B2B Growth: Your Daily B2B Marketing Podcast
B2B Growth: Your Daily B2B Marketing Podcast

Episode 1712 · 6 months ago

Competing on Thought Leadership, with Robert Buday

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

In this episode, Benji talks to Bob Buday, Founder and CEO at Buday Thought Leadership Partners LLC, and Author of the book "Competing on Thought Leadership".

Today Bob helps us rethink thought leadership. Sharing how to develop exceptional content and create demand for the expertise. Bob defines Thought Leadership as: "The acclaim that a firm or a person earns for developing, marketing and delivering superior expertise in solving complex customer problems. More broadly, and this is important, this as a business strategy, not just a marketing strategy."

Conversations from the front lines and marketing. This is be tob growth. Today I am here with Bob Uday. He has just authored a new book titled Competing on Thought Leadership. I picked it up, I gave it a read, I thought and this is a conversation worth having. And so, Bob, I'm excited to chat with you today on be tob growth. Welcome, thank you. I'm excited to chat about what I know about this topic of thought leadership. Yes, competing on thought leadership. So, before we jump to the book, let's go. What have you been up to in the world? What's your career been about? Tell us a little bit about yourself and what sparked this this interests for writing on this topic. Sure, what I have been doing thought leadership for thirty five years, which bans I've been doing it long before the term was concocted. Yeah, so really by Joel Kursman back in the s when he was at Booze Allen. So what we were doing thirty five years ago we didn't really have a common term for it. We were just I was working at a consulting firm. That said, the way we generate business is by writing publications and giving conference speeches and running our own conferences and, you know, try to get the expertisets in the head heads of our consultants, package it, so to say, and get it out there and a non sales the nonpromotional way. You know, it's like we need to educate. This is how we will educate our target audience and those who are in drinking enough and think we have something to say, they'll raise their hand, they'll call us and we'll say, Hey, I loved your speech or I loved your article. Want to talk to you more about it. Yeah, you define thought leadership as the a claim that a firm or a person earns for developing, marketing and delivering superior expertise, which is exactly what you just said. So even before the term was defined, that's essentially what you're doing. You're educating the market. You're doing that by developing marketing and delivering superior expertise and, when you say in solving complex customer problems. And then, more broadly, and I think this is really important, you see this as a business strategy, not just a marketing strategy. So break that down a bit. How is this a business strategy and not just simply a function of marketing. So most people think of thought leadership as a marketing strategy. Right. That's thought leadership. Marketing is, I think, what most people think about. My careers has been working with firms that are in the business of delivering expertise. They sell their expertise. These firms are management consulting firms, law firms, architecture firms, it services firms, training and development companies. There in the business of telling their expertise. You're hiring them because you want to solve a certain problem in your company. So they're in the business, or they should be in the business, of creating new expertise, because expertise, especially in the last decade or so, gets obsolete faster. There in the business of developing expertise, improving the expertise they have, of course, delivering it to market, more training and developing their people to operate at the performance of the best people in their firm. And of course they're in the business of creating demand for their expertise, and that means marketing, selling and doing research when they need to take a step back and say we need to upgrade our expertise on solving this business problem or we're going to solve a new business problem and we don't know much about it. So we're going to conduct some primary research to understand what the best companies are doing and solving this problem and how the way they're solving it differ from the...

