A large proportion of corporate thought leadership suffers from what I call the “they would say that, wouldn’t they?” problem. On the face of it, the research looks highly credible. The methodology looks sound and the 40-page doorstop PDF certainly gives the impression of a serious piece of work. And yet, the findings themselves look suspiciously self-serving. We’ve all seen examples of this:

• A cyber security company finds that risks of attacks are increasing by an alarming amount
• An HR tech platform finds that employees and HR teams are wasting a lot of time on routine people administration tasks
• A cloud computing company finds that companies that migrate to the cloud experience lower costs and better performance
• A consulting firm finds that 80% of companies are struggling with digital transformation

Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?

Even in my world of thought leadership, the problem is commonplace. I’ve seen numerous examples from agencies along the lines of:

• C-suite executives spend five hours a week reading thought leadership
• Thought leadership content is an essential way that buyers evaluate potential suppliers
• Buyers will prioritise vendors on the basis of the quality of their thought leadership

It’s understandable why B2B marketers feel the need for findings that neatly align with a commercial agenda. They are under intense pressure to show the value of the investment in thought leadership. Evidence is needed that all this research and content leads to concrete sales, not just some vague brand enhancement or association. It’s natural, when faced with this pressure, to design studies that contain a strong sales message in the hope that this will lead to quicker conversions.

But there is something disingenuous about this approach. Thought leadership is specifically designed to look robust and credible. There’s a methodology, impressive research, a long and detailed analysis to paint a picture of rigour and authority. But if the results themselves are sometimes, at best, a thinly designed sales pitch, then there’s something very jarring about this juxtaposition.

The biggest problem is that this gravely underestimates the audience. Buyer groups are smart and have heard it all before from vendors with an angle to promote. They will spot overly self-serving studies a mile off and quickly tune out messages that smack of vendor bias. It may even damage the supplier’s reputation and disadvantage them in the sales process. Rather than being seen as a “thought leader”, the producer is seen as a “vendor with an agenda”.

Most companies hope that their research will yield earned media coverage, but the data-washing approach does not go down well with journalists, either. They know the difference between something that is well-researched and valuable to their readership and something that feels more like an indirect form of advertising.

The typical “vendor with an agenda” playbook relies on two core principles underpinning the research approach:

• First, identify and, ideally quantify, a significant problem that prospects are facing
• Second, engineer their offering as the only viable solution to this problem

The starting point is to establish that there is a crisis brewing. Most B2B sellers know that the biggest competitor they face is that the buyer does nothing. This is the status quo bias. To overcome this, the vendor must highlight a problem that is large enough to catalyse action. You’ll see this everywhere in thought leadership:

• Paper-based HR administration tasks lose companies $10bn annually in lost productivity
• Legacy infrastructure is consuming 75% of a company’s IT budget

These findings are designed to be so shocking and on such a scale that they become a boardroom issue, rather than just an operational inconvenience. Producers position the issue as mission-critical, instead of being something to worry managers further down the corporate hierarchy. This is precisely why most companies want to elevate their message to the C-suite: because one of the key ways to overcome status quo bias is if the problem presented is sizable enough to galvanise executive decisions that force action.

The second part of the set-up is to show why the producer is the only viable solution to this problem. The method chosen will depend on the company’s positioning in the market.

A category creator will aim to show why the existing solutions are no longer fit for purpose (and indeed may be part of the problem). They will look for research findings that demonstrate dissatisfaction with the incumbent offerings, opening up space for an entirely new category that they have created.

A consolidator will point to the sprawl of existing solutions and aim to show why the only way forward is to unify this sprawl and reduce the chaos of tool or software proliferation. They will look for findings about the difficulty managing multiple solutions or the problem of data and information silos, pointing to consolidation as the perfect solution.

A disruptor will enter an existing category with the aim of highlighting problems with the incumbents, such as high costs, poor service or outdated features. They will seek research findings that demonstrate customer dissatisfaction or losses that come from the failings of the incumbents, and that suggest demand for a new approach.

Put the two together and you have a problem that is serious enough to jolt the audience out of the status quo bias, along with a solution that conveniently aligns with products and services that the vendor offers. Dress it all up as a research-based report and you are ready to take it to market!

Given that this approach is not likely to work well with increasingly discerning audiences, how should companies continue to secure return on investment from thought leadership while still producing something that the audience values? Here are a few ideas.

Build a broad portfolio. More commercially driven thought leadership is not a complete no-no. It still has a role to play within a wider marketing portfolio. The problem arises when this approach is used as a substitute for independent, genuinely insightful research. By all means, promote a commercial agenda but do it within a wider research context, ensuring that as part of the portfolio there are genuinely insightful pieces that are of intrinsic value to the audience, and that do not align so neatly with a sales message. There can then be a logical flow between the two messages: the first is a broad, state-of-the-market piece that is free from commercial plugs, but this can lead more naturally into a conversation that is more specifically focused on the buyer's need.

Don’t bury inconvenient findings. When every finding in a report seems to point to the producer’s commercial solution, it not only looks suspicious; it also does not represent reality. Every buyer knows that implementing any kind of solution, particularly a large enterprise one, is not going to be 100% plain sailing. There will be false starts, setbacks and decisions that need to be reversed before a successful conclusion. Companies that are honest about that, and highlight the difficulties of change, as well as the benefits, will look more credible and trustworthy.

Make the case for credibility metrics. The business wants leads and sales. We get it. But it also needs future demand, as well as current conversion, and it needs to be respected as an authority and expert in its space. Credibility matters, and so the business needs to understand that metrics such as media coverage and dwell time on content (particularly from accounts who are already underway with a sales conversation) have genuine commercial value, even if that does not show up instantly in a pipeline.

Apply the sceptic test. Imagine you are in a one-on-one meeting with your most demanding, sceptical client or prospect, and you are presenting research findings from a study that conveniently align with your sales message. Would they take these findings at face value, and be grateful for your insights, or would they question them and roll their eyes at your conclusions? If it’s the latter, maybe you need to rethink the approach.

Buyers don’t want thinly disguised sales pitches. In fact, most would probably prefer it if the seller was completely honest and did not try to surround the pitch with a veneer of research respectability. Sophisticated buyers quickly spot the “vendor with an agenda” and they will always gravitate towards those who are credible, trustworthy, and have something genuinely insightful to say.

‍