More and more financial services firms are turning to AI to scale up content production, and I understand the appeal. But sitting where I sit, running a financial media company, there's a harder question I keep coming back to: does any of it actually land with retail investors?

I recently sat down with our editor Linda Rodriguez McRobbie, a journalist of more than 20 years, and she put it better than I could. AI in finance content has a ceiling, and the things investors value most are precisely the things AI struggles to deliver.

Let me be clear, because Linda was: AI is a useful tool. It's genuinely good for quickly understanding a topic, fact-checking, and pulling together an overview (as long as you always ask it for sources). But there's a real risk that should give any firm pause before building a content engine on it, and that's the flattening of voice.
‍
AI-generated financial content converges on the same phrasing, the same framings, the same recycled takes. That's how you end up in what we at Finimize call the "sea of sameness". And here's the part I find most telling: audiences are becoming acutely sensitive to "AI slop" and want nothing to do with it. If you're trying to win the next generation of investors, content that reads as machine-made is a liability.
‍

What AI can't replicate (yet, at least) is the editorial model that produces analysis investors actually trust – something I’m incredibly proud of in the work we do. 
‍

Our analysts provide depth and rigor; they make connections through context that can only come from real market experience and genuine expertise. Then our editors act as the readers’ advocate, taking what Linda calls a "fire hose" of analyst insight and narrowing it to the few things that truly matter. That judgment – the ability to tell our investing audience the one thing they need, instead of everything the analysts know – has been a big part of our success.
‍

I won't pretend that discipline is easy. A Finimize newsletter reader gives us roughly three minutes and 15 seconds a day, so every word has to earn its place. "Earn your interest" is a literal standard in our style guide. So if one of our editors trips over a sentence, the article has fallen short. And we won’t publish it until it’s resolved.
‍
Just as importantly, our editors pressure-test the analysts' claims, always investigating whether they hold up, rather than blindly accepting “received wisdom”. That scrutiny, applied every single day, is what produces content that's clear, accurate, and genuinely worth self-directed investors’ limited attention.
‍
So here's my takeaway for financial services firms. AI can help you produce more content – but if “more content” is your only goal, it’s the wrong one. The goal should be publishing content that retail investors actually trust, finish, and come back to.
‍

That depends on an engine that combines analytical rigor with experienced editorial judgment, the kind that resists sameness and earns trust. It's difficult and expensive to build in-house, but it's exactly what we've built at Finimize, and what we offer as a partner.

‍

Video transcript

‍

Carl: My guest today is Linda Rodriguez McRobbie. She's an editor here at Finimize. Linda, you've done such exciting things, whether it's at New Scientist, the books you've written, the podcasts you've hosted, or the shows you've done. Just run everyone through a potted history and how you've landed here at Finimize.
‍

Linda: That makes me sound really, really exciting. Thank you, I appreciate that. So I had been a freelance journalist for about 13 years, and in that time I was really lucky to be able to pursue the kinds of ideas and thoughts and articles and projects that I wanted to do. And I think what I wanted to do was kind of everything. So I did a lot of different things. I did a two-year-long project investigating the police use of rubber bullets in America. I wrote a book about the experience of pain, along with my fabulous co-writer; she's an American sociologist, and she's fantastic. I wrote a book about princesses and their interesting history and stories, and about people who you wouldn't necessarily think of as a princess but are, and what they did. The through line, though, is that I've always just been really curious about a lot of things. That's one of the things that I love about working at Finimize: we have the opportunity to look at the world through the lens of finance, but with curiosity and with interest.
‍

Carl: Awesome. That's exciting to hear. Can you maybe help us understand: how do you come to a story? How do you decide on the angle? How do you decide how to make something interesting? Just to pick an example, rubber bullets. That feels politically charged, it feels quite academic, and it can feel quite dry. Or it can feel really extreme, like you're trying to make a point. How do you decide where to land on that, and how to take someone on a journey?
‍

