From the very beginning, I will make a reservation that I do not classify the B17 site, on whose pages I post this publication, as an aggregator. I have nothing against advertising platforms and resources for psychologists and their potential clients. Such resources do great and important work, and the fact that they charge some money for their mediation is quite reasonable, since it is a lot of work, and it certainly should be paid. These resources do not interfere with the relationship between the client and the therapist, They don’t tell the therapist how to work, and I thank them very much for that. I have experience collaborating with one of the aggregators, starting with the letter “A,” so I base my criticism of the activities of aggregators on the basis of this experience. So, what are the main problems of aggregators, what do they do wrong, how do they destroy the therapeutic relationship between the therapist and client? The main problem is the initial conflict between the interests of the client and therapist on the one hand and the aggregator on the other. The goal of the therapist is to provide therapeutic assistance to the client, the goal of the aggregator is to obtain maximum profit. Yes, the therapist receives money for his work. But he does not seek to squeeze as much money as possible out of the client. The cost of the session is discussed and should be felt by both client and therapist to be appropriate and fair. The main thing for the therapist is the psycho-emotional and physical health of the client, money is secondary. The aggregator builds its policy not from the interests of the client, but from the desire to extract maximum profit from the flow of clients, often making decisions that lead to negative consequences in the therapeutic relationship and , as a consequence, in the therapy itself. First of all, this happens because these decisions are made by marketers - people far from understanding psychotherapeutic processes. A couple of years ago there was a scandal associated with an aggregator with the letter “Z”. The marketers of this aggregator came up with a rating system for psychotherapists collaborating with this company, and decided to part ways with more than a hundred psychologists who ended up in the “basement” of this rating. Moreover, clients in therapy with these psychologists were encouraged to leave them and go to other psychologists at the top of the ratings. Do we need to explain what kind of trauma these clients suffered? Especially clients who have disrupted attachment relationships with their parents and have just established healthy attachment relationships with their therapists. Suddenly it turns out that above the symbolic parental therapist there is also a “super-dad” who can cancel the “dad”. Retraumatization is guaranteed for clients with dysfunctional relationships with parents. “Our father turned out to be not a father, but a weakling.” If the client managed to rely on a symbolic paternal (or maternal) figure in the person of the therapist, then the marketers of this aggregator with such an action ruined everything! The client is left with trauma and distrust in therapy as such and in his own healing. The aggregator with whom I collaborated, and which at first did not interfere in the therapist-client relationship, subsequently also established its own rating system. Those with the highest monetary conversion reached the top of this rating; therapists with low conversion began to get rid of. Now I’ll explain what I mean. What is conversion? For a client coming to a therapist, the aggregator requires from the therapist an amount equal to the cost of two sessions (for example, if the cost of a session is 3,000 rubles, then this amount will be 6,000 rubles) plus 30% of the cost of each session. That is, it is beneficial for the aggregator that clients come for a minimum number of sessions (ideally two), and then leave, and someone else comes to the therapist and he (the therapist) again pays 6,000 rubles. Then the conversion will be maximum, and such a therapist will have a high rating. If the client goes into long-term therapy, the therapist pays for him only once and the conversion rate decreases. Such a therapist is not profitable for the aggregator. Thus, it turns out that therapists who do not know how