It’s another step forward to illustrate change. If you see it in action, you’ll hope it comes to the UK. But if you listen to the video, there is an experiment. It talks about honesty and dishonesty. The difference is the ‘fudge factor’.
If the speed limit is 40mph, is it OK to exceed, if only a little? Is it OK to lie about yourself for online dating..maybe only a little? These are fudges. But when does a fudge become unacceptable? From an investment company perspective, when is marketing a fudge? If the margin between disingenuous and dishonesty are the same, does it make one OK and the other not? If an adviser works for a bank but tells you they act in your best interests, is that a fudge? Is it OK to say things that influence your action that have been fudged?
The question is how do you compromise so that you are treated fairly and those helping you are equally treated fairly? What due diligence do you carry out to make sure the rhetoric is not fudged? Do you even carry out proper due diligence? Instead, do you just rely on ‘gut’ feel to justify your actions? The latter is easier, but far from simple.
Lemonade is part of the change that will help cut through much of the ‘fudge’ that exists. But none of us can be complacent. We still need to ask great questions. Its why people will come to us when talking about their wealth. You can experience great conversations without finding you’ve bought a product. Its a new way forward to see the ‘fudges’ for what they are.