January 7, 2025
January 7, 2025
Placing op-eds in notable publications has long been and still is an important outcome for thought leadership programs. Business leaders can build invaluable credibility in their industries when offering their expertise, predictions and critiques to the right audience.
When I was the technology editor at Adweek, I regularly received op-ed pitches and occasionally green-lighted them. In my current role, I help executive clients pinpoint ideas that will appeal to the gatekeepers on the other side. With such experience, I feel comfortable saying that much has changed in the last five years on the op-eds scene.
By now, everyone’s read about how tough the news business has become and the hurdles that magazines and newspapers face today. It’s true that the digital transformation of publishing has reached the point of no return: subscription-only publications like The Athletic and The Information have gained traction as ad-based publishing models decline. Just yesterday, Fortune revealed it was going behind a paywall. And last year, Conde Nast put all of its titles, such as Vogue, GQ and Bon Appetit, behind a paywall. Many trade publications, including marketing outlets like Adweek, Ad Age, Digiday and Campaign, have moved to either gated models with a limited number of gratis articles or paid subscriptions.
At the same time, the number of publications accepting bylined submissions from tech execs is dwindling. Previous mainstays like Entrepreneur, Inc. and MarketingLand now rarely take one-off contributions from tech executives, and some publications have started asking contributors to buy corporate memberships to have their columns regularly considered.
Thought leaders and communications pros would be wise to embrace this new reality for what it is—a different marketplace that demands a new mindset.
Quality over quantity
Publishing behind a paywall typically means an op-ed will generate less company site traffic, which, instinctively, seems like a blow to lead-gen and a content program’s ROI. Yet, in this day and age, it’s important to think about the potential benefits of paywalls.
Mostly, they weed out unqualified traffic. New business prospects are paying for the important industry news outlets because they cannot afford to fall behind on ever-shifting trends and buzz of the day. While the paywalls might keep junior staffers at brands, agencies and tech vendors from reading thought leadership, at least authors know that the incoming traffic after the op-ed goes live are directors or executive-level folks who may want to become customers. It’s simply a more qualified audience.
Also, the paywalls era should inspire authors to actually say something, to take a stand on an issue that industry peers need to read about. When executives provide an original point-of-view, they can generate qualified site traffic that’s more likely to convert because—through their writing—they’ve established credibility in a marketplace that’s too often full of malarkey.
The rise of membership models
Thought leadership programs take up considerable time and resources for executive authors and the comms teams supporting them. So, when their work doesn’t land in a nonpaid publishing channel, there’s historically been a natural disappointment in that outcome.
In this new era, thought leaders need to adjust such thinking and embrace new models for thought leadership. Publications like Forbes and Ad Age are leaning into programs where contributors apply and pay a modest membership fee—typically four figures—to join the platform and share their expertise through op-eds. These membership programs should not be confused with pricier sponsored-content offerings, which cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Indeed, publishers’ business models are evolving and thought leadership strategists need to adapt. With respected editorial banners hanging over executives’ words—not to mention the built-in distribution—such opportunities should be viewed as marketing bargains.
Beyond contributed content
Thought leadership programs need to progress with more integrated approaches that extend past op-eds. Every byline opportunity should now be supported by LinkedIn and blog posts, tweetstorms, Instagram posts/stories, etc., so tech executives garner more influence, and ultimately, more incoming business. In addition, not every worthwhile content idea is going to produce an op-ed; sometimes, these concepts are perfectly suited for social media conversations where executives can self-publish while engaging and growing their audience.
In sum, executives should adjust how they think about the op-ed marketplace now that the thought leadership game is changing. There are going to be fewer eyeballs due to paywalls, and earned placement is more difficult than it was just a few years ago. Yet, new models and social media channels offer opportunities for op-ed ideas to reach the audiences that matter. As a result, content programs need to be better and more competitive than before. And what true thought leader wouldn’t want to meet that challenge?
