Complexity. Advice fees can depend on many factors, and a simplified public version may not represent every case accurately.
• Comparison risk. Publishing a number invites direct comparison with competitors, some of whom may appear cheaper without offering the same service.
• Positioning concerns. For firms serving very high net worth clients, published tariffs may seem out of keeping with a bespoke proposition.

Weighing these depends on your model. A firm that relies heavily on paid acquisition, where every lead has a direct cost, often benefits most from transparency, because filtering out unsuitable prospects before they enquire reduces wasted spend. If your CPL is in the typical £50 to £150 range, a lead that was never going to engage at your price is pure cost, and it also consumes adviser time.

A firm that grows mainly through referrals may find the decision less important, because referred prospects have often discussed cost with the person who introduced them. Even so, referred prospects will usually check your website before making contact, and clear fee information can reinforce the referral.

The comparison risk is real but often overstated. Prospects comparing on price alone are rarely the best clients for a full-service advice firm. If they leave because another firm appears cheaper, that may be a reasonable outcome for both parties. The more important task is to ensure your fees are presented with enough context that prospects compare like with like.

In our experience, most firms that test publishing fees find the drop in volume is smaller than feared and the improvement in quality is meaningful. But that is a pattern, not a guarantee, which is why testing in your own funnel matters.

Publishing fees does not have to mean a rigid price list. There are several formats, and the right one depends on how your charging structure works and how much complexity you need to convey.

Fee ranges. Stating a typical range for initial advice, such as a band for a straightforward pension review and a higher band for complex planning, gives prospects an anchor without committing to a single figure. Ranges work well where costs depend on complexity, but they need to be realistic. A range so wide it is meaningless defeats the purpose.

Worked examples. Showing what a typical client might pay in a specific scenario is often the most understandable format. For example, a worked example might explain the initial fee and first-year ongoing cost for someone with a given pension pot seeking retirement planning. Worked examples bring abstract percentages to life and help prospects understand total cost in pounds, which supports Consumer Duty understanding. Make sure examples are representative, not cherry-picked to look cheap.

Fixed fees for initial advice. Many firms now offer a fixed fee for a defined piece of work, such as a financial plan or a pension transfer analysis. Fixed fees are easy to communicate and reduce anxiety for prospects who fear an open-ended cost. They also pair well with a clear description of deliverables.

Percentage tiers. For ongoing advice, a tiered percentage structure that reduces as assets increase is common. Publishing the tiers alongside a monetary cap or minimum, if you have one, gives prospects a clear picture. Always express the cost in pounds as well as percentages, because many people find percentages hard to translate into actual money.

Starting from figures. Some firms publish a minimum fee or a starting from figure. This sets a floor and filters out prospects for whom advice is not economic, while leaving room for bespoke pricing at higher levels. It is a sensible middle ground for firms worried about complexity.

Whichever format you choose, a few principles apply. Be clear about what is included and what is not. Explain whether fees are paid directly or deducted from investments. State whether VAT applies to any service. Show the total cost over a meaningful period, not just the initial charge. And make it easy to find, ideally on a dedicated fees page linked from main navigation and referenced on service pages.

Presentation affects comprehension. Tables work well for tiers, short paragraphs work well for worked examples, and a simple summary at the top of the page helps people who only skim. Our landing pages guide covers layout principles that apply equally to fee pages.

A fee on its own is just a number. Whether a prospect sees it as reasonable depends almost entirely on how well you explain what they get for it. Firms that publish fees successfully treat the fees page as a value page, not a price list.

Start with outcomes. Prospects care less about the activities you perform than about what changes for them. Rather than listing annual reviews, rebalancing and cashflow modelling, explain what those mean in practice: confidence about when they can retire, a plan for sustainable income, an estate structured to reduce tax for their family, or someone to call when life changes. Outcomes make the fee feel connected to something tangible.

Then describe the service clearly. Set out what happens during initial advice, what deliverables they receive, how often ongoing reviews take place, how quickly you respond to queries and what access they have to their adviser. Specificity builds confidence. Vague claims such as comprehensive service or bespoke advice say little and are easy for competitors to copy.

Show the people. A fees page that links to adviser profiles, qualifications and photographs reminds prospects that they are paying for expertise and a relationship, not a product. Including chartered status or relevant specialist qualifications helps justify price for complex advice.

Address the comparison directly. Many prospects will wonder how your fees compare with a robo-adviser or a low-cost platform. A short, fair explanation of the difference, such as personalised advice, tax planning and ongoing support, helps them make an informed choice. Avoid disparaging alternatives; Consumer Duty expects communications to be fair and balanced.

Social proof supports value perception. Reviews and testimonials that mention outcomes or service quality, used in line with the relevant rules on testimonials in financial promotions, reinforce the message that clients consider the fee worthwhile.

Finally, make the next step easy. A clear call to action on the fees page, such as booking an initial conversation, captures prospects at the moment they have accepted the cost. Make sure the initial conversation is described honestly, including whether it is free and what happens afterwards.

The broader principles of positioning value on your website are covered in our article on website conversion optimisation. The key point is that price and value should always appear together. A fee shown without context invites objection; a fee shown alongside a clear, specific description of outcomes and service invites engagement.

The most common concern about publishing fees is that enquiry volume will fall. Often it does, at least a little. The more important question is what happens to the quality of the enquiries that remain, and what that means for your overall cost of acquiring a client.

Fee transparency acts as a filter. Prospects who see your fees and still enquire have self-selected into a group that broadly accepts your price. Those who would have dropped out after the first meeting, or who were only ever looking for a cheap option, filter themselves out before costing you anything. The result is typically a smaller but better-qualified pipeline.

