If the advice is free, who is really paying for it?
There is an old line from Silicon Valley:
If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product.
It was originally used to describe the internet economy. Free search. Free social media. Free platforms. Free tools. Services that appeared to cost the user nothing, but were monetised elsewhere through advertising, data, attention or influence.
The line has always been slightly crude, but the underlying point remains useful. When something appears free, the more important question is not whether there is a cost. There usually is. The question is where that cost sits, who is paying it, and what behaviour that payment incentivises.
That question now feels increasingly relevant far beyond technology.
Across large parts of the advisory economy, the distinction between client, customer and product has become far less clear. Mortgage brokers, recruitment consultants, comparison platforms, insurance intermediaries, travel aggregators, financial introducers and commercial property advisors all operate in markets where advice is often presented as free to the end user, but monetised through the eventual transaction.
There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Commission is not a dirty word. Referral fees are not automatically problematic. Intermediaries play an important role in making complex markets easier to navigate. They widen access, create liquidity, reduce friction and help customers compare options that would otherwise be difficult to understand.
The issue is not that people are paid. The issue is when nobody is quite clear who they are being paid by. That blurred line is where issues can arise.
In my own world of flexible offices, this dynamic is particularly visible. The sector has grown quickly, and as it has matured, the roles within it have become increasingly blurred. Historically, the market was relatively simple. Landlords owned buildings. Operators ran space. Brokers introduced occupiers. The lines were reasonably clear.
That is no longer always the case.
Operators can now act as advisors. Brokers can have preferred relationships with operators. Landlords can launch their own flexible office brands. Advisors can be paid by occupiers, operators, landlords, or some combination of the three. Platforms can present themselves as marketplaces while monetising the demand they generate. Media businesses can influence discovery. Consultants can advise on strategy while also benefiting from implementation.
Again, none of this is necessarily wrong.
In many cases it is a natural response to a more sophisticated market. Flexible offices are no longer a fringe alternative to conventional leasing. They are part of mainstream real estate strategy. As occupiers have become more demanding, and landlords more active, the number of participants around each transaction has inevitably increased.
But the more connected the ecosystem becomes, the more important transparency becomes.
Because incentives shape behaviour.
They shape which options are presented first. They shape which providers are recommended. They shape how deals are framed. They shape how price is discussed. They shape whether advice is truly independent, commercially influenced, or somewhere in between.
The problem is that many customers still interpret “free advice” as impartial advice. That is not necessarily a correct assumption.
This is not unique to flexible offices. In recruitment, a candidate may not pay the recruiter, but the recruiter is usually paid by the employer. In mortgages, a borrower may receive advice without an obvious upfront cost, but the broker may be paid through commission. In insurance, travel, utilities and consumer finance, comparison platforms often appear neutral while operating commercial relationships behind the scenes.
Most people understand this in theory. Fewer interrogate it in practice. That creates the grey area. And grey areas are where trust either strengthens or erodes.
For flexible offices, the occupier, broker and operator dynamic is a useful case study because the financial flows are often misunderstood. An occupier may believe they are receiving independent market advice. A broker may believe they are adding genuine value by filtering the market. An operator may see the broker as an outsourced sales channel. All three things can be true at once.
But they are not the same thing.
If the occupier is not paying directly for the advice, it is reasonable for them to ask who is. If the operator is paying for the introduction, it is reasonable to ask whether that affects what the occupier sees. If a platform ranks options, it is reasonable to ask whether ranking is based on suitability, commercial relationship, availability, fee structure, or some blend of all four.
That does not make the recommendation bad. It simply means the recommendation has context.
The danger for any advisory market is not commercial incentive itself. The danger is the pretence that commercial incentive does not exist.
This matters even more as the way businesses discover products and services changes. For years, markets were built around search. Customers compared options, read around the subject, spoke to advisors, gathered information and made decisions. That process was imperfect, but at least it exposed some of the market’s complexity.
Increasingly, we are moving from search to recommendation.
That shift is already visible in the way AI is changing discovery. Users do not just want a list of options. They want the answer. The best provider. The right product. The recommended route. The shortlist. The scope of this potential influence makes hidden incentives even more important.
If discovery becomes more compressed, the integrity of the recommendation becomes more valuable. If customers see fewer options, they need more confidence in why those options have been selected. If markets become more mediated by platforms, algorithms, advisors and
intermediaries, transparency moves from a compliance issue to a competitive advantage.
In other words, trust becomes part of the product.
That may be the real opportunity for businesses in advisory-led markets. Not to pretend they have no incentives, but to be clearer about them. Not to hide how they are paid, but to explain it. Not to present every recommendation as neutral, but to be honest about the commercial framework around it – as some already are. All sectors would benefit from that maturity.
Because customers are not necessarily offended by people making money. They understand that businesses need to be paid. What they dislike is discovering too late that the advice they received was not quite as independent as it appeared.
The future of advisory markets will not be won by those who claim to be free.
It will be won by those who are clear.
Clear about who they represent. Clear about how they are paid. Clear about the incentives behind the recommendation. Clear about where advice ends and sales begins.
In a world full of blurred lines, that clarity may become one of the most valuable things a business can offer.