The marketing rule constrains testimonials, endorsements, and performance claims — not education, not process explanation, not clear description of who you serve and how you're paid. Many advisors are less visible than compliance requires, having removed content that was never restricted because nobody checked which parts were.
The over-correction
When the amended marketing rule took effect, a lot of advisor websites got quieter.
Some of that was necessary. But a pattern followed: firms stripped anything resembling a claim and ended up describing nothing in particular. "Comprehensive wealth management solutions tailored to your needs." Compliant, certainly. Also indistinguishable from every other firm, and useless to a search engine or an answer engine trying to establish what you do.
The cost is invisible, which is why it persists. Nobody complains about a website that says nothing.
Which rules apply to you
Worth establishing before anything else, because advisors sometimes read guidance aimed at a different regime.
SEC-registered advisers are subject to the SEC's advertising rule under the Advisers Act.
State-registered advisers — generally smaller firms below the SEC registration threshold — are subject to their state's advertising rules. Many states have moved toward the SEC's framework; not all have, and not identically. If you're state-registered, guidance written about the SEC rule may not describe your obligations.
Firms with registered representatives may also be subject to FINRA communications rules, which are a separate regime with their own requirements.
We are not compliance professionals and can't tell you which applies to your firm in what combination. But knowing which regime governs you is the first question, and a surprising number of advisors have never asked it explicitly.
Where the constraints actually sit
At the level of architecture — not application:
Testimonials and endorsements. The amended SEC rule permits these subject to disclosure, oversight, and disqualification conditions. This was a loosening relative to the prior regime, which is the opposite of how many firms behaved.
Performance advertising. Detailed requirements around presentation, net-of-fees treatment, and extracted or hypothetical performance. This is the technical part and where most genuine exposure lives.
General prohibitions. Untrue statements, unsubstantiated material claims, misleading implications, unfair treatment of risks against benefits, and material omissions.
What is not on that list is the thing most firms cut: plain description of what you do, who you serve, how you're compensated, and what your process looks like.
The three-pile check
Read your site and sort every substantive claim.
Pile one — regulated. Testimonials, endorsements, performance figures, third-party awards and ratings, anything implying results. These need your compliance process applied properly.
Pile two — factual description. Your fee structure. Your compensation model. Your custodian. Your minimums. Your credentials and when you earned them. Where you're registered. Your process, step by step. Facts about your business.
Pile three — the vague middle. "Personalised approach." "Client-focused." "Comprehensive planning." Neither compliant-by-necessity nor useful. This is what over-correction leaves behind.
Count pile two. If it's thin, that's your finding — and it's a finding about under-communication, not exposure.
Why pile two decides how you're found
Search engines and answer engines both reward specificity and ignore the vague middle.
An engine asked to describe your firm needs facts it can attribute: compensation model, standard of care, credentials, client type. Pile-three language gives it nothing to lift, so it falls back on generic description — which is how advisors end up characterised in the same terms as firms they differentiate against. That specific failure is covered in how do I tell if AI engines describe me as fee-only.
The point worth sitting with: factual specificity generally reduces the risk of creating misleading impressions. Vagueness is not the safe option it feels like.
What you can and can't conclude
Verified — What your site says now, and how much is factual description versus filler. Straightforward to inventory.
Pending — Whether any specific item complies. That's your CCO's or compliance consultant's judgment about your firm, your registrations, and current guidance. A marketing audit identifies what's thin and what's regulated in category. It cannot clear language.
Unconfirmed — Whether restoring specificity improves visibility measurably. It follows from how retrieval systems work and it's the direction we'd advise. It is not something anyone can quantify for your firm in advance, and a vendor quoting you a number is guessing.
The conversation worth having
Take pile three to whoever handles your compliance and ask a question most advisors never ask: which of these could I replace with something specific?
That's a different question from "is this allowed," and it usually gets a different answer.
Being described without your differentiator is one of six symptoms in the full map at how do I tell if my website is losing me clients.
SEO Doctor is a marketing diagnostics firm. We are not lawyers, compliance professionals, or investment advisers, and this is not legal, compliance, or investment advice. Advertising obligations differ between SEC-registered and state-registered advisers, vary by state, and change over time. Confirm anything affecting your website with your CCO, compliance consultant, or counsel.