Linda: Well, with some of these stories, and the rubber bullets one is a really good example, because that ended up being about 40,000 words. It was a tremendous experience to be able to put this out there. We did a big interactive website, so we were able to explore this really deeply and through a lot of different angles. What I've generally found is that with most stories, you're led by the story, you're led by the reporting, and you're led by the people that you talk to and the information that you get. If you come into it with a pre-existing idea of what you think it's going to be, oftentimes you're going to be wrong.
‍

Carl: Yeah.
‍

Linda: And similarly, Finimize is a different animal, right? Instead of 40,000 words, I've got 325 to talk about the most important story in finance of the day. But it's kind of similar ideas. You start to shape something based on what information you have. You start to pull it together and mold it in a way where you're able to give the most important and most interesting bits, the thing that people are going to want to take away and use. And that's led by our analysts, who do tremendous work and are really thoughtful, and are really thinking about things in interesting and useful ways, and about what information and facts we have.
‍

Carl: So maybe let's spend a bit of time on that interaction between you and the analysts, because one of the things that we have in our style guide is "earn your interest." And yes, it's a pun, but with 325 words, every word needs to earn its spot on the page. I often say to the analysts, and to you and Karen: hey, this isn't an exercise in showing everyone all the things you know and that you're really clever. The way to show that skill, and to show what you know, is to be able to say, actually, of all these things, here are the couple that really matter, and let's spend time on those. So can you maybe share how that interaction works in practice?
‍

Linda: It does depend a little bit on the analysts I'm talking to, because some of our analysts are amazing at finding links and pulling together information, and there's a lot, right? But our job is to direct that fire hose of information and really narrow it down, drill it down to the most important, most interesting things that we want to say. And some of our other analysts are really good at casting things about, showing why this is important and how, and putting it in the right tone so I can understand how to take this information. So with different analysts, we have different kinds of relationships in how we go on to form the story. The thing that I think I bring is a relative lack of knowledge. They know their stuff so well that sometimes they can make links that I just can't, and if I can't follow along, I think our readers would struggle as well.
‍

Carl: Exactly. That's by design, and so you need to be representative of the busy, ambitious investor who'll give us 15 minutes a day. We've got to make it count. They're not going to do the work for themselves, and they're relying on us to do that work for them.
‍

Linda: Oh yeah. And really they're giving us three minutes and 15 seconds a day on the newsletter.
‍

Carl: That's true.
‍

Linda: So, like you said, we really have to make that count. When I'm reading something, if I trip over something, if there's a moment that gives me pause, I need to figure out how we either ease that and make it clear, or decide if it's really worth it to continue into.
‍

Carl: A hundred percent. There's a ton there, and we have it as a mantra; I've heard other people use it too, around eating your own dog food. When I look at a test email before it goes out, I'm generally looking at it alongside doing other things. And so if I can't get through something, I will stop everyone and say: "Hold on. We're not going to print. This isn't ready. This isn't right."
‍

Linda: We've definitely had that experience before, for sure. Sorry.
‍

Carl: But also not sorry.
‍

Linda: Exactly.
‍

Carl: No, you shouldn't be, because this is exactly what we're supposed to do. This is how we serve our users and our readers, by making sure that we're clear and fun and engaging, but paramount, clear. That's got to be our raison d'être. That's got to be the reason why we exist.
‍

Linda: And that we're offering something more than you would get from any of the other places that I'm not going to name-check.
‍

Carl: So let's get salacious, because you opened that door, and I'm going to push on it. Where in the world of finance, or maybe not, have you seen the opposite of everything that we're trying to do? Where does it go wrong? And if you're not going to name someone or something, why does it go wrong? What do you see going wrong?
‍

Linda: I won't name names, but one of the things that I find quite a lot is the same piece of information, or the same casting of that piece of information, used multiple times across multiple outlets. And what that says to me is that they haven't really thought about or digested what they're looking at. That then becomes this gospel that may or may not actually be true. So one of the things that I've pushed our analysts to do, and that we do quite a lot of, is investigating those claims a little bit. They'll say something, and we'll look at it and be like, well, have you actually thought about what you've just said? Does that actually make sense based on the context and everything else that's happening? So we see a lot of outlets repeating the same not-quite-accurate stuff.
‍