To assess the impact properly, look beyond the enquiry count. Track conversion from enquiry to first meeting, from first meeting to engagement, and the average value of engaged clients. A drop in enquiries of, say, 10 to 15 percent can be more than offset if conversion from enquiry to client improves meaningfully, because every stage downstream becomes more efficient.

This matters particularly for firms using paid media. If you are paying for each lead, whether at a typical Google Ads CPL of £60 to £130 or through a lead generation partner, unsuitable leads are a direct cost. Reducing them improves your effective cost per acquisition even if the cost per lead rises slightly. Our article on the real cost of cheap leads explains why cost per client is a far better measure than cost per lead.

Adviser time is another hidden benefit. Every first meeting with a prospect who will not proceed costs preparation, meeting and follow-up time. Fewer of those meetings frees advisers to spend more time with genuine prospects and existing clients, which has its own value.

You can combine fee transparency with qualification questions on your enquiry form, such as approximate assets or the type of advice needed. Together, these feed a lead scoring model that helps you prioritise follow-up and route prospects to the right adviser or service.

It is worth being honest about the risks. Some prospects who leave after seeing fees might have become valuable clients if they had spoken to an adviser and understood the value. This is why presentation matters so much. A well-explained fee loses fewer good prospects than a bare number.

There are also prospects for whom your service genuinely is not suitable or affordable. Filtering them out early, and ideally pointing them towards appropriate alternatives such as free guidance services, is a better outcome for them as well as for you, and it is consistent with the spirit of the Consumer Duty.

Because the impact of fee transparency varies between firms, the best approach is to test it in your own funnel. That requires a structured method and enough patience to gather meaningful data.

Start by establishing a baseline. Before making changes, record at least two to three months of data on enquiry volume, landing page conversion rate, enquiry to meeting rate, meeting to client rate and average client value. Without a baseline you cannot tell whether a change made a difference. Typical landing page conversion rates for adviser sites sit between 2 and 6 percent, and our conversion benchmarks article gives more context on where your site sits.

There are several ways to test. A full A/B test, showing different versions of a page to randomly split visitors, is the most rigorous but requires substantial traffic to reach reliable conclusions. Many adviser websites do not have enough traffic for statistically robust A/B tests on low-volume conversion events.

For lower-traffic sites, a sequential test can work. Run one version for a defined period, then switch to another for the same period, controlling as far as possible for seasonal effects and marketing activity. This is less rigorous but still informative if you are careful about confounding factors.

Paid landing pages are a good testing ground. Because you control the traffic source and volume, you can test different fee presentations on dedicated landing pages for paid campaigns while keeping your main website unchanged. This also lets you see the effect on paid lead quality specifically, which is where the commercial impact is greatest.

Test the variables that matter most. Useful tests include:

• No fees shown versus a starting from figure
• A percentage tier table versus a worked example in pounds
• Fees on a separate page versus a summary on the service page
• Different positions for the fee information on the page

Measure the full funnel, not just the form submission. A version that generates fewer enquiries but more clients is the better version. This requires connecting your website data to your CRM so you can trace enquiries through to outcomes. Our measurement stack guide explains how to set that up.

Give tests enough time. Advice journeys can take weeks from enquiry to engagement, so judge results on outcomes, not just early indicators. Document what you tested, what you found and what you decided, both for your own learning and as evidence that your communications decisions are informed by customer outcomes.

Any fee information published on your website forms part of your financial promotions and customer communications, so it needs to meet the same standards as the rest of your marketing. A few specific points deserve attention.

Accuracy and consistency. Published fees must match your client agreement, your fee schedule and what advisers say in meetings. Inconsistency creates confusion and can mislead. Assign responsibility for keeping the fees page updated whenever your charging changes.

Total cost clarity. Make clear whether the fees shown include all charges or only your advice fee. Platform charges, fund charges and any product costs should be acknowledged, even if they vary. Prospects should not be surprised by costs that were not mentioned.

Representative examples. Worked examples should reflect typical cases, not the cheapest possible scenario. State the assumptions behind them clearly.

Free consultation wording. If you offer an initial meeting at no cost, explain what happens next and when charges begin. Avoid wording that implies advice is free when it is not.

Fair comparisons. If you compare your service with alternatives, keep comparisons fair, balanced and verifiable.

Ongoing service description. Where you charge ongoing fees, describe the ongoing service clearly, including the frequency of reviews, and make sure you deliver what is described.

Sign-off and records. Have the fees page reviewed and approved under your financial promotions process, and keep records of what was published and when. Running copy through our FCA compliance precheck tool can help flag common issues before formal review.

A practical plan:

• Week 1 to 2: review your charging structure and confirm it aligns with your fair value assessment. Decide which format best represents your fees.
• Week 2 to 4: draft a fees page with a summary, the chosen format, worked examples, a clear description of service and outcomes, and a call to action. Get compliance sign-off.
• Week 4 to 6: record baseline funnel metrics and connect website enquiries to CRM outcomes.
• Month 2 to 4: test the fees page on paid landing pages first, then on your main site, measuring the full funnel.
• Month 4 onwards: review results, refine the presentation and document your decision.

Pricing transparency is ultimately a positioning choice. Firms confident in their value tend to find that explaining fees clearly attracts better clients and makes conversations easier. If you want help testing fee presentation within paid campaigns, our lead generation team builds and optimises landing pages for adviser firms, and you can get in touch to discuss your funnel.