When a Therapist's Advice Becomes a Sales Funnel
The idea of paying psychologists to bring users to AI-powered mental health support services seems ideal to marketers. The specialist identifies the client's needs, recommends helpful software for between-session work, the startup acquires a paying subscriber, and the therapist earns a referral cut. However, behind this seemingly win-win arrangement lies a fundamental crisis of trust, warns the creator of the nearbyto.me platform.
The core issue stems from the difference between public advertising on social media and a private dialogue in a therapy room. A therapist's words carry immense professional weight. A client perceives the mention of a specific commercial app not as promotional spam, but as an essential part of their treatment plan.
The Disclosure Trap: Why Warning About the Commission Doesn't Work
Many companies believe it is enough to require the specialist to disclose the conflict of interest. Formally, the psychologist openly admits: "I receive a commission from your subscription." In practice, however, the client's freedom of choice remains an illusion for several reasons:
- Power asymmetry. It is difficult for an individual to say no to an authoritative expert, fearing they might damage the therapeutic alliance or come across as a "difficult" patient.
- Stigmatization of refusal. There is a risk that a therapist might consciously or unconsciously interpret an unwillingness to pay for another subscription as a lack of commitment to self-improvement.
- Distortion of professional judgment. Even a thoroughly honest professional who receives recurring payouts for user retention risks favoring the monetized service and being slower to notice when the tool ceases to be helpful.
If scaling a product successfully requires that it be disadvantageous for a psychologist to accept a client's refusal to use the app, an irresolvable ethical conflict is embedded into the foundation of the business.
The Responsibility of AI Creators: Metrics vs. Therapy
Responsibility lies not only with clinicians, but also with product creators. It is the platforms that shape the incentive architecture. If an affiliate dashboard ranks psychologists by sales volume, awards bonuses for subscription renewals, and pushes them to re-engage churned users, the service directly turns therapists into sales agents.
Moreover, privacy issues become critical here. Tracking commissions must never grant the psychologist access to the user's internal activity or chat history with the neural network—confidentiality boundaries must remain absolute.
How to Collaborate with Experts Without Ethical Violations
Phasing out referral links does not mean that the involvement of professional psychologists in tech should be unpaid. Specialist expertise is indispensable for training language models, testing hypotheses, designing methodologies, and creating content.
An ethical path to collaboration is built on different principles:
- Fixed expert fees. Compensation should be paid for actual work performed (consultations, audits, team training), rather than for acquired users.
- Independence from commercial decisions. A specialist's compensation should not be withheld or reduced if, based on their analysis, the company decides to shut down a controversial feature.
- Complete client autonomy. Any therapeutic recommendation must retain its clinical value even if affiliate payouts from the service were to completely vanish tomorrow.