Carl: Absolutely. I'd love to get people's views, maybe in the comments, of which outlets they think you might be talking about. My bugbear, since we're on the topic, is causal: you know, "this happened because of that." It drives me mad. I've interviewed journalists and editors, and they just resort to that. And I just think, not only is it wrong, you're proving you don't know what you're talking about.
‍

Linda: Well, it's a massive scientific principle, right? Causation is not correlation. It's something we do tend to do; it's a bias. We want to attribute some sort of reason or structure or schema to something, so there has to be a cause and effect. But that's not always the case. So being in a position to investigate that and look at it, and then come up with "okay, well, what does this actually mean," that's important and nice.
‍

Carl: Yeah. I've got to ask you about AI.
‍

Linda: Yes.
‍

Carl: Is it coming for your job?
‍

Linda: Well, you tell me; you gave me my job.
‍

Carl: Don't tell me that.
‍

Linda: I think not so far. I definitely don't think so, although some of the data we're seeing today, like Cisco, for example, is cutting a bunch of jobs because of AI, despite the fact that it's doing well because of AI. So it's a little like the hand that gives. But for me personally, I hope not. I do think at this point there are a lot of risks associated with AI, and particularly with the flattening of voice that happens with AI. So fighting against that, struggling against that, is something that we can continue to do as an outlet, to make sure that we're not allowing... AI is a tool, and it can be very useful, especially when it comes to trying to understand or fact-check, or get a quick overview of what's happening. Especially if you ask it for sources; always ask it for sources. That's very useful. But it's really important to not rely on it and not rest on it.
‍

Carl: Yeah, it's a bit worrying.
‍

Linda: It is.
‍

Carl: No, it sounds like a pretty balanced view. I find I'm hypersensitive to AI words. And what I find quite entertaining is that people who aren't as immersed aren't as sensitive to them. So they use those words with a straight face, without any sense of irony, and I'm just like, you as a human being have never used ship analogies or water analogies as often as you have now. And why is everything being sharpened? It's like the M&S of AI: "not this, it's [synonym] for this."
‍

Linda: But the reason AI uses it is because people did use it, or do use it. So then it just becomes this sort of... it's like my kids. My kids are teenagers and they are acutely sensitive to any changes in the current of social life and everything. Any picture, any words, any story, they're like, "that's AI, that's AI slop," and they want nothing to do with it. It's a really interesting generational shift.
‍

Carl: The pendulum will inevitably swing. There's going to be a kind of "lite" movement. It's interesting that it could be generational rather than economically cyclical.
‍

Linda: Yeah. I think there's a lot to investigate, and obviously I only have a data point of two, maybe three if we count some of the other kids, but there does seem to be an inherent dislike of AI slop. And so that makes me very wary about where it pops up and how we use it. Your AI tells, for sure; it is really, really useful. Although there have definitely been times where you've said I've had an AI tell, and I was like, "that was me, actually. That was me."
‍

Carl: Okay, fine. The one time.
‍

Linda: Yeah.
‍

Carl: Like I said, I'm hypersensitive.
‍

Linda: But we should be, right? We should be on guard, because this is also an area that is important for humans to do, and to keep doing.
‍

Carl: Yeah. So, switching gears: distribution. In my last conversation I spoke to Chris Sullivan from Craft & Capital, and we were talking a lot about how, not that long ago, we could get an ETF issuer on Barron's and CNBC and that's distribution done; off you go. There's obviously been a proliferation of channels, media, and types of ways to access that media. You can't just assume that once you've published it, it's done, that it's out there and people will receive it. What's your view on all of that change, and more excitingly, where do you think the puck is going?
‍

Linda: It's been interesting. I've been a journalist for more than 20 years now, and when I went to journalism school, way back in the day, the program had just started to offer new media, and that was websites.
‍

