Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practitioners?

Written on July 28, 2009 by Adam Kmiec in Marketing & Advertising

One of the things I love about twitter is the free flowing dialog that can take place. I found myself in an interesting conversation with one of my favorite tweeters @schneidermike. What I like about Mike is that he always has an opinion and he’s not afraid to take a different point of view. Honestly, on twitter, that’s a unique characteristic. In truth there’s too much “playing nice” on twitter. Mike gives it straight and I love that quality.

Our conversation tonight stemmed from this tweet in which he said, “Besides @chrisbrogan, who are your favorite CRM experts?” As we traded tweets back and forth I was taking the position that, Chris isn’t a CRM expert and he certainly isn’t a Social Media “thought leader.” Again, I’m entitled to my opinions, just like Mike is.

The one tweet that stuck out to me in our exchange was this one, in which Mike said “whoa there buckaroo! a thought leader does not need to be a practitioner.” Mike was responding to a tweet I wrote that stated “@schneidermike you’re killing me – thought leadership in social – show me the portfolio, what has he done?”

In short, Mike’s stance was that you don’t have to “do” to be a recognized leader. I realize I’m paraphrasing by the way. While, my point of view is that a true expert and leader should be able to practice what he/she preaches. What I don’t want is someone that walks into a room, talks a bunch of philosophy, but then can’t deliver.

Think about this situation…you meet with a lawyer because you’re being sued. You ask to see his body of work…his credentials if you will. He responds instead with a passionate speech about the legal system, due process, and American value that would put Al Pacino to shame. You’re pumped, you’re excited, and then you realize the lawyer totally avoided the question…because in truth he has no credentials and has no ability to go from THEORY and PHILOSOPHY to actual practical means. Total bummer.

To me, my exchange with Mike shows the big problem I have with our industry and social media as a whole. We have too many theorizers, talkers, and philosophers who become seen as experts despite their inability to put together a solid actionable plan. This screws it up for every single smart strategist, marketer, etc. out there, because we get tainted with the smell of people who are essentially all talk and no show. Not cool.

Am I wrong? As Mike says, “a thought leader does not need to be a practitioner.” Do you believe this? I don’t. I think there’s a big difference between talking about hitting a baseball…the science and physics behind it – and the ability to actually hit one.

Your thoughts?

Tags: Best Of, Experts, Snake Oil, Social Media

adamkmiec

I guess in the simplest form…I don't want to see a bio that says “Person X has been a long time leader in the Y space. He/she has helped companies like A, B, and C do X, Y, and Z.” It's all fluff. If I'm paying to hear from an expert or a thought leader I want to know why they are worth my dollar. For example when Frank Eliason speaks they can point to very SPECIFIC things he has done to be considered a credible “leader.” Ditto for Amy Worley, or @vegasbab, and many others.

If we're operating in the world of transparency, why is it so hard?
http://www.fieryirishrose.com/ Vegasbab

I have to side with Adam on this. As a client I want someone who has DONE it. Great example – I'm currently looking for full mobile marketing solution. If you've never synched with my back end systems aka you've DONE it vs. talking about it, you're out of the mix. Thought leaders are great, but unless you can make it happen operationally, your thoughts are useless to me.
http://123socialmedia.com barryhurd

I join this a bit late, but throw in my spare change.

Thought leaders are hard to define in any space, especially one that touches across large entities. I have several international clients, as well as several “competitors” that have utilized my skills.

Since I do audit and competitive intelligence work with a social media focus, it is very easy to realize that I sign non-disclosure agreements on a daily basis. In some cases I don't find out anything. In other cases I find twenty million dollar client lists online (ouch.)

On the flipside- I contribute a lot of insight on my blog, which a lot of PR and University folk stop by and even use for coursework (the first request I received for coursework quotation made me feel like an uber-geek)

On the other hand, there are A LOT of those imposters out there who know how to game a system for simple numbers… who cares if you have 50k followers? (Laughingly, I tried keeping my follower count under 1000 for the longest time because of the methodology I had for using it)

On a client basis, it is also hard to define what makes or breaks the model of being proficient/expert with social media. I routinely audit companies that have been “suckered” by top firms or who have done something technically simple, but incredibly costly. In some cases the “expert” did such a good job building a relationship and greasing the gears that the client was “happy” even though the results were non-existent.

Some examples:

A top ten clothing retailer who paid $100k for a Facebook app that had 72 retail users.
A top ten home builder who had paid over $500k in Google PPC, but was never provided an ROI / conversion column six month into the campaign
A top one-hundred traffic site that had accidentally added “no index” to it robots.txt file (ouch)

I come back and then readdress the question: “Does a thought leader need to be a practitioner?”

Yes. Absolutely.

Otherwise the “thought leader” is a salesperson, not a thought leader. There are SO MANY people spitting out random thoughts here and there, that 1 person out of 1000 will be correct about the future. Does this make them right? a thought leader? a guru? No… it just makes them lucky.

We could compare the same idea to all the stock market wackos who claim they predicted X years in advance. If 95% of your predictions and thoughts are incorrect, the other 5% is just normal luck (not insight or thought leading)

In your comparison to baseball, there may be a difference in theory of hitting the ball and actually swinging at it- but a thought-leader is more comparable to the superstar on the team, instead of the superstar coach.

If we apply ideas of general management to social media, every corporate director could claim they have “social media expertise” – you can read more about my thoughts on defining social media expertise on this article I wrote back in March http://ow.ly/iw7Y
http://www.marketingprofs.com bethharte

My Twitter comment to you: “Saying “I produced it” [your link up above] is the antithesis of what you are beating @ChrisBrogan & other speakers up about, right?”

