Capabilities and barriers
What drives results and what curbs success?
We know that leaders see better results from their thought leadership output. One reason is their outsized proficiency across all areas of thought leadership development and execution, from strategy and planning to campaign evolution.
Research can be brought to life by someone who’s working at the coal face, someone who’s really living this.
But leaders give themselves the highest proficiency score in four areas: measurement (79%), recruiting client/expert interviewees (78%), internal knowledge and subject matter expertise (75%), and data/expert analysis (75%).
It’s no surprise that a high competency in measurement would enable leaders to optimize future campaigns for greater performance.
Meanwhile, a higher level of expertise, particularly where expert contributors and analysis is concerned, undoubtedly enables leaders to bring a differentiated, more valuable perspective to the market.
Laggards, however, struggle with survey design, recruiting client/expert interviewees, activation, and data/expert analysis.
One challenge is finding the right skills to match each stage of the thought leadership process. Sarah Dziuk, SAP Insights Head of Research, SAP, explains: “We have data scientists in-house for analysis and investigation, but thematic development and creating an insightful and original point of view can be difficult. We've tried to bring in external writers during the data analysis stage to craft some of the story, but it has its challenges.”
Other marketers lament the blurred line between thought leadership and other types of marketing. Mervi Virkajarvi, Head of Content Programs, Europe Region, Fujitsu, says: “Sometimes it’s difficult to separate thought leadership from solution marketing or bottom-of-the-funnel content. For example, a customer case study may start with their challenges, but then go quickly into our high-level messaging and how we are helping our customers with a certain offering.”
Overall, marketers view their capabilities as the biggest factor preventing them from achieving their thought leadership goals. However, just over a quarter (28%) of respondents cite ‘lack of internal alignment on goals/objectives’ in their top three challenges, followed by “difficulty differentiating from the competition” (27%) and “lack of research and development capabilities” (25%).
Andy Schonert, Director Global Marketing Communications, Hexagon, explained how his organization has managed to overcome its alignment challenges. “We have regional teams that operate pretty autonomously and will do things that make sense for their markets. We have built a universal marketing calendar where everyone can see what is going on. But it's not just about developing the content, it’s about having a clear sense of our point of view and what we offer.”
Laggards are more likely to cite “inadequate budget” as their top barrier to achieving their goals compared with leaders, while the latter are more likely to cite a “lack of skills/expertise”.
We know that laggards invest the same percentage of their marketing budget and headcount to thought leadership activities as leaders, so perhaps the issue is in budget allocation. For instance, 90% of leaders use external thought leadership training and coaching regularly compared to just 63% of laggards. Leaders, cognizant of potential gaps in their internal skills and expertise, will dedicate a portion of the budget to improving their capabilities. Laggards, for whom skills and expertise is less of a perceived concern, perform worse against every thought leadership competency and use training and development to hone their capabilities.