Writing / Content Systems
Content Systems

95% of thought leadership contains no actual thoughts

If your take could be generated by prompting a model with "write a post a CMO would agree with," it isn't thought leadership. It's thought followership.

On this page
Video transcript

Systems-led growth versus content-led growth. Content-led growth uses content like blogs, SEO, and resources as the primary driver of acquisition and demand. Systems-led growth uses a connected AI-powered system across all go-to-market functions as the driver. Content-led growth bets on one channel, whereas systems-led growth runs content as part of one integrated system.

Content-led growth is a proven model. You publish useful content, earn search traffic and trust, and convert that attention into pipeline over time. When done well, it compounds, and it's often the most cost-efficient channel a company has. Systems-led growth doesn't reject content-led growth at all. It just contains it.

The difference is scope. Content-led growth treats content as the engine. Systems-led growth treats content as one output of a larger system that also feeds sales, follow-up, and customer success from the same source of truth. There's also a production difference. Classic content-led growth is capped by how much a team can write.

In a systems-led setup, a content engine turns one input into many assets, so output scales without scaling headcount. The simplest way to put it is content-led growth asks how we win with content. Systems-led growth asks how we wire content into everything else so the whole machine compounds. If content-led growth is working for you, systems-led growth is the system you should build around it.

Open LinkedIn and scroll for sixty seconds. Count the posts that say something the author would lose an argument over. The number is close to zero. That’s the tell.

Followership wears a leader’s costume

Most “thought leadership” is consensus, reworded. It restates what the audience already believes, in slightly nicer sentences, so the reader nods and the author gets credit for wisdom they didn’t risk anything to hold.

A take that costs you nothing to publish is worth roughly what it cost.

If a model prompted with “write a post a CMO would agree with” could produce your insight, you didn’t have an insight. You had a vibe.

The cheap test

Before you publish, ask one question:

  • Would a smart, informed person in your field actively disagree with this?

If the honest answer is no, you’re not leading a thought anywhere. You’re escorting it back to where everyone already stood. Say the thing that might cost you the easy applause. That’s the only kind worth reading.

On the podcast: Your ChatGPT License Is Not a Strategy goes deeper on this.

Related reading: score yourself with the matching audit · start with an audit · read the manifesto · I deleted 140,000 visitors a month on purpose · The Quarterly Business Review: How to Run a QBR That Customers Don’t Dread

NT
Practitioner, not a guru. I built the growth engine at Copy.ai from scratch, then left to build Systems-Led Growth: the system that runs a company's go-to-market with one operator instead of a department. I document what I build.
Start with an audit →
Barely Shipping

I build the whole thing in public.

The podcast and newsletter where I show the frameworks, the real numbers, and the parts that don't work yet. No hustle-culture, no fluff.