Thought leadership campaigns: The argument for longevity

It’s not been a good summer for longevity. While today’s considerably longer lifespans have always struck me as something that everyone should be celebrating, there is clearly a debate to be had about when to call it quits in the workplace (or the campaign trail). But when it comes to thought leadership, the problem is reversed: there is hardly any recognition or praise for those who stick at it for the long term.

Rightly or wrongly, short-term thought leadership campaigns (typically one to three years) are the norm. But, just as longer human lifespans should be seen as good news, longer-term thought leadership campaigns can deliver major benefits. The most obvious is greater recognition and an enhanced position in the marketplace, along with the chance to build a loyal long-term customer base. In short, a chance to really ‘own’ a part of the market.

Publications that have become institutions

Consider some examples of those who’ve stuck at it for the long term. An obvious one is the McKinsey Quarterly, which launched in 1964, making 2024 the 60th anniversary of a brand that, for many marketers and executives, is now synonymous with thought leadership. Can you imagine a CMO arguing that they should drop it to save money and focus on something new?

A similar example is the Harvard Business Review (HBR), which launched in 1922. Over the decades, the publication has shifted its focus and approach and has spun off as a separate publishing company. Today, the brand is globally recognised and most business school professors remain eager to publish their work in HBR. Its pre-eminence in academia owes as much to its longevity as its quality.

One significant factor in building a brand with longevity is striking a balance between focusing on a specific market and audience while allowing scope for thematic expansion.

One brand that has achieved this is Edelman Trust Barometer, which is now entering its 25th year. Over this period, the Barometer has steadily introduced additional themes and issues, covering government, the media, business and NGOs. However, these are all linked to exploring the trust compact between societal institutions and the people they serve. It continues to grow its readership and is routinely cited in the news and media.

Another regular media go-to is the EIU’s Global Liveability Index, which ranks global cities by liveability (I confess to occasionally sending this to friends who don’t live in Zurich, to encourage them to relocate here). Launched in 2002, the index has gained several rivals over time, including Mercer’s Quality of Living survey (aimed at expats choosing where to move next) and Monocle’s Quality of Life research (aimed at people trying to get the most out of city life). The fact that these publications can co-exist also highlights the enduring popularity of city-based rankings.

Weighing anchor in the corporate battlespace

Perhaps the most closely contested space for corporate studies is around the C-suite – and CEOs in particular. In 2024 PwC issued its 27th annual CEO study, having launched this series back in 1997. IBM added a CEO study in 2003, which has evolved over time into a wider annual Global C-suite Study. Since then, EY, Deloitte and KPMG have all added CEO outlook studies, with EY now polling CEOs on a quarterly basis. Given the importance of this business audience, it’s little surprise that this area is so hotly contested. Our strategy team calls this the ‘battlespace’!

C-suite studies are certainly not the only battlespace that these brands compete in, though. EY’s European Attractiveness Study, launched in 2001, tracks how inbound foreign direct investment (FDI) into Europe waxes and wanes. Back then, the study provided a corporate alternative to UNCTAD’s World Investment Report, but KPMG, Deloitte and PWC have all launched FDI-related studies to compete in this area.

Not all long-running studies are in such heavily contested spaces. Take Spencer Stuart’s Board Index, which in 2025 will have been running for 40 years. Unsurprisingly, it is now considered the final word on boardroom composition, having tracked the evolution of S&P 500 boardrooms since its inception. A decade after its initial launch, the company added similar reviews for FTSE companies, plus major listed Italian and Nordic companies, among others. Its longevity in this space makes it difficult for others to compete with it – although, of course, some do try.

A final example is from oil and gas technical services company DNV, which, for many years, has published an annual oil and gas outlook. Now dubbed the Energy Industry Insights report, this campaign was originally launched by GL Noble Denton in 2010 but was rebranded when the company merged with DNV to create DNV GL (and later just DNV). The annual report is now a mainstay of the organisation’s annual marketing effort and closely informs the strategizing of the CEO and senior leadership team, as well as garnering widespread external coverage.

So, why don’t more brands pursue long-term thought leadership?

A significant reason for this is pure practicality. Budgets are decided annually, and there is always competing pressure to invest in new and evolving themes and issues. Yesterday’s hot topics around big data quickly morph into tomorrow’s focus on AI, for example. IBM offers a good example of this: between 2000 and 2009, the company worked with the EIU to produce an annual e-readiness index, assessing how capable countries were of using IT to deliver business and societal value. By 2010, e‑readiness had become a tired concept in the industry, and so the campaign came to a natural end.

But another challenge is tenure. The average Fortune 500 CMO is only in place for just over four years, making short-term impact a greater priority than longer-term brand building. There is a parallel in ministerial tenure: few politicians are motivated to sign off on projects where the real benefits will likely only be seen when others are in power to reap the benefits.

Nevertheless, while it is hard for an organisation to identify a topic space that will still be relevant and contestable a couple of decades out, it is still worth trying. Taking a shot at building a long-term thought leadership brand will almost certainly pay greater dividends over time than publishing a report today and moving on to a new topic tomorrow.