Most thought leadership fails because it doesn't actually say anything

Fewer than half of business leaders believe the thought leadership they consume is good. Only 15% think it very good or excellent. Meanwhile, 71% said that less than half of what they read gives them anything of value. 

This is according to Edelman and LinkedIn, who have now surveyed thousands of senior decision-makers across seven consecutive annual reports. But here's what makes this a massive opportunity rather than just a depressing statistic: those same decision-makers are desperate for the good stuff. 

Over half of decision-makers and C-suite executives spend more than an hour a week actively reading thought leadership. Three-quarters said strong thought leadership prompted them to research a product or service they hadn't previously considered. And 70% of C-suite leaders admitted that a piece of thought leadership had led them to question whether they should continue working with an existing supplier. 

The opportunity to be influential is enormous. The bar is high, because we are competing for attention with serious professional publications. But hardly anyone is geared up to clear that bar. Which means any firm that can get over the hurdles finds itself out in front, with very little competition in the war for attention. 

Tell me something good

Most content confuses having a topic with having a thesis. "This piece is about supply chain risk" is a topic. "Most mid-market manufacturers are critically dependent on suppliers they've never properly assessed — and their insurance probably won't cover it"  is a thesis. The first asks for a nod. The second invites a conversation. 

Kickstarting a reader’s internal dialogue is the whole point of thought leadership. 

The 2025 Edelman-LinkedIn report found that 86% of hidden decision-makers — the finance directors, compliance leads, and operations heads who quietly shape purchasing decisions — prefer content that challenges their assumptions. Not content that validates what they already think. Content that makes them see something they'd missed. 

And it needs to speak to them: across multiple years of research, 47% of decision-makers have consistently said most thought leadership doesn't appear to have been created with their specific needs in mind. The market is drowning in content built to make the publisher feel authoritative, not to make the reader think differently.

‘Thought leadership’ has a framing problem

We talk about "thought leadership" as though the goal is to lead. It isn't. The goal is to be useful. Thought leadership is sender-first thinking: it puts the brand at the centre, asks "how do we look authoritative?" and produces content that sounds important while saying not saying much of direct value to its readers.

The better frame is thoughts for leaders — audience-first content that asks a different question entirely: what does this specific person need to think about that they aren't thinking about yet?

The counterargument is obvious

Taking a position is risky. Someone might disagree. A compliance review might soften it. A partner might prefer something "more balanced." 

All true, but beside the point. Because the alternative isn't safety; it's irrelevance. In my 15 year ghost-writing career, with my words appearing in every broadsheet you could name, on more than one occasion I’ve had to water things down to the point that formerly keen editors dropped their interest in the piece. 

There’s no point writing an opinion piece nobody could possibly disagree with. 

A piece nobody objects to is a piece nobody remembers. And in a market where every firm has access to similar data and the same trends, the only sustainable differentiator is the quality of your judgment. You can't demonstrate judgment without exercising it.

The evidence bears this out. 

The 2025 Edelman-LinkedIn report found that 95% of hidden decision-makers — the finance directors, compliance heads, and operations leads who quietly shape purchasing decisions — said strong thought leadership made them more receptive to future outreach. 79% were more likely to advocate for that vendor during procurement. And C-suite executives consistently reported being willing to pay a premium to work with firms that articulate a clear vision. Not a balanced overview, but an actual vision. 

Wide open door

The data doesn't say "play it safe." It says "have something to say, and say it well."  In a market where most competitors are publishing forgettable content, that's not a high-risk strategy. It's a wide-open door. 

The biggest obstacle to better thought leadership isn't writing skill. It's agreeing as an organisation that to grow to $10bn, we need say things that are worth reading. 

Most firms have approval processes designed to eliminate risk, which in practice, can mean quickly eliminating anything anyone anywhere might possibly disagree with. If we want to publish content that cuts through and earns attention, we need to reframe the risk (being noticed versus going under the radar). From there, we need to create a sign-off culture that can tolerate a point of view surviving to publication. 

That's a harder problem than finding something to say, and if we can solve that, we can truly consider ourselves ready to be thought leaders.