Do you recognise that feeling you get when you repeat a word over and over and it suddenly starts to sound odd? Try ‘thought leadership’. Say it again: thought leadership, thought leadership. Something similar is starting to happen with corporate content. The term has become so widespread that we now apply it to any piece of writing signed by an executive. A LinkedIn post, an opinion piece, a reflection, a summary of trends, speeches on innovation or on the transformation of the sector… it all falls under that label. And perhaps, in theory, that might be the case. In practice, however, we can raise several objections.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
It’s trendy. There’s activity, there’s intent, and, in many cases, there’s quality. But if you look a little more closely, there’s a pattern that’s hard to ignore. Much of that content is far too similar. The same topics are discussed, at the same time, and the approaches vary very little. Is it decent content? Yes. Is it interesting? For many, perhaps. But it is what we would call ‘interchangeable content’. The name of the company behind it changes, but what is actually being said doesn’t really change. When that happens, it becomes very difficult for anyone to associate you with a specific idea.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Mind you, I’m not saying there’s a lack of talent or a lack of effort. I’d say it has more to do with how ‘thought leadership’ is currently understood. Because if everything is thought leadership, then nothing really is, is it?
Having said that, I’d like to pose another question: what distinguishes content that builds authority from content that simply takes up space? Let’s try to find an answer.
What is genuine thought leadership?
When it comes to content that truly helps position a company, it isn’t simply content that is well-written or that addresses relevant topics. These factors are important and certainly help. But true thought leadership is based on a deeper logic, one that stands the test of time.
This logic can be seen in three fairly clear elements:
1. One’s own point of view
It’s not about simply going along with the views everyone else already holds. You have to take a stand. In many cases, taking a stand means accepting that you won’t always agree with the rest of the industry, which involves a risk, but also offers the chance to stake out your territory and truly set yourself apart.
Have you noticed that much of today’s content is designed to fit in and sound reasonable, so as not to provoke a negative reaction? The result is a discourse that’s politically correct, but flat. No one speaks out against it, but all the opinions are forgettable.
If you give your genuine opinion, that changes things. It’s not about being present in every conversation, but in those where you actually have a point to make – even if that means disagreeing. Think of it this way: if your content can’t spark a reasonable disagreement, you’re probably not expressing a stance, but simply reinforcing the general consensus.
2. The conceptual framework
Content doesn’t emerge in isolation. It stems from your understanding of the sector and from an underlying logic that remains consistent over time. These aren’t just individual articles; they are pieces that form part of your ecosystem.
If such a framework exists, after reading several pieces of content from the same company or executive, it is easy to identify the perspective from which they are speaking. There is consistency, conceptual continuity and a sense of coherence.
If that framework isn’t in place, the exact opposite happens. Each element functions in isolation, with no clear connection. They aren’t necessarily bad ideas, but they don’t end up being attributed to anyone either.
3. Continuity
Thought leadership isn’t built on the back of a single brilliant article. Nor on two, nor on several. It is built by maintaining a stance over time. It is developed, refined and defended with perseverance and consistency. I don’t mean simply repeating the same thing over and over. Rather, it is a matter of delving deeper into the subject.
This is how change comes about. An opinion ceases to be merely an opinion and becomes a point of view. When this standard is upheld over time, it becomes recognisable and is even associated with a spokesperson. Ultimately, it ends up becoming an authority.
What is superficial corporate content?
If you examine the content circulating as thought leadership under this approach, you will see that much of it follows recognisable patterns. The aim is not to point out mistakes, but rather to help people understand how these patterns work.
- First trend: recycled styles.
What I’m referring to here is content that tackles the very topics the whole sector is discussing – all at the same time and from a very similar angle. Artificial intelligence? Sustainability? Digital transformation? I’m sure these sound like relevant topics to you, of course, but they’re usually covered without offering any unique perspective.
This allows the company to be part of the conversation, but it doesn’t establish a clear stance. As a result, the company’s voice ends up being diluted and gets lost among many others saying practically the same thing.
- Second pattern: unframed opinions.
These are opinions that float about, that lack any foundation, that have no connection to anything else, that are put forward without any underlying logic. There is no before and after. Who do they belong to? To anyone who repeats them.
When an organisation expresses an opinion without a framework, what it projects is not thought, but reaction. It may appear to have an active voice, including a certain intellectual presence, but in reality it is making isolated judgements that do not point to a recognisable vision of the market, the business, or the role it wishes to play in the public conversation. The problem is not only that these opinions are interchangeable, but that they do not generate strategic momentum. In other words, each post may seem reasonable on its own, but taken together they do not build authority because they do not respond to a coherent framework of meaning.
- Third pattern: opportunistic posting.
This is content created based on what’s trending, what generates engagement, or what the algorithm prioritises. It can work very well from a tactical perspective, but be careful, because it comes at a clear strategic cost.
You’ll start to sound like an echo of what’s being said around you, rather than a voice with a mind of its own. If this goes on for long enough, it makes it difficult to establish your own position… and to hold onto it.
The reputational impact of each approach
Bear in mind that the difference between these approaches may not be apparent in the short term. In fact, it’s quite possible that superficial content might deliver better results in terms of visibility, engagement or traffic. You’re where everyone else is, where the algorithm tells you you need to be to get noticed.
The problem, however, does not lie in the present. It lies in what is being built for the long term.
Content that simply echoes current trends and popular topics may generate short-term attention, but it leaves no lasting conceptual impact. It fails to establish a clear link between the individual and their way of thinking. Every piece starts from scratch, and genuine thought leadership works differently.
It may not generate the same level of engagement straight away, but it builds something more solid: a clearly recognisable association between the organisation and its own intellectual territory.
What’s the point of this? Over time, it has a clear effect. When someone needs guidance on that specific topic, they’ll look for a particular voice, not just any old content. That voice will be yours. That’s what really matters when it comes to reputation.
Judgement cannot be outsourced
Well, this is where the most awkward part of the argument usually comes in.
When content isn’t building authority, the usual reaction is to review how it’s being delivered. What if I change the format? How can I improve the tone? Perhaps if I tweaked the topics or increased the frequency… I could also rely more on my communications agency.
Of course, all of that can help, but it doesn’t solve the underlying problem if there is still no clear stance behind it. Decision-making cannot be delegated entirely. It can be worked on, structured and developed… but it has to exist within the company; it has to be real and attributable to a specific person.
Tu agencia le puede dar forma, continuidad o coherencia, pero seguirá siendo tu punto de vista el que tenga que prevalecer. Tu equipo puede convertirlo en un sistema sólido, claro, pero no puede inventárselo si no existe previamente.
True thought leadership begins before the content. It starts when a company decides what position it wants to hold within its sector, and is prepared to defend that position consistently over time.
The content may well be good, and it may even work, but without that initial decision, it will remain nothing more than corporate content with little more than good intentions.
