Thought leadership media op-eds

The benefits of thought leadership as opinion pieces published in the media include that they are opinion and not news reporting (so the necessity for factual accuracy is not a focus); they give the writer greater control over how their thoughts are represented; they provide an increasingly resource-challenged media with valuable content; and their generally exclusive offering helps foster an enhanced relationship with a strategically valuable media outlet.

The most frequently quoted benefits of thought leadership are its positioning, differentiation and sales lead generation benefits.  These benefits are emphasised the more synergistic they are with the qualities of the individual and/or organisation producing the thought leadership.

Those organisations with an innovation dimension, which clearly have a business based on the necessity of intelligence and the need to foster their own intellectual property, have a clear advantage in pursuing thought leadership content production as a fundamental organisation stakeholder communication strategy:

• The business is in lockstep with its strategic communication
• Momentum is enhanced
• Benefits are magnified

Regardless, however, the following points remain salient for all organisations.

Factual reporting dying the death

It has been purported that the media has become increasingly reliant on ‘comment’ and analysis, rather than straight factual reporting. This, it has been speculated, has been driven by the reduction of journalists being employed by media outlets, which has become a tragically rampant phenomenon in Australia in the past few years.

An outcome of the ruthless journalist cull has been the decline of the rigour and fact checking media applies to its news stories. As a result, by natural evolution there is more ‘thought leadership’ or opinion pieces appearing than there once were, written both by journalists themselves and non-journalist media ‘outsiders’.

Because these pieces have a strong personal opinion slant and are not predicated on reporting straight facts, there is less of a need to ensure the content of these pieces is accurate by the letter of the law. One wonders if this is accelerating the media’s tendency towards sensationalising stories, with the underlying old school attitude of ‘don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story’ becoming, as it once was, a predominant paradigm.

Perhaps, in Australia, we should ask 'journalists' like Andrew Bolt and Mark Latham this question?

An embedded irony in the media lacking the resources (and possessing what sometimes seems to be a credo to shoot first and fire [i.e. fact check] later) is this makes it more like the media-criticised blogotariat who, we are intermittently told, can’t be trusted because they don’t have the due diligence of traditional media.

For those of us who have worked in media relations for any time, this criticism is profoundly disingenuous. I’ve lost track of the times when issues have been comprehensively misrepresented and/or stories have featured incorrect information. This is especially the case with right-leaning media outlets in Australia (yeah, okay, personal political leaning made apparent here...).

Winning greater control over reputation and brand

Thought leadership, as expressed in a published opinion piece in the media, allows the author to express their thoughts with greater clarity and accuracy than being interviewed for an article. The interview is edited at the journalist’s and editor’s discretion. It is highly unlikely the interviewee will be shown the article to see if their opinions are fairly represented or, certainly, if the article represents the issues/facts accurately.

The media often does not have the time to do this, nor does it have the interest.

In an ideal world, nor is there anything wrong with this approach. This ‘ideal world’ involves a media which has a genuine passion for representing facts accurately and in a manner which the broader community (or its targeted group of readers) will gain value from. Sadly, the media is not always aligned with this mindset. Its appetite for conflict, confrontation and a ‘good story’ can override any motivation to get it right.

It would be preferable for the media to not seek recourse from an interviewee’s perspective because the media should offer an objective, balanced fearless perspective, one not swayed by political agendas or influence.

But humans are vulnerable to any sort of influence, so perhaps this is being naively optimistic.

The primary point I am making in this conversation on control, however, is a submitted opinion piece gives the writer more control over their words and how their thoughts are represented. In general, the pieces are published precisely as they have been articulated by the author. This provides the individual and their organisation with the greatest possible potential for optimised positioning and differentiation.

Building better media relationships with PR thought leadership

The provision of thought leadership opinion pieces creates a positive relationship with the media it has been given to. As a result, the media is more likely to call the submitter or submitter’s organisation (before its competitors) when an opportunity to provide comment on an issue emerges.

This is likely to occur because of the mutually beneficial relationship the two parties have and because the ‘provider’ has proven its intellect and worth through having its thoughts accepted for publication. Credibility exists; it doesn’t need to be pitched in. It’s another version of inbound marketing, in fact, before inbound marketing was even invented!

Have you considered the factors regarding thought leadership publication such as control over brand this post flags? What are your thoughts on this? What experiences can you share in pursuing a thought leadership content generation strategy for an organisation?

If you think this post worthy of doing so, please share it through LinkedIn, Twitter et al.