Becoming a thought leader can bring scores of benefits to individuals, firms and associations. It’s, without question, one of the most effective and efficient ways to generate new business from new and existing clients. Thought leaders can also bring in higher-quality talent to their organizations and upgrade the capabilities of the talent within their organizations.
Thought leaders are best positioned to benefit financially from the brand equity they create. This entails creating meaningful corporate wealth that, with capable management, can convert to significant personal wealth.
The thought leadership process is not magical or secretive in any way. On the contrary, it’s pretty straightforward, and the greatest successes are due to adroit implementation augmented by a certain amount of cleverness.
While the benefits of running a successful thought leadership campaign are regularly astounding, what happens when an individual, firm or association gets it wrong? That downside can prove quite painful, if not brutal. A poorly conceptualized and implemented thought leadership campaign can be catastrophic for those involved. There are three categories in which someone can find themself when a thought leadership campaign is done badly:
- Invisibles. The best-case scenario of doing a poor job at becoming a thought leader is that the individual or firm experiences no repercussions from its prospects, clients and referral sources. In these circumstances, all the time spent, effort expended and monies invested are just written off. However, with a poorly implemented thought leadership campaign, the best-case scenario is not always what happens.
- Benchwarmers. When thought leadership efforts falter, the consequences can be adverse to what was intended. Instead of being seen as a state-of-the-art authority in a particular field, the individual or firm conveys that its understanding of critical industry issues is superficial or that its solutions are anything but. A poorly conceived or executed thought leadership campaign can easily convey that the person or organization belongs in the minor leagues, warming the bench or, more likely, carrying the water instead of playing on the all-star team.
- Radioactives. Even more detrimental is the “reverse halo” effect, where its poor attempt at becoming a thought leader diminishes the individual’s or firm’s offerings in the eyes of prospects, clients and referral sources. In effect, not only does the firm not achieve the status of leading industry authority, but also it brings the reputation of those involved down a notch or two or more. It’s a disaster working counter to all the myriad benefits of thought leadership.
These possible adverse consequences don’t mean you should abandon becoming a thought leader for yourself, your firm or your association. It means that you should approach becoming a thought leader judiciously and prudently. The decision to become a thought leader must be made carefully and methodically. It would be best to think through what they want to accomplish, including the potential pecuniary rewards you’ll attain and how becoming a leading industry authority will actualize these goals.
Russ Alan Prince is the executive director of Private Wealth magazine and chief content officer for High-Net-Worth Genius. He consults with family offices, the wealthy, fast-tracking entrepreneurs and select professionals.
