When I was an editor, PRs used to pitch thought leadership pieces to me a lot.
Comms teams and their clients value them because they build credibility, demonstrate authority, and attract attention organically. Journalists – at least ones like me on small editorial teams – like good thought leadership pieces because they add value and don’t eat into the precious editorial budget.
The kinds of people I would look to for thought leadership were the same kinds of people I’d want to interview anyway. And a well-pitched note from a PR who understood the publication usually got the ball rolling.
The problem I often had was that either the PR or the client tried to use the opportunity to shoehorn in brand mentions and messages, rather than offer genuine insight and expertise.
For some, the idea of talking about the wider industry or sharing expertise on a topic must have seemed like a waste of time. So, I’d receive what could only be described as advertorials. I didn’t run them – I forwarded them to the commercial team to follow up with prices. And honestly, I felt a bit annoyed that my request for genuine insight and a clear “please not a thinly veiled advertorial” had gone unheard.
For example, you could probably summarise it as: “Alcohol-free beer brand says alcohol-free beer is the future. Here’s why our brand is so great and will lead the category.” Completely useless to the wider trade.
So, what’s the point of doing thought leadership pieces if publications don’t want you to shout about your brand?
Well, showing yourself to be an expert in your field builds authority. Offering advice based on your own learnings shows you’re part of the industry and builds trust. Sharing knowledge – including the times you’ve made mistakes – shows you’re willing to help, and that you’re human.
And all that must be good for your brand.
