This site now carries paid placements. Providers can book a programme with me, and it then appears labelled as an advert on the home page and gets a page of its own.
That is a change, and I would rather explain it myself than wait for someone to notice. If you are reading a recommendation about a decision that costs several years and a five-figure sum, you are entitled to know what the person making it lives on.
What I lived on before
It would be wrong to think no money was involved until now. There have always been two sources of income.
The first is the consulting itself. The initial consultation is free, the detailed work beyond it is not. The second is referral: where someone enrols at a partner university through me, a fee may be payable. It does not change your price, you pay exactly what you would pay enrolling on your own.
That second source carries a conflict of interest there is no talking around: I earn from partners and not from providers outside my network. Which is why the same sentence appears in every article about making the choice, for instance in choosing a university. A partnership does not mean priority. Where the right programme comes from someone I have no relationship with, that is the one I point you to.
What the partner package is
Since the end of August there is a fixed format for this instead of case-by-case arrangements. A provider books four components for 90 days: an editorial profile of their programme, a mention in thematically relevant guide articles, a highlighted card on the Hochschulnavigator comparison site, and two LinkedIn posts. That currently costs 2,400 euros net. The full scope is set out openly on the partner package page.
The price being public is deliberate. Room to negotiate that only the large providers know about would be the first step towards visibility following the budget rather than the fit.
The four rules I hold myself to
An advertising model is only as good as its limits. These are mine.
One: every paid placement is recognisable as such. Visibly through the advert label, technically through the rel=sponsored marker on every link. That much is legally required, but the real reason is a different one. Readers work out what is bought anyway. Open labelling is more credible than a hidden recommendation, and a hidden one costs more in the end than it brings in.
Two: the editorial overview stays unpaid. The study programmes page lists the programmes in my network regardless of whether anyone has paid anything. As long as that page exists, nobody can claim you only get listed here with money.
Three: a ceiling. On the Hochschulnavigator, the comparison site I run alongside this one, I take at most four commercial partners per subject and country category. That is not a total across all categories, it is the limit inside a single comparison list, which is where it counts. It holds even when a fifth enquires and would pay. It caps the revenue, and that is exactly what it is for.
Four: I write the texts. The provider supplies the facts and reviews the draft, but it stays my text in my own language. A copied marketing text would be the worse deal for everyone involved, because nobody reads it.
What money explicitly cannot buy
No recommendation in a consultation. No better position in a comparison or an overview. No leaving out criticism where a programme is expensive, slow, or rigid about credit for prior learning. And no deletion of an existing article a provider dislikes. Where an enquiry comes down to that, I turn it down. A model that gives way at this point is worthless the moment it does, including for the providers paying for it.
Why advertising at all
The honest answer is mundane: these sites cost time and money, and both have to come from somewhere. The more interesting question is why this particular route.
There were three options. An affiliate model, where every link carries a commission, would have created an incentive to sort the selection by commission rate, invisibly. A paywall would have shut out precisely those who do not yet know whether a degree is an option for them at all. That left the third: a limited number of openly labelled placements at a published price.
This route has a drawback I will not talk around. It gives me an interest in providers booking. Which is why the ceiling of four placements is not a marketing number but the brake that stops this site turning into an advertising market.
How to check it
Do not take my word for it. Check.
- Look for the label. Every paid placement carries one. If you find one without, that is a mistake and I want to hear about it.
- Compare the overview with the adverts. The study programmes page also lists programmes with no paid placement. If only paying providers were left there, that would be the warning sign.
- Read the uncomfortable passages. The cost comparison says the premium at a private university buys support and organisation, not a better qualification. The article on accreditation says ZFU registration tells you nothing about academic level. Both are uncomfortable for providers, and both are still there.
- Ask directly in a consultation. Whether a provider is a paying partner is a question I answer when you ask it.
For providers
If you are reading this as a distance learning university, a distance learning school or a training provider: the terms, the price and the limits are set out in full on the partner package page. It applies to degree programmes from bachelor's to doctorate as much as to courses and certificates. One restriction belongs here rather than surfacing later in a conversation: the highlighted card on the Hochschulnavigator requires you to be listed there as a university. For non-academic providers, the other three components apply.
And for you
Nothing changes about your consultation. The free initial consultation is still exactly that, and what we discuss in it follows from your profile, not from who has booked with me. If something you read here starts to sound too smooth, say so. With a model like this, that is the one mechanism that reliably works.
Frequently asked questions
Does a paid placement influence what you recommend in a consultation?
No. A consultation is about your prior learning, your goal and your budget. Which programme fits follows from your profile. Where the right programme comes from a provider who pays nothing, that is the one I recommend, and that is regularly the case.
How do I spot a paid placement?
By the advert label attached to it. On top of that, every link to a paid programme page carries the technical rel=sponsored marker, which tells search engines the link was paid for. Neither is a courtesy: disclosure is required under section 5a of the German Unfair Competition Act and article 3 of its Swiss counterpart.
Do you also earn from referrals?
Yes, and that route is older than the adverts. Where someone enrols at a partner university through me, a referral fee may be payable. It does not change your price, you pay the same fees as if you had enrolled directly. Which is precisely why it is stated here rather than in the small print.
Why run advertising at all?
Because the sites cost money and the alternatives are worse. An affiliate network would sort the selection by commission rate, invisibly. A paywall would shut out exactly the people who are still working out whether a degree makes sense for them. A limited number of openly labelled placements is the option where you can most easily see where you stand.
What should I do if something looks off?
Tell me. If an article treats a placement too kindly, or a label is missing, I want to know and I will correct it. That is not a courtesy, it is the condition on which this model works at all.