“Our readership of financial planners.” That phrase, from Financial Planning’s own page on how to write for the publication, is the single most useful sentence for anyone trying to get published there. Every acceptance and every rejection traces back to it. The readers are planners. They are not investors, not retirees, not the general public. A piece that would help a client is the wrong piece. A piece that would help the planner serving that client is the right one.
Financial Planning is published by Arizent, the business information company behind American Banker, The Bond Buyer, Accounting Today and several other trade titles. It describes itself as a trusted resource for financial advisors and wealth management leaders, with a community of more than 500,000 professionals. For anyone selling to advisors, or building a reputation among them, it is one of the most valuable bylines in the trade.
This guide explains how to get featured in Financial Planning through its contributed op-ed door, the test we run on every draft before it goes in, and what to put in the submission email.
Who reads Financial Planning
The reader is a working financial advisor, a firm owner or a wealth management executive. Many run their own registered investment advisory firms. Others work at broker-dealers, banks or large wealth platforms. They are busy, skeptical of vendors and fluent in their field. They know what a Roth conversion is, they have opinions about fee models, and they have read a hundred articles telling them to “focus on the client experience.”
What they want from Financial Planning is help running their business and serving their clients better. The Voices guidelines name the territory directly: wealth management trends, regulation and other topics that directly affect financial planners’ business and professional development. That covers practice management, compliance, technology, succession, hiring, pricing, client communication, tax strategy, estate planning and the profession’s own debates.
Notice what is not on that list: market predictions, stock picks, product promotion. The how-to-write page lists investment recommendations among the things not to submit. This is a publication for professionals running a practice, not a market commentary outlet.
Understanding the reader also tells you what credibility looks like. A practicing planner writing about a problem they solved in their own firm carries weight. A vendor writing about the problem their software solves carries much less, unless the piece teaches something useful without the software. Vendors do get published, but only when the article would still be worth reading with the company name removed.
A quick way to check fit: search Financial Planning’s site for your topic and read the three most recent pieces. If your argument repeats what they say, look for the angle they missed. If nobody has covered the topic in a year, explain in your pitch why it matters now. Editors notice contributors who have read the publication, and they notice even faster when someone has not.
The Wealth Think op-ed door
Financial Planning’s contributed opinion section has appeared under the Wealth Think name on its how-to-write page, and the Voices guidelines describe the same op-ed program. Both send contributors to the same address: voices@arizent.com.
The requirements are specific. The how-to-write page asks for either a full draft of 650 to 750 words or a pitch of one paragraph. The Voices page sets an upper limit of 1,000 words. Write to 650 to 750 and you satisfy both.
Several rules from the guidelines shape what you can submit. Do not send a piece that has been published or submitted elsewhere. Do not send AI-generated copy. Avoid jargon and buzzwords. Avoid sales copy. Disclose any potential conflicts of interest when you submit; the guidelines warn that undisclosed conflicts can lead to removal and an editor’s note. Footnotes and corporate disclosures will not be published, so build any needed context into the body.
Copyright transfers to Financial Planning and Arizent on acceptance, in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed, and published articles may not be republished in full elsewhere. If you plan to repurpose the piece on your firm’s blog or newsletter, plan to link to it and excerpt it rather than repost it.
Should you send a draft or a pitch? For first-time contributors, a full draft is usually stronger. It removes the editor’s main risk, which is that a good idea turns into a weak article. A pitch makes sense if you are an established name or the topic is time sensitive and you want a quick read on interest before writing.
Pass the Planner’s Monday Test
We run every Financial Planning draft through a check we call the Planner’s Monday Test. Picture an advisor reading your piece on a Sunday evening. On Monday morning, would they do anything differently? If the answer is no, the piece is commentary. If the answer is yes, and you can name the action, it is the kind of article editors want.
The test has three questions.
First, is there a decision in it? A useful op-ed changes a decision: how to price, whom to hire, which clients to take, when to recommend a strategy, how to word a disclosure. “Advisors should think more about cybersecurity” contains no decision. “Firms under $500 million in assets should stop letting advisors use personal phones for client texts, and here is the policy we adopted” contains one.
