How to Demonstrate Thought Leadership: An Adtech Case Study
One of the most well-worn gems of advice for creative writers is the admonition to “show, not tell.” This happens to be one of those adages that holds a grain of truth, despite its quasi-cliche status, both for storytelling and thought leadership.
Similarly, to understand how to hone your thought leadership, there’s no better way to learn than through concrete examples. This post will focus on one such example of thought leadership in the wild: an article from December 2021 written by Lewis Rothkopf, president of DSP Martin, for AdExchanger. Rothkopf’s article, “Get On Board — The Incrementality Train is (Finally) Here,” makes a case for the utility of measuring incremental impact. Let’s take a closer look at how the clear purpose, problem–solution structure, and illustrative scenarios deployed in Rothkopf’s piece make this a compelling example of adtech thought leadership.
To demonstrate thought leadership, make your position clear and tie it to reader concerns
One of the most notable features of Rothkopf’s article is also one of the very first things I spotted when reading it: his argument, which he states within the article’s first four sentences: “Incremental impact, i.e., how many consumers felt compelled to take specific action after seeing an ad, is the most … effective way to measure performance.” With this simple, declarative sentence, Rothkopf clarifies the central purpose and stakes of his article, a key step that many fail to take.
Better yet, Rothkopf presents this argument as the answer to a question that is at the top of the minds of his intended audience — how best to measure the efficacy of ad spend. He opens his piece with a retrospective glance at the upheaval that the adtech industry has weathered in its efforts to improve targeting and attribution strategies over the course of the past year. Then, he asks: have these myriad changes “been enough to solve the fundamental problems that have long plagued programmatic media buying?” Spoiler alert, Rothkopf thinks no: the pain points endemic to programmatic advertising haven’t been resolved. But a point of frustration for his adtech audience is a boon for a thought leader: by linking his intervention to a problem that is timely and relevant to his readers, Rothkopf sets up his article to catch attention and keep people reading.
Illustrate the basis for your intervention
In the next section of the article, Rothkopf fleshes out the strength of his position by giving us a succinct but illustrative rundown of his case against conventional impact metrics. Again, Rothkopf productively uses the form of the question to kick off his critique: he asks, what do “vanity” metrics quantifying cost per acquisition (CPA) or effective cost per thousand impressions (eCPM) actually tell us about an ad’s performance with specific customers? His answer — not as much as we might think:
“While buyers can understand the correlation between folks who saw the ad and the total number of actions that were taken, it doesn’t measure whether their advertising caused people to convert. Marketers can’t differentiate between how many of their conversions happened because they saw an ad versus inevitable conversions that would have happened anyway. Traditional CPA-based metrics provide insight into targeting relevance but fail to adequately measure marketing effectiveness.”
Rothkopf breaks down the major blindspots of CPA-based metrics, sensitizing the reader to a problem for which he will later provide a solution. The limitations of these metrics are presented simply but clearly: they’re not giving marketers proof that ads are converting anyone who would not have bought the advertised product or service anyway. This critique of existing ad metrics lays a concrete basis for Rothkopf’s central argument: there is a more effective way to measure ad performance, and he’s about to tell us about it.
Teaching moments lend themselves to demonstrating thought leadership
Rothkopf’s concise explanation of the inherent but overlooked limitation of old-school ad metrics is strategic: after laying out the limitations of these traditional metrics, he is nicely set up in the article’s final section to make a concrete, positive case for the superiority of lift analysis to measure ad performance. Indeed, it’s in this section that Rothkopf’s expertise really shines through. He hits the high notes on lift measurement’s value and easy replicability in the post-third-party-cookie era — then quickly moves into a case for the primacy of the “Ghost Bids” method of measurement. The extent of Rothkopf’s informed position on this topic is demonstrated by the fluency with which he dives into the terminology and operations of the latest lift measurement tech, not only identifying a solution to his problem but also listing specific ways marketers can take advantage of those solutions (i.e., through Ghost Bids).
However, an audience less familiar with this technology than Rothkopf could stand for a bit longer of a teaching moment before jumping into the nitty gritty of Ghost Bid’s specific operations. As a reader, by the end of the article I’m on board that metrics for ad performance need to be upgraded — and I’m interested in looking further into what lift measurement has to offer.But I’m not yet confident that I can recap the basic, ground-level advantages that lift measurement has to a colleague or my team. Starting off this section with a more systematic presentation of the tactics and benefits of lift measurement might further increase the audience’s awareness of the problem his piece identifies so that they can then consider specific solutions such as Ghost Bids. By slowing down the pace and hitting fewer, but more fundamental talking points, the value of this expertise could have a more profound and widespread impact.
Too long; didn’t read
Rothkopf’s article demonstrates the value of structuring thought leadership around what you could call the “problem-and-solution model”: he leads with a clear and specifically informed position, one that is motivated by a timely issue that resonates with his audience. The strategic transition from critique to advocacy that shapes the rest of the article sets up readers to develop a more informed perspective on debates ongoing in programmatic adtech. And, more fundamentally, it communicates its author’s expertise in a clear and memorable way that lays the ground for further engagement. One can imagine that this article’s reader might further investigate lift measurement solutions — and that, if we’re being honest, is in large part the holy grail for thought leadership in adtech, martech, and data.