Carl: Wow.
‍

Linda: Yeah. And people didn't know what to do with it. I think that was writ large over the entire industry: we didn't know what to do with this thing, and we didn't know how to monetize it. We didn't know how to shift from a model where we had people buying newspapers and the primary driver was advertising. You could reasonably say, we've got a distribution of 300,000 people, your ad will be in front of them, and that's how we make our money. And that's not the case anymore. None of that's the case. At the time, we were in these paroxysms of change; there was just so much happening, and no one was prepared. And now we're in a similar shift, in that there's just so much. So trying to get people's attention, you've got to figure out where people live and what you can offer them in that place in order to keep their attention. Newsletters are kind of great, right? You've got an audience that's already engaged; they've already gone through the first hoop, which is clicking "please send me this free email." And then you're potentially getting their attention every day in some fashion. But there are so many other channels and ways to try to leverage that. So on the one hand it is a bit terrifying, but on the other, there are so many more options and so many ways to engage with people.
‍

Carl: Does that mean that someone should be everywhere all at once? Or pick two or three and nail those, maybe pick one and nail that?
‍

Linda: It definitely depends on who you are, but I think for us specifically, and I'd say more generally, pick a lane and stick with it. Pick a way, maybe a few places, that can leverage interest in other ways. Pick lanes that complement each other. We have our presence, we have our newsletter; we've gotten a lot of people into the lobby. How do we sell tickets and get them into the theater? We also have other channels that might be more natural fits, like LinkedIn or Substack, or any of the social channels we could use to complement what we already have. But it is about finding where your audience lives and meeting them there, rather than assuming that they're just going to come to you.
‍

Carl: Very fair. Podcasts are a massive channel in that mix, as we were discussing: tons of growth, tons of interest, tons of competition. How would you think about shaping a podcast for retail investors given the competition? How do you go about being a destination people want to return to?
‍

Linda: There are a couple of different ways. One is telling a story that they haven't heard before. I think the OG is something like the Freakonomics podcast, right? It is the best, and there's a reason why. Sometimes it tells a story that you already know in a new way; sometimes it tells a story that you hadn't thought of before. But it always brings something new and unexpected, and gives you a new perspective on the world that you hadn't considered before. So it's one of the best. It also helps that they've all got great voices and fantastic production values. But the other way is to draw people into the conversation. So, having a conversation like this, having two people, having someone who knows more about the topic than you do, that brings people in. And it creates an environment where you're learning and they're learning. One of the things that I love the most about listening to people talk about stuff is when the host, the representative of the listener, is doing a really good job of asking the questions, following along, doing the thing that you would want done as a member of the audience, being that conversational partner and drawing out the interesting stuff.
‍

Carl: Gotcha. So inviting listeners to be part of that experience.
‍

Linda: And crafting it in such a way that it is open is, I think, probably the best and most key way of building that relationship with your audience.
‍

Carl: That's fantastic insight. I'm now going to ask almost the opposite question. If I dig deep in my own past, I was once an equity research analyst, and when I looked at retail and e-commerce stocks, the thing I'd come up against is, "well, I go to shops, therefore I know this industry too." I thought, maybe you do, but not as well as me. And something you no doubt come up against is, "well, I can write a sentence, therefore I'm actually a journalist in disguise, and I could do this better than you." That's obviously not the case. But we have tons of conversations where financial services firms of all stripes and sizes will say, "well, I'm a content creator too, and I want to have a podcast too." What would you say to them? Is the answer "don't," or is it "give it a go"?
‍

Linda: I mean, it's a little bit of "find out." Because I think there is a sort of natural selection involved, right? People are going to like the stuff that they like. The things that they can engage with, the things they like, that's going to float to the top. So give it a go, try, see what happens. And if it doesn't work...
‍

Carl: The massive risk is, and Fraser Munro talked about this a few weeks ago, the sea of sameness, right? There are only so many things in the world that happen that allow you to talk about something people don't know about. There are a finite number of experts at any one time. The edge that you think you might have may not exist. And the bigger the institution, almost, the bigger the problem, because, to pull in another conversation, with Andrew Rummer: companies are full of really interesting, really exciting data. There are stories to tell, and they are terrified of telling them. So if you get in front of a mic but you're not willing to open the curtain and share something, you're just rehashing the headlines from somewhere else, or discussing something from two months ago that's no longer relevant, you're on a hiding to nothing.
‍

