The Economist on thought leadership – hypocritical or valid point?

• Share
• Tweet

The article on thought leadership which appeared in the Economist fascinates me – read it here http://tinyurl.com/2acq8gk  I first heard about it as a result of a reader’s comments on this blog – thanks Tom.

The journalist who penned the article questions why consulting firms provide what they ‘annoyingly call thought leadership’ and also whether it is worth it. 

Nothing wrong with questioning its worth but what the author neglected to do is ask even one client what they think of the thought leadership material provided to them by their consulting firm.

The first irony in the article is that the author inadvertently stumbles upon the very essence of thought leadership albeit in a negative sense: “Their reports (and increasingly their webinars and podcast) are an excuse to contact potential clients and a way of boasting about the brainpower they can apply to problems.”

While it is stated in kind of a negative way that is precisely it – absolutely your thought leadership material should be getting you in front of your clients and prospects.  Importantly it also enables you and your team to hold discussions with your prospect on issues of importance to them while sharing your insights about their sector or industry.  If this boasts your brainpower fantastic – through these insights, you want your prospects to realise that you have a deep understanding of their challenges and are therefore in a position to help solve them.

If these are the sorts of opportunities and conversations thought leadership delivers isn’t this far less ‘annoying’ than trying to ‘sell’ a product or your service? 

The second irony is that The Economist has a number of its own thought leadership platforms i.e. The Economist Intelligence Unit. The Economist Debates and The Economist Conferences and there may be more but I’m not aware of them. 

Maybe they don’t overtly call any of these thought leadership and maybe the author has a point because the loose use of the word thought leadership is annoying because a lot of it doesn’t come close. But where I do take the author to task is on measurement.

A true thought leadership campaign should have very firm business metrics in place.  Among others these could include:

·         The number of prospect meetings

·         The number of returning clients

·         The number of appointments and incoming, qualified leads and the conversion rate

·         The number of attendees at thought leadership seminars and the resultant follow up and conversion

·         Delivery of key messages through identified and targeted media

·         Effective leverage of content across all client and prospective client touch points

·         Research, preferably benchmarked annually of your brand against others in the market place  

·         Research internally of what the thought leadership material delivers to your sales and marketing team as well as the consultants, engineers, accountants, etc in the business

A fellow writer on marketing and thought leadership, Dana van den Heuvel has also taken issue with The Economist article.  You can read his blog on the topic here http://tinyurl.com/25nykgr

I’d be interested in your views. Please share them.

10 Responses to “The Economist on thought leadership – hypocritical or valid point?”

1. Sean Williams says:

   September 21, 2010 at 21:55

   Craig, nice job calling out The Economist on speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

   Of course, from THEIR perspective, they are the Fourth Estate, journalism at its best, whilst consultancies are rabble, scrabbling for filthy lucre through manipulation and deceit. (Yes, even paragons of capitalism often think that about those outside of journalism.)

   A worthy question to the writer might be, “well, what would you call it?” I guess even the use of marketing language might fall short in that writer’s eyes.

   One addition to your list of potential metrics — conversations. Have the consultant ask about the thought leadership articles — in the specific. What messages made it through to the client? Did they think the material helpful and valuable?

   Good on ya Craig!
   Sean
   @commammo
2. craig says:

   September 22, 2010 at 10:14

   Sean, love your point about conversations. In our technology infused world too little is made of conversations these days yet it is these conversations that lead to relationships that lead to trust that lead to business. Thanks.
3. Peter Church says:

   September 22, 2010 at 16:49

   Is all research thought leadership? Free research from Investment companies – company perfomance, predictions, market information – is very valuable to clients. The measurement you define is key for the producer of thought leadership. For the client however it’s the quality and relevance of the material.
4. craig says:

   September 22, 2010 at 16:57

   Peter, you have put your finger on it in your last line “it’s the quality and relevance of the material.” Spot on mate. That is why it is so important for thought leadership material to be strategically planned from a client-centric perspective.

   A lot of so called thought leadership material is merely inwardly focused, company-centric material with nary a thought for the end receiver or how it can improve their lives/business challenges.

   Great to hear from you.
5. Al Wheatley says:

   September 28, 2010 at 19:51

   Craig you don’t even make the final link here: who is the biggest supplier to these consultancies of what they even call “thought leadership” on their website? Yup you guessed it The Economist Intelligence Unit, the wholly owned subsidiary of The Economist, to the tune of tens of millions of pounds. How does this article make the likes of KPMG, PWC, Siemens and CIMA who are spending huge sums buying this thought leadership from the very people who are slagging it off?
6. craig says:

   October 5, 2010 at 09:30

   Al, if what you say is on the money, good for you for pointing it out.
7. Guy Dunn says:

   February 4, 2011 at 19:58

   I work for the Economist Intelligent Unit’s thought leadership business. I have to defend The Economist as it is not being hypocritical here. There is a complete church and state chasm between the Economist editorial team and the Economist Group’s more commercial business, including its ‘thought leadership’ businesses. The Economist journalist team feel free to express their opinion on any subject they choose, regardless of (as in this instance) it effectively means they are criticising another part of the company. In fact, criticising another part of the company could even mean that the journalist is even keener to make the comment!
   This editorial independence is a cornerstone of The Economist and something to celebrate. It can bring problems for other parts of the Group though. For instance, we recently had to cancel a conference in an emerging market as several of that country’s ministers (including the prime minister) withdrew as keynote speakers after an article in The Economist criticised them. The writer of the article was completely unswayed about whether an event was taking place or not: they saw a story and simply wrote it. That is how it should be.
   Our thought leadership businesses maintain the same editorial standards of rigour, transparency and integrity as The Economist. They have to as they operate under the company’s brand. However, the same church and state chasm does not make sense as it operates as a consultancy and clearly needs to meet clients etc.
   I hope this helps.
   Very interesting website, by the way.
8. craig says:

   February 7, 2011 at 12:32

   Guy great to hear from you and specifically that The Economist’s editorial independence is so vigourously upheld. No doubt your thought leadership efforts have met with some success over the years. Maybe you can share these with the journalist concerned so they are better informed next time they decide to pen a story on the subject.
9. Isabelle Cave says:

   April 1, 2011 at 19:34

   Guy, at the end of the day clients buying your thought leadership are doing so to associate themselves with the power of The Economist brand. It is disingenuous to claim that criticizing your own products (which The Economist Group makes millions out of) is somehow a sign of integrity. It is at best an unscripted “Ratner” moment that indicates the contempt the journalists have for the commercial people who ultimately pay their wages and at worst breath-taking hypocrisy.
10. craig says:

    April 4, 2011 at 10:38

    Isabelle, some pretty strong views – hopefully it stimulates some more debate. Thanks for contributing.