Latest Poll – Specialist or Generalist?

2
Which advice model do you think will better serve the future direction and success of your advice business?
  • A specialist/niche model (66%)
  • A generalist model (16%)
  • It doesn't matter (13%)
  • Not sure (5%)

Our latest poll asks which camp you’re in when it comes to your preference for a specialist or a generalist advice business model.

This question stems from our report this week on one adviser’s case for specialisation as being the way to go (see: The Case for Specialist/Niche Advice).

While the adviser in question, Brad Elman, is based on the US west coast, the debate over whether to specialise or to remain a generalist adviser is one that holds currency in many countries, including Australia.

In Elman’s case, he commenced his advice career as a generalist adviser “…trying to be everything to everybody.” His own epiphany came when he realised he had a choice about who he wanted to work with, who he wanted to advise and the breadth of advice he wanted to deliver.

While Elman’s strong preference is for specialisation, he readily accepts a generalist model is also valid. At the same time, he also stresses that “…if you want to be a generalist, that’s great – build your brand around being the most unique generalist out there!”

In Australia, there exists a dizzying array of specialist advice models, such as those delivering advice services to niche specialists within the medical profession or new motor vehicle dealership owners in south-east Queensland or ultra high net worth clients or commercial airline pilots, and so on. These advice businesses stand strongly behind their choice to specialise in these sectors.

On the other side of the coin, there exist thousands of generalist advice businesses which can equally stand behind a solid record of business growth and success. Many of those who prefer not to specialise do so because their proposition is based on serving all clients in particular suburbs or regions, regardless of the vast spectrum of differing client needs and circumstances.

While some advocate that specialisation is the way to go, and others argue the opposite, there is another group of advisers who shrug their shoulders and say it doesn’t really mater either way. Their argument is something along the lines that it gets down to the individual adviser and their own life experiences and personalities, some of which lead to specialisation, while others see the adviser follow the generalist approach.

Which adviser are you? Are you a generalist or a specialist? Do you think one model will become more dominant in future, as the advice sector continues to evolve? Tell us what you think and we’ll come back to you next week…



2 COMMENTS

  1. Having read the article above, I’m not even sure I understand the writer’s meaning of specialisation, so how can I vote properly? I wold have thought the meaning of specialisation in this context is asking if you’re a Risk, Investment, Retirement or Age Care Specialist, but the article seems to refer to one’s target market as the basis of the menaing of specialisation…i.e. Dr’s, Lawyers or short balding men wth beards (definitely not saying that lawyers are short and balding)…If a business develops a marketing plan and desides on a marekt they will target, then I don’t think this is specialising. Thoughts anyone?

  2. It is virtually impossible to be a specialist in all facets of Financial advice.

    The model where a larger practice that provides holistic advice and employs specialists who look after the different fields of advice is doable, though the cost and education requirements are high.

    Specialists require years of experience and with the current regulatory regime making it more time consuming, the hurdles are stacking up.

    The regulators and Government should encourage specialisation, though clearly this is not the case currently for Risk advisers.

Comments are closed.