Linda: I think some of it is also who you're putting out in front.
‍

Carl: Yes, for sure.
‍

Linda: Because some people are better at talking about stuff than others. We sort of call it "give good quote." When I interview people, back when I was a freelance journalist, my job was to draw those stories out, draw those conversations out. And when I've done podcasts and interviews on camera, you want to have a good sparring partner, a good person to bounce off of, to have that back and forth and draw that out. Some of it is in the skill of the interviewer, but some of it is who you choose to put in front of the mic.
‍

Carl: Have you ever had a "half cash, half stock" moment? Like eBay's offer?
‍

Linda: Yes, I'm sure. That was wild. That was my favorite story of last week. It was just sort of inexplicable, and the fact that it got as much attention as it did.
‍

Carl: I went around for days saying "half cash, half stock" to anyone who'd listen. I was like a kid going "67." But with "half cash, half," that was an unhinged moment in some ways.
‍

Linda: But I also love that. I mean, we're talking about the GameStop thing.
‍

Carl: Yes.
‍

Linda: Just so everybody can follow at home. But I loved that moment too, because it was so entertaining, and it also says a lot about where we are in the world right now, especially with regard to tech stocks and meme stocks. So that was a great opportunity to have a whole conversation about it, a teachable moment in some ways.
‍

Carl: Indeed.
‍

Linda: It was. And I think that gets at some of the value that we bring, right? Being able to contextualize the stories and contextualize what people are seeing in a way that brings it home, makes it sensible, and makes it interesting.
‍

Carl: I want to come back to something you touched on earlier, which is your role as representing the reader, the listener, the person on the other end of the content. My observation is that a lot of the financial services industry writes for the retail investor as a single, monolithic being. That's not the reality. How do you hold the multitudes of people that coalesce around this definition in your head, and what can the industry learn from your approach?
‍

Linda: There are a couple of different answers to this, and they're all true. One is that as an editor and as a reader, I think maintaining curiosity is probably the most important thing. That will enable a broader view that allows you to encompass multiple viewpoints; just remaining curious, asking the question rather than coming up with a statement first. The other thing we have is a fantastic team. There's Karen, there's Haley, and there are the analysts, and we all have a role in the process, in such a way that there are moments where I might not see something and Haley does, or Haley sees something that I don't, or Karen sees something. So having enough people with eyes on this, we can do a better job of representing more readers, more people. Because you're right, there isn't a single retail investor. That would be an absurd thing, like saying there's a single voter and this is the kind of person they are. That's not possible. So the two main things are maintaining that curiosity, so that you can continue to ask questions and even consider your opposite viewpoint, to always be looking beyond what you've assumed, and just having a great team.
‍

Carl: Awesome. Linda, this has been absolutely fantastic, eye-opening. One last question before I let you go. Is there something that's been rattling around in your head that you want to write and you're thinking about? Or is there something you've read recently and thought, "damn, I wish I wrote that"?
‍

Linda: I think there are a lot of things, especially as an editor right now, that I read and think, "damn, I wish I wrote that." But in terms of things that I'm working on, and want to be working on, there's a story I've been wanting to write for years now about sports psychology and aging athletes. It sounds really left-field, but I do a lot of sport, and I'm old, so those two things have come together in a way that I think is very interesting. Right now we're in a place where people are living longer and living healthier for longer, and that's expanding what we think is possible, not only for how we age generally, but for how we age as athletes. So that's one I've been working on and thinking about, and have wanted to get off the ground for a little while now.
‍

Carl: That's interesting. It might not seem like it, but there's a Venn diagram with Finimize pro investors there: successful athletes have a process, and successful investors have a process. There's a ton of psychology around behavioral investing, not selling at the bottom, the discipline around processes, and so on.
‍

Linda: Oh yeah, there is. There's a guy I follow, a fantastic coach, who's written a lot of really interesting stuff about sports psychology, but so much of it I read and think, "all that actually applies to some of the things that we do here." Certainly things about confidence and expectation, and how expectation can dictate performance. I'm of the mind that everything is linked; everything is relatable in some fashion. So it doesn't surprise me that there's going to be a bit of a Venn diagram.
‍

Carl: Well, that's a fun note to end on. Linda, thank you so much. This has been amazing.
‍

Linda: Thank you so much for having me. It's been fun.

‍