Know Any Thought Followers? Why the ‘Thought Leader’ Classification Doesn’t Work (And What to Say Instead)

The Hidden Dangers of Using Jargon, Example 4

Last week the Content Strategy Google Group (of which I’m a member) discussed the term “thought leadership.”

Everyone in the group (and most people reading this) pegged ‘Thought Leader’ as jargon. Even a client rejected it for a category header.

“My problem is everyone in my industry (other than us) seems to use that term, so my firm is rejecting that outright.”

So, what should they use instead?
Some group members proposed alternatives, like:

• Knowledge Center
• Reader Resources
• [Subject] White Papers
• Our Publications (I kind of like this one)

Then the conversation swung toward Thought Leadership’s underlying problem: The implications you make if you use the term ‘thought leader.’

Has Anyone Ever Done Business with a “Thought Follower”?

When used, Thought Leadership claims a hierarchical position. Namely, the top.

But nobody claims a “thought follower” position, do they? Of course not. No one would.

Well, we can’t ALL be Thought Leaders. What do we do?

“Thought Leader” as a jargon term tries to claim the high ground. Like everyone else. So the classification goes flat. Being a Thought Leader among thousands is kind of useless, isn’t it?

In the group discussion, one person pointed out that this whole thing is meaningless. Why? Because readers aren’t interested in these kinds of classifications.

At all.

They just want to find information on a specific topic.

Which is the only thing that really matters. Are you able to deliver information on that topic? If yes, then you don’t become a thought leader to the reader.
You become a resource.

Be a Resource Instead of a Thought Leader

If “Thought Leadership” implies a hierarchy that doesn’t really exist, how should we classify ourselves? What will the reader respond to?

If you have the information they’re looking for on a topic, you become a resource to them. So, aim for that!

Try being a resource instead. It’s more specific, and more valuable. For example, you could be:

“A resource for financial management software for HR consultancies.”

This fosters more of a collaborative space online, not an arbitrary hierarchy. Resources share information & audience attention with other resources, instead of competing for every last second.

One resource aids another. One website sends traffic to others. People find more and more information as they go – noting the businesses that PROVIDE those resources.

Readers don’t look for thought leaders. They look for specific resources.

Do YOU go looking for thought leaders? I don’t. I look for information from Kristina Halvorson (for Content Strategy), or John Jantsch (for B2B marketing), or Brian Clark (for Web writing techniques & Internet marketing strategies) or Steve Slaunwhite (for the business of copywriting).

Because these people have made resources of their websites. And by extension, their businesses. Last I checked, none of them are hurting either!

There’s no high ground in the term “thought leader.” Readers don’t care. They DO care about good resources. Look at social media – people share resources all the time, every day. Isn’t that a more powerful marketing approach than using jargon?

Look at your content. Ask yourself: “Is this something the reader can use? How? When?” If your content answers those questions, you have the makings of a resource.

What could your business be a resource for? A product you made? A specific audience? A region?

(DISCLAIMER: I wrote this post as a comment on the CS group discussion. These opinions are my own and are NOT intended as a reflection of the group. It was a great discussion!)