Second, is there evidence a planner would trust? Planners respect data, regulation and lived experience. Cite the rule, the study or the result in your own firm. Original charts help, and the guidelines ask that you supply them in editable Excel or Google Sheets format.
Third, does it take a position? This is an opinion section. Editors want an argument, not a survey of options. Write the thesis in the first two sentences. If a reader finishes the first paragraph without knowing what you believe, rewrite it.
It helps to see an opening that works. Weak: “In today’s evolving wealth management industry, client expectations are changing, and advisors must adapt to stay competitive.” That sentence could open ten thousand articles and says nothing. Strong: “Advisory firms should stop quoting fees as a percentage of assets on their websites. In our firm, switching to a flat annual fee range on the pricing page doubled the number of prospects who booked a first meeting.” The strong version states the position, gives a result and promises an argument a planner can test in their own practice.
Drafts that pass all three questions tend to share a structure. They open with the claim. They support it with one or two pieces of evidence. They anticipate the strongest objection and answer it. They end with what the reader should do. At 700 words, there is no room for scene-setting, so cut it.
Here is a worked example of a topic moving through the test. Starting idea: “The importance of succession planning for advisors.” No decision, no evidence, no position. Revised idea, as a hypothetical contributor might frame it: “Solo advisors over 60 should sign a continuity agreement with a peer firm this year, before they need one. We studied 30 practices that lost a founder unexpectedly, and the ones without agreements lost most of their clients within a year.” That version names an action, rests on evidence and takes a side. It passes.
What to include in your submission
The guidelines are specific, so follow them. Send the draft or pitch to voices@arizent.com. With it, include a short bio stating your job title and a brief description of your role. Attach a headshot; the how-to-write page asks for a file of 750KB or larger, and the Voices page asks for a high-resolution photo. Include your X and LinkedIn handles and your firm’s. Add links to the source material for any facts you cite. Disclose potential conflicts of interest up front.
The email itself should be short. Subject line: the argument in under ten words. First paragraph: the thesis and why it matters now. Second paragraph: who you are and why you are qualified to make the argument. Then the draft, pasted into the body or attached as a document, and the supporting materials.
Avoid attaching a press kit, a company brochure or a long list of past media appearances. Two links to previous published pieces are enough to show you can write.
Then wait. Trade editors receive steady volume, and a reply can take a couple of weeks. If you hear nothing after two weeks, send one short follow-up in the same thread asking whether the piece is still under consideration. If the topic is time sensitive, say so in the first email and give a date after which you will offer it elsewhere. That respects the no-simultaneous-submissions rule while protecting a timely argument from going stale in an inbox.
Mistakes that get pitches deleted
The first is writing for clients instead of planners. “Five ways to save for retirement” belongs in a consumer outlet. Financial Planning readers already know all five.
The second is the disguised ad. An article that describes a problem and then explains how your product solves it reads as sales copy, which the guidelines rule out. If your product is the answer, write about the principle behind it and leave the product out.
The third is jargon. The how-to-write page lists jargon and buzzwords among the things to avoid. Planners can read jargon, but editors want clear writing. Replace phrases like “holistic wealth journey” with the specific thing you mean.
The fourth is the hidden conflict. If you work for a firm that benefits from the policy you are arguing for, say so in the submission. Editors can work with a disclosed conflict. They cannot work with one they discover after publication.
The fifth is submitting the same piece to two outlets at once. The guidelines rule out pieces submitted elsewhere, and trade editors in wealth management know each other. Pick one outlet, wait for an answer, then move on if it is a no.
The sixth is ignoring the news. Op-ed editors value timing. A piece on a proposed rule is worth far more the week the rule is proposed than three months later. Watch the regulatory calendar, industry surveys and the publication’s own news coverage, and submit when your argument connects to something planners are already talking about.
How to get featured in Financial Planning comes down to four moves: write for the planner, not the client; make one argument a planner could act on by Monday; follow the submission rules to the letter; and keep anything that sounds like a sales pitch out of the draft.