Thought leadership was traditionally seen as a top-of-the-funnel activity that was primarily focused on building brand and strengthening reputation. There may have been a nod to commercial impact but the reality was that the concept was usually a long way from sales. Topics were visionary and future-focused, but this meant that it was often difficult to see a clear line of sight through to a product or service conversation. Sales teams were rarely consulted in the early stages of projects, and often had lacklustre support for these programmes when they were completed, complaining that they were too abstract and disconnected from the realities of their customers’ needs.

Although there is still a lingering sense that thought leadership and sales do not mix, rather like oil and water, the reality in most companies is that a purely “ivory tower” approach to thought leadership is no longer tenable. It is just not commercially viable to invest in a function where the only currency is ideas, rather than the commercial value that those ideas can bring to the business. I have heard numerous Chief Marketing Officers say that thought leadership now has an explicit revenue target, and there is clearly greater pressure to demonstrate that marketing campaigns have a tangible short-term commercial impact, as well as helping to strengthen brand.

It has always been difficult to demonstrate the impact of thought leadership on brand equity. Isolating the role that content plays, versus any of the myriad other factors that can influence brand perception, is nigh on impossible. Most companies end up using proxies, like PR coverage, or they simply take it as read that there is a positive relationship. There has often been a degree of pure faith required in companies that are enthusiastic producers of thought leadership because actual evidence is hard to find.

The revenue impact of thought leadership is slightly easier to demonstrate. Companies can theoretically calculate the number of conversations with potential buyers that were initiated as a result of a thought leadership campaign and, to an extent, the sales that resulted from this. But it would be absurd to say that thought leadership alone was responsible for a sale. The best that can be hoped for is an “assist”. Yet even here, collecting data is problematic. CRM systems are not set up for this purpose, sales cycles are long, meandering and complex, and the relationship between sales and marketing is often not strong enough to foster consistent information sharing and alignment of goals.

Some companies will try to calculate the financial value of campaigns, usually via an attribution model that applies some percentage of the sale to the impact of thought leadership. But this is fraught with problems, not least because it is highly challenging to track the activity of an entire buying committee, as well as the very long time period between consuming thought leadership and concluding a purchase. The impact that thought leadership had on that sale is usually long forgotten by the time the ink on a contract has dried.

This drive to short-term impact is causing problems for marketing directors who worry about the effects of neglecting to invest in brand-building thought leadership. A recent report from B2B Marketing found that 76% of CEOs cannot justify marketing investment unless it generates leads while 73% of CEOs believe sales is a bigger growth driver than marketing (1). This speaks to a disconnect between marketing and the executive team. Another report from McKinsey found that 66% of CMOs said their CEOs were not comfortable with modern marketing. It also estimated that only 10% of Fortune 250 CEOs have marketing experience, and only 4% have previously held a role akin to the CMO (2).

The push for shorter-term revenue impact from thought leadership is understandable in the current climate, but it is risky if the balance of effort, budget and resources tips too far towards the performance side of the equation and away from brand. Short-term targets may be met, but future demand fuelled by brand is compromised. This makes it critical for marketing teams to tread a very careful line between the two, and to continue justifying the ongoing investment in brand to sceptical leadership teams. It is reasonable to expect marketing directors to use thought leadership as a tool for commercial impact but it is also reasonable for them to protect what made this approach successful in the first place. So how do they protect the brand value of thought leadership, while still demonstrating that they understand the importance of investing in commercial impact? Here are a few potential ideas.

Reposition brand as future demand. Most marketing metrics mean nothing to executive leadership. KPIs like downloads, MQLs, click-rates and so on simply leave them cold because they cannot see the connection between them and their own priorities of growth and margin. The word brand can also be a turn-off around the board table, because it has connotations of fluffy, vague and creatively-led initiatives that are only weakly connected with hard performance metrics. A simple shift of language may make all the difference. Rather than talking about investing in brand, position this as investing in future demand by focusing on buyers who are not yet ready to convert. This has a clearer connection to financial value.

Protect the barbell model. Thought leadership needs to be seen as a portfolio of activities; it is not a binary decision between brand and performance. Some assets are designed to shape future demand, and can afford to be more creative and visionary, while others are closer to the sales conversation, and therefore more practical and immediate. Maintaining a strict balance between the two is critical to prevent an over-emphasis on one side or the other. Both can co-exist as part of a holistic marketing narrative.

Highlight the value of intellectual property. CFOs may not always understand the power of brand, but they do understand the value of corporate R&D and intellectual property. Thought leadership needs to be positioned as analogous to these functions. It’s about creating unique, proprietary insight that builds competitive differentiation and strengthens perceptions of the company as an innovator in its field.

Ditch the MQL and focus on an account level. The MQL is a widely hated metric. It is based on a false assumption that a prospect who engages in some kind of marketing activity - downloading a report or viewing a webinar, for example - is a potential buyer. Of course, the connection between these activities and future buying intent is weak at best. When the focus of thought leadership campaigns is on lead generation and the creation of new MQLs, this does the activity a disservice. Sales teams don’t believe in MQLs and finance teams don’t respect them. There needs to be a better understanding of how thought leadership generates commercial impact, rather than just vague engagement and hopeful lead scoring. That requires a better understanding of the sales process, and how thought leadership can be used to initiate and accelerate deals, and build consensus among buyer groups. It also requires looking across the buyer group at an account level, rather than focusing on individual leads.

Remember the power of anecdotes. Data has become the lifeblood of marketing, but anecdotes are still powerful. Marketing directors who can relay stories about how a piece of thought leadership unblocked a stalled deal and got it over the line, or how it initiated a conversation with a potential new buyer, are gold dust. They show the power of thought leadership in clear terms and in a way that is much more immediate and impactful than a dashboard full of traditional marketing metrics.

At Exhibit B, we help companies design thought leadership strategies that satisfy both brand-building and commercial impact. If you’d like to learn more, please get in touch.

‍

(1)  Most Valuable Player? How B2B marketers can take more control of growth, B2B Marketing

(2) The power of partnership: How the CEO–CMO relationship can drive outsize growth, McKinsey

‍