...rest, or the worst companies especially. So there's a lot when it comes to demand specifically for thought leadership, that I have thoughts on. And but I think we know there's mounting complexity, specifically and for this audience. You're talking to a be to be marketing audience and they're going yeah, continued mounting complexity. How do we continue to kind of all of this complexity has caused this demand for specialized expertise, for thought leadership, but also there's a ton of content out there. So so how do you think of that? There's a growing need for this demand in specialized expertise, but there's also a ton of content, right, that's right. And so the good news is there's growing demand for four people and firms who are deep experts in their domains, growing need. So you know, fifteen years ago we didn't need social media experts in companies, right, because what fest facebook started two thousand and two two thousand and three Linkedin, I think, around the same time, twitter as well. So maybe it's twenty years we didn't need experts in social media because social media was really not a widespread thing. Now we do, and now we have all sorts of people who deponom cells as experts in social media mark so the good news is the the complexity in doing business, especially created by digital technology, means that companies need experts to help them deal with the complexities. So that's the good news. The bad news is it is so easy to find any amount of people who have an opinion or more on any topic, pseudo experts, right. So Google and let's just do that. So, and I haven't done this recently, but if you typed in social media marketing experts and imagine you'd have dozens of search results from Google and and some good content from some of those search results. So back when I started in thought leadership in one thousand nine hundred and eighty seven, there was no google, there was no web. The way we got our expertise out was through printing publications mail, putting them the mail, giving speeches at conferences. That was a high barrier to entry. You had to pay for publishing, mailing, you had to, you know, have people go out and give speeches. That cost money. So getting your expertise out there was a lot more difficult it is easy today. You write a white paper, you put it on your website and you you know, you do some social media marketing and all of a sudden you have dozens of people reading it. So that makes for a crowded marketplace and just about any domain, any be tob domain, it's crowded marketplace and that in turn raises the Bar, in my mind, of quality. So when we're competing against dozens or hundreds of other people who are trying to show off their expertise, that's a much different game than competing against five or three yep that professed to have deep expertise on some topic. Yeah, you figure out over time as well that how you're going to differentiate. It can be on the depth of which you go, and we'll talk about some of the different sort of categories we need to be hitting on when we think of thought leadership and also think we're watching right now. This happened in BBC and I'm it's happening more in B tob as well, where people are differentiating based on tone of voice, on personality of who the thought leader is as a individual for the company, like as a spokesperson. So you're seeing people get more and more unique in how they present themselves as thought leaders, because we realize the more crowded this gets, some of this content is getting commoditized. But there's still ways to differentiate and to be a deep thought expert in your field, and I that's what's interesting. More voices, but still so much space for thought leadership. Right. That's right. And...

...the ultimate differentiator is evidence behind the prescriptions that you're voicing in the market place. There's a great example, current example, the metaverse. Is Anybody proved to anybody that companies are making a ton of money off metaverse? If they have, I haven't read about it. I am a't right, but a lot of companies are spelling a lot of spilling, a lot of digital link talking about the metaverse. Microsoft, Goldman, Sachs, all, you name it, everybody, Mark Zuckerberg. It's like a land rush. Okay, the metaverse, you gotta be you got to be in there. You know, companies got to be in there, got to play. They fought leader or thought leaders on the metaverse, I predict will be the people and organizations that bring forth proof that companies that are doing metaverse like things are getting significant business benefit from doing so. When we start to see those case examples and what those companies did to get those kind of benefits, that I think people like me will listen to them and say, Oh, this really isn't hype, this metaverse. You know, it's it's not something a fad that's going to go away in two years. There really is something there. But until you know, until there's evidence behind the assertions that we all want to make they have this, that what I'm telling you you should do really works. It's just theory. It's you know, no matter how well it's put, it's still theory. I think of it as right now, in this season for a platform like a metaverse, you can have reporters who then can become trusted voices because they're going, oh, this is what's going on in the space. You're reporting on what's happening. You can't report on the facts in a thought leadership, evidence based way yet because there hasn't been enough runway, there hasn't been enough time to collect all the data. But if you can distinguish your voice. Let's say you wanted to be an expert on the metaverse. Become a reporter. Don't say the don't think you're a thought leader yet, because it's impossible to be one. Let's just report on what we're seeing take place and then, Bill, you'll see that you had that interest from the beginning. Five years from now, when you're looking back, you are a trusted voice that built that can then talk on evidence. So that's where I think the space is with the new platforms. But you're totally right. There's a lot of people that talk like a thought leader but don't have thought leader evidence, and that's why they lack authority. So okay, let's talk about that. What are the four elements you believe to a thought leadership strategy? So successful thought leadership requires first having a strategy and that and that really comes down to a company saying what customer problems in the world do we need to own, and what problems do we not need to own, even though they're related, and we could see us wandering into solving these customer problems. What customer problems in the world do we want to own? So a great example of this is a firm called integrated project management. They've been around since the s. There are, you can tell by the name, a project management consulting firm. They work with a lot of the large pharmaceutical companies, especially those that have vaccines, for covid in helping their people manage these very complex clinical trials and other aspects of the drug development process. So IPM in a great project management the client problem they solve is when you have a big, very complex project with a lot of moving pieces and you can't have, you know, many or any pieces kind of drop. You need industrial strength project management expertise. Where the one. So IPM. That's the customer problem that they've owned for thirty years and that's at right. So you can build...

