FiFi Team and Editorial process

The two founders of FiFi Finance are finance geeks that have been studying all sorts of personal and business finances for over 10 years. We are also polyglots and academics who know a lot about tech and how to make complex information understood. We both have more than 20 years experience with online publishing.

Fun fact: Together we even have 42 years of experience, that’s more than the existence of the World Wide Web.

We have traveled a lot in our lives, together we’ve visited most countries in the world. We also lived in many countries, such as the United States of America, Mexico, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Mali, France, Turkey, Spain and Italy.

We have an extensive network of people whom we met during our travels around the world. This network we utilize in finding the right people to be our editors for the different language categories. These persons take good care of the work in our effort to deliver high quality information. Other authors we carefully select through online networks of freelancers such as Upwork.

While managing FiFi Finance we do a lot of things together, but we also have a very clear role. Whereas Kasper is responsible for the tech part, Robin is responsible for the content part. However, we both contribute to the tech and content-part, as one and the other have good knowledge of the overall process. As such we are capable to complement each other very well. This is why many people tend to call us the dynamic duo.

Editorial process

We take good care of our editorial process. We aim for the highest standard. Our editorial principles are the following:

  1. It is of utmost importance for us to help people find answers to financial questions they have.
  2. These answers have to be offered quick and honestly. It has to be factual and not misleading.
  3. We want to continually improve and test ourselves to become even better in what we do.

But to us, not everything immediately needs to have that standard right from the beginning. Work that we publish, but doesn’t have an existing audience yet, does not need to be the best content in the world yet. As soon as we get feedback from the search engines about how people are finding us, we adjust the existing content and try to add all relevant information to this article as we can. To us it makes not much sense to create the best article in the world, if no-one reads it anyway.

Our process in a nutshell

  • We follow a bit the content process of Wikipedia here, or as open source software developers tend to do: “Release early. Release often. And listen to your customers”.
  • We do not believe an article is “finished” when published. Articles need constant updating with new and relevant information. We therefore monitor very closely why people visit us.

We build our own home-build tool to understand better the searches people make on the web in order to find us. We adjust our articles based on that information. We add this newly discovered and relevant information to our articles so to help our visitors better with their queries.

You are free to use this software as well, it’s called Rankshaper and it is freely available. We are not charging anyone for using this application yet.

There are good and bad sides about the process we follow. In principle, our articles are not really visited yet when they do not yet have the quality standards that we set. We can see from the search impressions the queries that we get and adjust our content to that, updating our articles with relevant info based on those queries. We have clear design principles for those articles. This process of utilizing long tail queries and offering all relevant information, in combination with what we think is a clear UX, will give us a lean competitive advantage to compete with better known brands on the long run.


Future plans

One of the next steps in order to improve this is to enable better feedback from our users. We hope that more and more of our visitors will give us relevant information on our website. Did they find what they were looking for? If not, what were they missing and how can we improve?

We also want to focus more and more on Africa, Latin America and at some point Asia. We believe there is a lot of potential here. But overall, we believe it is a good thing to empower people and especially in continents such as Africa there is good potential to help empowering people financially. We therefore also choose to target people in their local languages, such as Kiswahili which is a language spoken in the many countries around Lake Victoria.

The fact that we also focus on countries in Europe and North America is simply because this is where the revenue comes from. With this revenue we are able to sustain our efforts to help improving financial literacy.