Practical PR for Solicitors: How to write thought leadership people actually read and share

Communications consultant Stewart Argo on how to write thought leadership people actually read and share.

When I write this column I check to see if anyone’s already covered the topic well – mainly in case I’ve missed anything especially important; it can be easy to overlook the obvious. In this instance, while I found plenty of articles that are poor advice, several are worth reading for the fundamentals:

• Why bother doing thought leadership anyway
• Give your audience something to care about
• Go beyond just written articles
• Stick at it and be patient

The reason for sharing these is that here I want to focus on providing a worked example instead – it’s more illustrative than just saying ‘do this’ and ‘don’t do that’. You don’t need to read the articles before the rest of this column; they’re more for completeness, since I’m going to skip over certain basic aspects.

So, what does really matter?

Let’s assume you’ve bought into the value of sharing your opinions to align yourself with a particular topic. After that comes the hard work of identifying and crafting your content. When you have many competing priorities, the market is crowded and attention is scare, it can feel like there’s a risk of it being a fruitless punt.

Going beyond the points in the links I’ve shared, here are six critical success factors:

1. Choose a subject that intersects with (a) one audience, (b) a credible perspective you have, and (c) a commercial or other business objective.
2. Make it your priority to be useful and interesting, and ideally both. Something being important is not enough on its own. Test these first two factors by considering if a reader would be motivated enough to share the article with someone.
3. Even better, include a view at least one reader will disagree with. Indeed, this is crucial. If everyone would concur, where’s the leadership in the thoughts? Try answering these questions to provoke yourself into a bolder opinion: What does this really mean in practice? What are people underestimating? Where are the risks likely to crystallise? What should clients be doing differently now?
4. Once you’re past the first draft stage, identify the phrase, sentence or even paragraph you’re most pleased with. Then delete it. Your favourable opinion is almost a sure sign of it being more for your satisfaction than the audience’s.
5. Let your expertise and insight speak for itself. Do not in any way try to sell what you do. Perhaps even have the confidence and magnanimity to recognise the good work of another firm.
6. Use examples. Use anecdotes. Use statistics. And do so briefly. You are being illustrative, not preparing a technical paper for peer review. Includes caveats and short footnotes if strictly necessary.

Worked example

‘Faking it won’t help you make it: the perils of promoting counterfeits on social media’ is a decent article. (I’ve chosen a US firm’s article to avoid the risk of me offending anyone closer to home!)

It is well-written, uses relevant examples, has meaningful headings and, crucially, tries to be helpful rather than aiming to overtly sell a service.

On the other hand, it seems to be targeting several audiences and therefore the messaging is equally confused. And I feel it doesn’t do quite enough to pique the reader’s interest.

The main changes I’ve made in my version are:

• Created more curiosity through the headline and first paragraph
• Streamlined the audience, and therefore the content, to focus more on brands that may work with social influencers (ie potential clients for this firm)
• Been a touch more provocative in the penultimate paragraph
• Cut a few hundred words

This is an example of techniques rather than an exemplar. See what you think:

‘The darker side to shiny influencer partnerships’

All that glitters is not gold, as the saying goes. Worse than that, a failure of ethics or even legality by social media stars could prove to be very costly for those who commission their services.

Influencer marketing promises reach, relevance and peer-to-peer credibility. For many brands, that commercial upside is compelling.

But the online community that delivers engagement can also import risk. When influencers blur the line between genuine products, dupes and counterfeits in their content, brands that work with them may face reputational and legal consequences.

Recent controversy illustrates the point. The Darnell sisters’ Christmas hauls generated significant online debate after observers alleged that some showcased luxury items were counterfeit. One later admitted – in a now deleted response – to mixing counterfeit goods with authentic pieces. With a combined following approaching two million, their content had real impact – but not necessarily the right kind.

Dupes versus counterfeits

‘Dupe culture’ has complicated influencer marketing. Some alternatives to premium products may be lawful if they avoid infringing intellectual property rights. Counterfeits, by contrast, are illegal replicas intended to deceive.

Industry bodies such as the American Apparel & Footwear Association have highlighted how easily that distinction becomes blurred online. Where influencers fail to clarify what they are promoting, ethical concerns quickly become legal ones.

For brands, the risk goes beyond any direct partnership. An influencer who normalises counterfeit goods in other content can undermine the credibility of a paid promotion and dilute brand positioning, particularly in the luxury sector.

Real liability

The Federal Trade Commission has made clear that unfair or deceptive practices, including inadequate disclosure of commercial relationships, are unlawful. Where counterfeit goods are involved, scrutiny intensifies.

Trademark infringement claims can lead to damages, injunctions, seizure of goods and recovery of profits. The law also provides for fines and potential imprisonment in cases of intentional trafficking.

High-profile cases reinforce the point. Nike sued influencer Eben Fox in Florida, alleging that he promoted counterfeit shoes through links to retailer Pandabuy. Amazon has likewise pursued influencers and sellers accused of directing followers to counterfeit luxury goods via hidden links and affiliate structures.

Brands that fail to conduct proper oversight may find their own governance processes examined if controversies arise, and potentially be damned by association.

Due diligence

Brands should take care before appointing influencers. That includes reviewing historic content across platforms, examining affiliate links used outside formal campaigns and identifying any prior allegations linked to counterfeit promotion.

Equally important are robust agreements. Influencer contracts should contain:

• warranties prohibiting the promotion of counterfeit goods
• clear disclosure obligations
• rights to terminate for reputational harm
• indemnities covering losses arising from unlawful conduct.

Ongoing monitoring is as important as initial vetting. Influencer risk is dynamic, and brand exposure can change quickly.

Let the buyer beware

Many people remain sceptical of influencer marketing. Some may even regard it as the promotional equivalent of fool’s gold. And it surely isn’t an appropriate tactic for all companies.

However, the commercial benefits of influencer marketing can be significant. For those who do partner with social celebs, the Darnell episode and recent litigation demonstrate the hidden costs of association with counterfeit culture can be substantial. Brands that combine marketing ambition with legal discipline will be better placed to protect botxh reputation and revenue.