...a very large and lucrative firm based on that. In the book I talked about a firm called urban science and if you remember that passage, it's a firm in Detroit that I think they're roughly thirty years old. The problem that they have owned since day one is helping auto manufacturers make the monumental decision of where do we locate our car dealers? All right, by studying traffic patterns, population, Democrat and other demographic the like. Where do we put the dealer? Because that's a consequential decision. You put a dealer on a wrong straight and competing dealerships open in much more accessible locations or where there they're more the target customer and that hurts the dealership and that, of course, hurts the auto manufacture. So now they branched out from owning that customer problem to owning some more problems of autom manufactures the dealerships. But still that's what that's the customer problem that they focused on and have stayed rooted on, and the last time I checked they had a thousand people working in this firm, privately held firm focused on largely one customer problem. How do we make the dealers make more money? One customer problem. You go on to say that. Then the second would be how the company will develop exceptional content about solving those core client problems. So you know, a lot of people know the problem that they solved, but many don't go to that second step of saying we're going to create exceptional content. That's right and they often feel that. Well, the the experience we've had in the field, whether it's a law firm, you know our lawyers now to how to defend against class action lawsuits. You know, we or are consultants. They know how to help clients design efficient supply chains. The reason for primary research is to help avoid the scenario of you know what, our expertise is outdated. There's a new consulting firm, new law firm, new accounting firm, new what other firm that is is aimed at the same customer problem that we thought we owned, that we were the the by far the best, but this other firm has solved it better. You know, they brought new thinking to this problem. So this is the reason for primary research, in thought leadership, in studying best practice companies against the rest, especially the worst practice, and understanding why do the best companies solve this problem better than the worst? And this is the kind of research that I saw work many years ago, back in the late s and s that led to the biggest consulting service of the S, which was business engineering. It was that kind of research, studying how the best companies were managing information technology. What did they do differently than the companies that got little or no payback from information technology? It was that primary research that enabled the firm I work for, to say the best companies. Here's the way the best companies do it. They rethink business processes across the silos. He's information technology to share information across across silos that hadn't been shared before, which reduces time to market, improves quality, improves effective that thought leadership, that concept was built on the back of primary research and that's the reason that firm set the world on fire back in the early and mid s with that concept. It did the primary research that led to the big idea and one of the many things that Michael Hammer, who was really in the forefront of working with the firm I worked at. He was the father of re engineering. This is reengineering. Mike was once to asked by a reporter. He said so, Mike, how did YOU INVENT RE engineering? And Mike said I...

...didn't invent reengineering, I discovered it. HMM, those words meant a lot. People Thought, Oh, Mikey, you know he was in a shower one day and he said, oh well, you know, this is what I only need to do now. That's not what happened. Yeah, there were the research and I was at an occasional researcher and when they when they needed somebody to help interview companies. That research was Bayed on. I think it was sixty or seventy companies that opened up their doors and talked about how they were using information technology in the late s and and from Mike Rea Hammer and the research team stepping back from these interviews and saying, all right, so the companies that were getting the biggest payback from it, what did they do differently? You know what's going on here, folks. So Mike would say I invented really, I didn't invent re engineering. I discovered it, and meaning I discovered it by having my research team do these interviews with companies that told us a whole bunch of things that nobody else would put together. The other large consulting firms at the time, Mackenzie, Boston consulting group, Bain, nobody, certainly the software vendors, had done this kind of customer research and that led to the biggest consulting service segment of the s. It was an almost five billion dollar a year segment by ninety five, according to Gartner. So that when thought leadership research pays off handsomely. Hey B to be gross listeners. We want to hear from you. In fact, we will pay you for it. Just head over to BDB growth podcom and complete a short survey about the show to enter for a chance to win two hundred and fifty dollars. Plus. The first fifty participants will receive twenty five dollars as our way of saying thank you so much one more time. That's BTB, growth podcom, letter B. Number two, letter be growth podcom. One entry per person. must be an active listener of the show to enter and look forward to hearing from you. That led to the biggest consulting service segment of the s. It was an almost five billion dollar a year segment by ninety five according to Gartner. So that, when thought, leadership, research pays off handsomely. Yeah, so we have these four elements. We talked about the core problem. Then you have how the company will develop the content. You go to three and four, being how to create demand for the expertise you can provide and then how to ramp up services. That solve those problems. Really, what I want to do, because we have limited time, is focus on those middle two and we've done a bit of that here around developing exceptional content but we'll talk about creating demand for the expertise in a minute. So if we're, as marketers were, on a mission to create that excellent content, I would say, and I've felt this as a marketer, it can feel vague, it can feel kind of undefined and when it pertains to developing thought leadership, there has to be some sort of filter that we run things through. So you've put this bit in a list form and we'll go into it in some detail, but tell me a bit about a filter that you use to define great content. So the filter, you know, the nine criteria or nine hallmarks of great thought leading content, begins with novelty. Are we saying something new here about how to solve the problem? For Not saying something new, why should the audience pay attention? They can go get it somewhere else. Depth, you know, how much of these folks showing us about their understanding of the problem and a better way to solve it? Evidence, the most important of these nine criteria. Do they...

...have proof that the solution actually works and that that is produced sizeable results for companies? Without evidence, you have theory, that's all you have. Relevance, you know, is this an here and now problem? Or is this a problem that they say we're going to run into in five years but nonetheless we must do something about it? Today it's a much harder thing to make a to to generate demand from thought leadership, from to say Yeah, you folks may not believe this, but in five years you know this is going to happen. Nobody's thinking that Farhad and Rigger, you know, I look at thought leadership as a narrative argument. You know a problem in the world, why existing solutions fall short in solving it, a better a new and better solution that actually works better, obstacles to adopting that new solution and how to overcome them, and then why companies should move now. So so that's an argument to make. Okay, so the rigger, this notion of rigor, comes into play. Of Have you made a persuasive argument? Are there pieces of the argument that you have forgotten because you know the argument so well? This is going back to a book called the curse of Knowledge, Hm that knowledge made to stick, in which the concept was the curse of knowledge. Smart people who master a topic know so much about it that when they try to explain it to people, they say let's say there's ten logic points. They say point a, point B, they skip point C and d because they think everybody knows that. Well, not. Not Everybody knows that, and so they you get lost in the argument. So so rigger of argument? Is this a persuasive argument, and part of that is evidence, but have they unfolded this argument in a way for the reader or viewer to get it, to grasp it? Hey, that's rigger. Clarity is a little different than rigor. Clarity is are you writing or speaking in terminology that your target audience understands? So I've read that educational level of the Wall Street Journal reader is like eleventh grade. They write eleventh grade readership level. They're not writing to a PhD level, right. And so the most effective thought leaders are those who say things very plainly, speak very clearly and don't spell out acronym after acronym and hi, a concept after high big concept. So that's clarity and and there's some other criteria, but those, those are the, you know, the most important ones, and a good way to after you've written an article or a presentation, a good thing to do is to stand back and say, okay, does it make these criteria. Where is it strong? Where could it be improved? How could I improve it? Evidence? All I have is one case example. People believe what I'm trying to tell them with one case example. Okay, I better get a couple more. All Right, get a couple more. What about the results? You know the improvements in those case examples? Are They big enough? Are there? Are there any results? Improvements supported? Right, Yeh. So it's a way kind of say, how do I know this ship, rocket ship, is going to actually get off the launch pad? Their ways to do that. It helps you get a baseline and then it helps with iteration because you run it back through the filter. Right. It's a purification system over time that then you create momentum off of, and that's why I like thinking through it. I think a lot of us are creating content and when you remove a piece of this, I'll go back to that same phrase because we say it a lot around here and around sweet fish, but commodity content happens often when you're missing some of this stuff, like you might have just evidence but you haven't presented a point of view. So now you're lacking in a different area, and especially as we see a rise in the Betab space...

...of a need, in a want and a desire for data. Everything, every conversations about data. If all your company does is present data, you're actually not differentiating yourself because you're not telling us your opinion about how you read the data. There's no room for you to be a thought leader if all you do is just provide information. So I think these nine are fantastic. Yeah, but most important, with that data, and it means great, you need data and you need a real examples. It's not just quant right, it's qual. We need stats and stories. Right, that's the evidence. But as you're as you're appointed to Benjie, we also need to say we need to wrap those stats and stories around. Here's what we're telling you you should do. Here's you know, we told you about this problem. You can decide whether you have the problem, and we're telling you how to solve it. And we have weird stating story, but that's the point of view. Tell me how to solve this problem. Just don't speal out that facts and stories and not tell me what I should do about it. Tell me what I should do about it. And a lot of companies either don't say okay, if we now not. We don't need to tell them what to do, because if we tell them what to do and a presentation or white paper that they won't hire us. You know, then we're kind of giving it away. I have want to be denied. You want to tell them what to do, because then you're you set yourself up as the guide. Correct if it's as easy for them to read your white paper or your book, just read and can get great results and you don't really have much of a business. And it's rarely that easy to just read somebody's book or read a White Paper and operate at the level of skill that the authors operate that. It's never that. It's never that easy. Okay, so let's say we've done the work, we've done the research, we create great content, and now what we are needing to do is we're needing to create demand for the expertise that we provide. Give me an example that comes to mind for you of a person or an organization who has done this truly effectively and correctly. So one great example is a firm we work with in Twenty fifteen and two thousand and sixteen. It's a pricing strategy consulting firm called Simon Coucher and partners. They're based in Germany. They are the premier experts on pricing and which we price our product or service at. They came to us. We help them develop a book on pricing strategy, especially for technology products. The book was called Monetizing Innovation. It's been a best seller. It's been a piece of thought leadership that they have used that has helped them grow fifty percent, I think, over five years, two thousand and sixteen to two two thousand and twenty one. And the way it's and the way they brought that content to market is, in addition to the book and getting a whole lunch bunch of promotion around the book, they run conferences. So they have, you know, the authors from the book. They've had them appear at their conferences. I think they were doing forty or fifty conferences around the world before the pandemic. Pr Right, getting reporters to interview the books, excerpts, giving private company presentations. You know, a Linkedin says I would love your book. Can you give a presentation to our executives here? We'd love the book. So the Malt the marketing mix for thought leadership is is multifaceted. It's not just one thing. Oh, you know, we've mailed at white paper. Were One and done. That's a recipe for failure. It's it's multiple ways to the market that book. They're still they're still speaking on the basis of that book six years later. You know, look at monetizing innovation and and one of the two authors made revenue, John or Gee Org is co author, a Gier, who I think has retired. But they're still marketing that book six years later. It's still, I imagine, generating...

...business for them. So the marketing mix for thought leadership is, is what I say in the book, is High Band with low bias as opposed to low band with high bias. So, you know, high bandwidth means it's marketing channels in which we can impart a lot of information, because we're going to have to show people how smart we are. So high bandwidth channels are things like white papers, op eds, Harvard business review articles, conference presentations. Okay, Hi band with low band with channels are not nearly as effective for thought leadership. Low Band withth is we can only impart a little information because in an advertisement of one or two page add you know we're not going to write a, you know, print a two thousand word article on a two page you donment or trade show boots. Okay, low band with high bias and low bias. So low bias is the audience doesn't think you're trying to sell them anything you they think you're trying to educate them. So this is the difference between somebody speaking at a conference and somebody operating behind a conference booth. Everything's branded. So high band with low bias. Channels to market are the best ones for thought. Leadership. Those are different. INATIONAL marketing channels, right, those are those are different. It's not like putting a golf at it says jpmg on it or nothing wrong with that, but that's not how you do that. Leadership. Different type of marketing? Yeah, different type of marketing. Not to put that down at all. It's good brand image marketing. Oh, you know, KPMG is is a sponsor of the masters. They must be a big firm, they must schmove with executives. You know that that's important. Or marathon sponsorship. One of our clients taught a consultancy services as sponsored the major marathons around the world, including the New York Marathon and the Boston marathon up here where I am. Great brand image, great brand image, not the leadership, though, but great brand image. Yeah, that's why I think you're so spot on with saying this is more about business than it is just about a marketing ploy and I love that you also explain how you get the message out there as this this ripple in the pond approach to thought leadership. Right, so you have moving out from owned to shared, two earned to paid, into this way of thinking about it. Then I'm like, yeah, ultimately we have this owned property right, and there's a lot of people, I don't want to say this, I'm not going to just spout out a lot of people because that's not our fact, but you know, there's many out there that have an owned piece of content that could separate them from the market, but they don't know how to put it properly out there for them to actually become thought leaders. They've created some piece of content that they hope is attracting people, but once you get beyond just the owned media, you have to figure out a way to get that ripple effect happening right. So explain that a little bit. How you move out from just owned to then the ripples that you see in the pond. So obviously the own platforms are our websites, right, if we run our own conferences, that kind of thing, the our your email newsletter, those are important. I'm not we're not advocating against that. We're advocating for those. So the shared content are things like I post on Linkedin, right, or an issue a tweet, or or I post an article on mediumcom. So those, those platforms are not yours, but you can publish easily on them, right, but anybody can publish on them then. So those are important. That will get the message out and get people to your own content on your website. And we think the place where you got to wind up getting people to is your website, all right, because then you begin to control the sales process, right, and what else they can...

...learn about your company. So the shared shared content is important to get them to your website and because there are a lot more people typically and linkedin than are on the typical companies email mailing list. But shared content, the reader knows the difference between getting that same content as a linkedin post and getting that content in a prestigious publication like am slow management review or a Harvard Business Review or the oppened section of a newspaper. Those opportunities are earned and those kind of publications reject more than ninety percent of the unsolicited submissions that they get. So the reader knows the difference. Like, well, if it's in Harvard Business Review, it must be very good, because the content read content. Yeah, it's curated and it's edited heavily often by it people at each of you are. And so I could run the same article on Linkedin and if HBRE ran it, and they wouldn't if they have sought on Linkedin. So you know, we'd all aduse clients to do it, and I don't. I don't do that. But if I managed to run the same article on my linkedin profile as ran under my name at Hbr, I can guarantee you the one a hbre would generate a lot more interest, would be seen as much more credible, much more believable, even though they're the same one hundred words as what I said on Linkedin, simply because of the credibility of that platform. So so that's owned media and that is really important, especially as more and more people are are are putting their content on their website and using linkedin another shared media. You know what kind of begins to separate the week from the chaff. Is Are you getting? Are you earning your place in the venues that your target audience is actually reading and putting stocking? And then there's the paid media. You know, that's adds, right, Google, add words, Linkedin ads, twitter ads, facebook ads, etc. That can get too much bigger audiences, but but at the end of the day their advertisements and so people know that. Yeah, that's a me seems like the kind of icing on the cake in a sense. When you think about thought leadership, people, you can skip around within this framework. When you're just thinking of advertising more generally, you jump to paid more quickly if you're thinking about just ads, but when you're thinking of thought leadership you're not not really at that ripple until you've created. Those the the first ones that we talked about there. So I love the I'm a very visual person, Bob, so I like the way that you laid that out. But one other rite out about the ripples in the pond is you know, and I say this in the book, the better the content you have, the bigger the rock. You know, to use this metaphor that you're throwing into the more ripples you're creating. Mediocre content is, you know, it's like a small it's like a small rock. Throw it out there, not a lot of ripples. As a marketer, the worst things for marketers are to have to market crappy content. They dread having to do that, and for bosses to expect miracles from crappy content or or mediocre you know, marketers dream is is to have truly unique and compelling content. You just know, right, we all know that that's going to get a lot more legs out there, it's going to get a lot of word them out, a lot of shares, etc. When you nail a piece of content. So the better the content, the bigger the wrote, the bigger the rock you're throwing into the pond and the more ripples that are going to emanate from that. Yeah, I think of that because on this show, I know we're in recent weeks, we've talked a lot about pillar content and when you're taking pillar content into this thought leadership approach, the way that you could see it similarly, is even if you were just creating this piece of content wants a quarter or twice a year to begin where you're putting a ton of F it in, but the...

