An explainer succeeds or fails based on the reader’s ability to follow the worked example without getting stuck along the way. The rest of what’s on the page doesn’t matter as much. If the numbers in the table don’t relate to the number in the sentence, they lose trust in the other parts of the page.
Our writers show their work for math calculations they do and include local currency and tax year. The lack of a tax year for a contribution cutoff or relief threshold usually makes the information stale and misleading.
Readers tend to come to an explainer halfway to an understanding and stuck on one step. That step is what will make an explainer useful. This is usually not the definition. It might be the step that explains how interest compounds on a decreasing balance, or how employer matching interacts with the annual contribution limit. A page that simply restates the definition, and a few other synonyms of the definition, is completely void of new information for the reader.
Constructed math appears accurate, but results are incorrect. The monthly payment is off by eleven dollars, the compounding schedule stops compounding in year four, and the totals row fails to sum. Readers of explainers check this, because checking it is why they came.
The order in which the writer provides an example precedes the outline, because an example helps a writer determine how to best present the data. Once the numbers align, the explanation is given based on where the reader is likely to be most confused, and it rarely follows the same order as textbooks. For example, definitions are provided when they are most relevant, rather than having a section dedicated to definitions at the beginning.
Explainers hover near the line that we do not cross. We write education, not recommendations, and the copy states this where it is crucial. Numbers and examples provide their related years and assumptions, respectively, and any text pertaining to tax, pensions, or regulated products is written for your qualified people to review prior to publishing.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical financial explainer | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quick explainer | 600 | $60 | $0.60 | $60.60 |
| Standard explainer | 1,200 | $120 | $1.20 | $121.20 |
| Pillar explainer | 2,200 | $220 | $2.20 | $222.20 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
We match the brief to a writer who has already worked in that subject area. If you have worked with an Articled writer before and want them again, name them and we will check their availability first.
Up to 3 days. The writer has to read around the subject before writing it, so we quote honestly rather than promising an hour. If your deadline is tighter, say so in the brief and we will tell you before you pay whether we can meet it.
Yes. The worked example is presented in a table. Assumptions are noted, and you can build a calculator off this example or support can reuse the example as is. The arithmetic is checked twice over before it gets to you.
We describe how a rule functions in a general sense and specify the year and location to which it corresponds. We don’t explain to an individual reader how to act. Articled is neither a tax nor financial advisor, and copy in this domain should be examined by yours.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
Most finance writers take the metaphorical pizza slice route. Our piece explained the math slowly and correctly, using the actual numbers we charge. Compliance signed it off, and they made zero changes. That has not happened in the three years during which I have done this job.
Explaining compound interest to those who left school at sixteen is difficult and this mainly tackles the issue. I requested and was given one worked example with real numbers. I wanted three, so I made two adjustments. Your definition of APR is the most comprehensible I have come across in any context.
Everything we’ve made in house, every battle card, turned into three pages no one opened. This is one, with the two objections that actually show up and a decent answer for each. Adoption is the only metric we care about and it’s almost all there.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees