In their research, the authors found that average growth
professional services firms had a greater affinity for ‘thought leadership
marketing’ than companies that actually grew rapidly.  They found this somewhat surprising
initially, but eventually concluded:

“Upon
closer examination, we discovered that what many firms call thought leadership
is often so technical and esoteric that it sails over their clients’ heads.
It’s as though they are saying, ‘Look how smart we are!’  You can just picture the glazed-over looks
they get. Of course they’re smart. They are professionals—everyone assumes they
are technically competent.  When high
growth firms invest in thought leadership, however, they address issues of
greater relevance to their target audiences. These firms want to be known for finding
practical answers to clients’ common problems. 
They care less about impressing their peers. So while high growth firms
may emphasize thought leadership less, they tend to do it right.”

To paraphrase an old adage, what often passes as thought
leadership is simply a solution in search of a problem.  What prospective clients want to hear about
are real-world solutions to the actual problems that they face.
_John

I agree that the term is loosely used and as a result stuff that is tagged as thought leadership is more often than not merely good (sometimes not so good) content.

Unfortunately the English language sometimes doesn’t capture the true meaning of a phrase.  Take public relations as an example – a hotly debated and much abused term for decades.  And the debate still rages as it will over thought leadership.

My prediction is that thought leadership will not disappear.  On the contrary it is a rapidly growing area of communications, one that I believe will become more and more sophisticated as people realise the value of thought leadership implemented properly.

You’re right.  It is pretentious, it is bastardized.  But I don’t believe it will fail and far from disregarding social media, great thought leadership campaigns embrace social media.

PS all the best in your new role.     

I see your point about using the term marketing but I’m a big believer in calling things what they really are. If a company is paying its people to come up with good ideas and using those ideas to create a relationship that makes people more likely to buy stuff, that is not “editorial,” it is in fact marketing. If you put yourself in the shoes of CFOs or CIOs, they are never going to equate what’s coming out of a company with what’s coming out of a true editorial outlet like the NYT or the WSJ (unless they believe that the press is not really objective to begin with, which is a different discussion). They understand that whatever comes out of a company, no matter how objective in its approach and how devoid of product mentions, has an ulterior motive. I think one of the reasons that customers dislike the term thought leadership so much is that it doesn’t acknowledge that fact. Now, I wouldn’t go calling your customer portal an idea marketing portal, but I wouldn’t call it a thought leadership portal either. I use the term for the consumption of marketers, who need to understand that brochures do not constitute thought leadership just by upping the design quality and making them longer. It is the marketing of ideas and those ideas must come from outside marketing. I think that by trying to come up with a name that’s intended to be consumed by customers as well as marketers, we lose our credibility with them. Thanks for commenting!

And I agree “content marketing,” emphasizes quantity and just doing something to get it done, vs putting out great editorial material that people need to read now. It seems to me that creators of great for-lack-of-a-better-word content will further differentiate themselves in their markets over the next couple of years.

Good point. Thought leaders don’t need to be described as such. They just are.