...amount of content that can come out of that one piece is almost limitless, like it's worth the extra effort to have this cohesive piece of content you've created that. Then other videos can come out of other topics for your blog can come out of other but you're really really working to make that rock as big as possible so that the ripples really are endless. We got to take guys, start to wrap this thing up. This's been a fascinating conversation, but I want to I want to go back to basically where we were at the beginning, this idea that this has to be a business strategy and not just a peace in the marketing plan. So when we're thinking of implementation from the top levels on down, I wonder, Bob, what would you leave us with is you think about what this should look like? What are the high level conversations or the structures that have to be in place first for us to really be competing on thought leadership? That's a fantastic question, because there are a lot of people in big firms there their head of thought leadership, researcher, the cheap marketing officer and they will come to us and they say we don't have a big enough budget to do what we want. Most of the top management team has a skeptical view on thought leadership. You know, if it works then they'll give us more, but they're not sure they should be doing it in the first place. That you know, yeah, we're doing it because so and soap competitors doing it and so it's an expense that has to be minimized. That's that's to you at the top. So if I'm that head of thought leadership, research and or chief marketing officer, the best way I have found to get the folks at the top to actually take a leap of faith and their minds to believe that thought leadership something they need to do get a lot more serious about, is to set up conversations with key clients or firms that could be clients, who executives in these firms who love good thought leadership content. Introduce those folks, half a dozen, if you could get them at a focus group with your top management team and tell your top management team to just listen. Why these people? And you're going to have to select these people make sure that they are in fact advocates that they are big consumers of fout leadership. Have have your your clients talk about why this is so important in the way they do things. I think nothing will. Nothing in our that many CMOS will say or heads of thought leadership research will say to the bosses will count nearly as much, or at account nearly as much as what big clients say. And the hope would be once a leadership team says, you know, the six clients that were in this room represent thirty percent of our revenue, now we get a much better idea, we have a much better idea of why thought leadership matters to them. Then the lightbulbs go on and they say, Gosh, we got to fund this thing. You know, we're starving you guys of funds. We got it. Now. If clients say it's important, it's got to be important for us. Yep, snowball effect from there. Well, we want people to go get the book. It's called competing on thought leadership. Encourage everyone to go grab it. Bob, for people that want to connect with you, what's the best way for them to do that? Sure want is to look at our website, which is Boudet tlpcom or they can email me at Bob at Boudet tlpcom. Well, thanks to everyone who has taken time to listen to this episode. I know it's extremely insightful. It's one that will continue to help us as we are creating content, as we're thinking about the type of work that we're doing, and so love this. If you have not followed the show yet, be sure to do that on whatever platform you're listening too this on. I'd love to connect with you here from you. You can do that on Linkedin. Just Search Benjie Block. Bob One more time.

Thanks for being here man. Thank you, Magie. Great Conversation. Will be back real soon with another episode. We're always excited to have conversations with leaders on the front lines of marketing. If there's a marketing director or a chief marketing officer that you think we need to have on the show, we're reach out. Email me, Beng dot block at Sweet Fish Mediacom. I look forward to hearing from you.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (1805)