So what are you saying that anyone who charges for a service is a crook?
Quite the opposite.
Charging the full cost of an educational service is honest and straightforward. Particularly if the provider is independent, obtaining income from no other related field.
Whereas offering a "free" educational service may be less so since it raises uncomfortable questions about whose paying, bias and conflicts of interests.
The problem as alexlee stated is the former might not be good for your business model, which appears to use the 'free education' as an appetiser for chargeable services.
The education becomes integral to the success of marketing the flow on services, and you're taking us all for suckers if you're claiming it's not or that you don't care if people don't use the other services.
Education's content would come under immense and probably irresistible pressure, despite best intentions at the start. Because if the 'free education' wasn't a funnel then it wouldn't be free would it?
One of the intentions behind the government's financial services legislation is to try to clarify these sort of conflicts, at least for shares and managed fund investments.
Last edited by a moderator: