New research conducted by Eileen Tipoe of Queen Mary University London (which was presented at the MALG National Members Meeting on 14 May 2026) investigates the quality of personal finance guidance posted on three major social media platforms (Instagram, TikTok, YouTube), and the experiences of UK adults who engage with this content.
3,000 social media posts containing financial guidance relevant to the UK were collected (1,000 from each platform). These posts were evaluated according to six criteria:
- the content creator’s expertise
- presence of relevant disclosures and disclaimers
- financial and economic credibility of ideas
- quality of explanation
- discussion of downsides and/or alternatives
- transparency of sources and calculations (where relevant)
Based on these criteria, a checklist of positive and negative features was used to assess the posts’ quality.
The research found that the quality of financial guidance on social media is generally low: the average social media post contains less than half of the positive features in each criterion. For example, only 8-9% of posts state the author’s relevant expertise (in the post or in their social media profile), and only 12-13% of posts include relevant disclosures or disclaimers. Evaluated against the six criteria, nearly 9 out of 10 social media posts have more negative features than positive features.
The analysis also highlighted that the quality of financial guidance varies by platform and by the content creator’s characteristics. On average, posts on YouTube contain more positive features than those on Instagram and TikTok. For example, more posts on YouTube state the author’s expertise (19.5%) compared to posts on Instagram (2.2%) or TikTok (3.9%). These results are not solely due to YouTube posts being longer: YouTube Shorts (15-60-second video clips) still contain more positive features than Instagram and TikTok posts despite being similar in format. Posts by content creators with more followers tend to have more positive features.
4,200 adults across the UK were surveyed, with a focus on low- and middle-income individuals (60% of the sample). 2 out of 5 respondents use social media as a source of financial guidance. These respondents chose social media for financial guidance primarily because they believe it provides relatable content, a wide range of information, and is easy to access.
1 out of 3 respondents (31%) tried financial guidance they found on social media (for example, by applying a tip or making a decision) in the last year. Among these respondents, 3% thought they experienced mostly negative outcomes, 27% thought they experienced mixed outcomes (some benefits and some harms), and 70% thought they experienced mostly positive outcomes. These self-reported outcomes depended on how well the guidance fit each respondent’s circumstances and how they applied the guidance.
Experiences with financial guidance on social media vary across population subgroups. Respondents who identified as female, used social media more frequently, or had higher knowledge of personal finance topics were more likely to report experiencing positive outcomes from following financial guidance.
Most respondents know the limitations of financial guidance on social media. The most common disadvantages they identified were potentially untrustworthy information, the lack of financial qualifications among people that post on social media, and bias. Almost all respondents (94%) verify the information they see on social media, though many (62%) use factchecking measures that are not robust (such as reading the post’s comments). Around half of respondents check the organisation or person who made the post (58%) or check if the same information appears in other websites or reputable sources (49%).
Almost all respondents (96%) have encountered low quality or misleading financial guidance on social media, and most (84%) took action, which included blocking the post or reporting it to the social media platform. 9 out of 10 respondents are shown financial guidance on social media when they are not intentionally searching for this content. 2 out of 3 respondents think this “accidental” guidance is mostly or completely irrelevant.
Recommended policy actions:
Over half of respondents (55%) were unaware there was a difference between “financial guidance” and “financial advice”, particularly in the extent to which they are legally protected. 4 out of 10 respondents were surprised that current regulations and legislation do not cover most types of financial guidance.
Around half of respondents think it is more of the authorities’ or the social media platforms’ responsibility to monitor and act against misleading financial guidance, rather than it being more of a personal responsibility.
Respondents thought the most effective measures to improve the quality of financial guidance on social media would be to:
- Require content creators to disclose their qualifications/expertise/conflicts of interest,
- Require content creators to put disclaimers on their posts,
- Ask social media sites to put links to official trusted sources on all financial guidance posts