I don't think “beating up” is the wrong phrase here…you are surely 'beating the rug,' so to speak, to get out of it what you feel you need/derserve from the social media space you even said that yourself (“entitled to my opinions”) and that's completely understandable.

My point to my posts above (call me a devil's advocate if you will) is that asking for “proof” (what you've been discussing with Chris) is the antithesis of what you've provided us as an agency (and I say that because you pointed us in that direction w/your link), proof but NO thought leadership.

I totally get your point and I think this has been a great discussion…that said, I, personally, want to see BOTH thought leadership AND proof (and in the social space the proof can also be the person's actions or online reputation…like their community, their blog, their conversations — again subjective, mileage will vary). I don't want a dog & pony show only, I want to know how the agency or consultant trained the dogs and ponies and the process they took to do so.

Also, I think there's a sense in the social media space that self-promotion is a no-no (which could be part of what you are experiencing). Why? It makes no sense to me because after a while I think people earn the right to promote the great things they've done. Like you, I want to see what people are working on because I'd like to be able to refer them. Knowing how they think and what they do tactically is helpful.

Thanks Adam! This has been fun (I like to debate, don't take it personally) and insightful. I know you've been thinking about this topic for a while, so I am glad to see you finally blogged about it.
adamkmiec

Beth

here's the difference…my thinking can be seen on this site, on other sites, on twitter, in Connect Marketing In the Social Media Age, and in the speaking I've done…and I've got the real world examples as credentials. I've got both halves of the equation.
http://www.marketingprofs.com bethharte

You certainly do! But, that said…it's sort of “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” You are asking for proof positive from social media thought leaders, I get and understand that.

My point is that some people aren't as discerning as you…in fact most aren't. My argument (since you work for an agency, I am going to start there) is that a lot of agencies say “the do social media” and yet *they* don't walk the walk either.

My only point is that it goes both way and I am trying to provide some balance to the conversation here.

Valeria Maltoni (Conversation Agent) had a post on agencies that were also social…it was VERY short.

I don't know what you've done as a social media practictioner, I'd love to see what social media programs you have put together for clients. Do you have anything other than the links above? (Like I said, I am always looking for references.)
mikewagner

Great question and resulting exchange.

The teacher in me believes I can take nearly any subject and make it exciting and practical without a lot of practitioner experience.

And, the opportunist in me recognizes there aren't always very high thresholds for claiming expertise; anyone can, for example, claim to be a “social media expert”, or so it seems these days.

But the “do I write this guy a check for a speech and/or consulting” judge inside me says, “I'll write the check for the communicator who is also a practitioner”.

I've spent more than a few years practicing what I speak/write about, Performance Branding. Clients seem to respect and value that fact as much as my ability to teach and entertain when called upon to do so.

Again, thanks for stirring the pot!

Keep creating…a brand worth raving about,
Mike
http://twitter.com/SIGEPJEDI → JOSH CARRICO ←

I agree with you 110% and we also see/saw this within SEO/SEM
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

Well, all terms like that should be from other parties. If YOU call yourself a guru, you're a douche.

But I dunno. Am I really a thought leader, or just someone who extrapolates on what I've observed or experienced? I mean.. what's in a word?
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

But there are plenty of people doing. I've launched blogs and trained corps how to engage and given guidance that made action move forward, and I've done all levels of the engagement.

To decide from external views who's done what is the same as assuming that since someone worked at an agency that handled big accounts they personally have knowledge and experience. You can bring the coffee to the big dogs at an agency and still claim such.

N'est pas?
mncahill

Chris has obviously done the work, and been a continual boundary stretcher in many areas…

I think we're getting lost in semantics here. The point is simple. While you may be very bright and may actually stumble onto some very interesting ideas for a particular niche, it is narcissistic in the extreme for anyone to think that they are a “thought leader,” expert, guru, etc. if they have not actually done the work.

Hence it is an affront to those of us who have been building online communities, social media, etc. since the dawn of the Internet to see someone sign up for Facebook and immediately assume they are a “Social Maven” or whatever they throw into their profile.

We're in the age of Micro-celebrity, and right now there's a battle to carve out space as an online personality within an array of niches. It's going to be up to us to figure out who is the real deal, and who is just a passing blast of hot air.
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

I have plenty of people who'd suggest that I've done work that benefits them.

GM – @cbarger (or Fritz Henderson, if you read the WSJ piece).
Pepsi – @boughb
Citrix Online – @lisahorner
Comcast Interactive – @fancast (I don't think Robin D'Agostino has her own account)
Sony Electronics USA – @marcycohen (starting shortly on a nice project)
Microsoft Office Live – @officelive

Just to name a few.

But the thing is, it's not the same work as you were doing in the past. Most of what I do involves education, strategy, and first moves.
http://www.thekmiecs.com adamkmiec

I think nomenclature is the key. I value your ability to excite people, to get them to think differently, to galvanize an audience. To me that's a great asset to the revolution taking place online. In my realm of definitions that's an evangelist. That's not a dirty word – it's a good word.
http://www.thekmiecs.com adamkmiec

The gap I think that exists is too often we can't SEE your work. I can point you to mine…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_One_%28Rec…

etc.

I'm not looking to compare resumes of work. I'm saying that this industry has become one in which we can't point to the “work” which makes it hard to separate charlatan from thought leader
http://social.name/ Norbert Mayer-Wittmann

I think the funniest part about “On Waldon Pond” (by Henry David Thoreau) is the part where he mentions that he's going to town for the day to get a mattress and some nails — now that's a practitioner!

Even better is if you practice what you preach — which, I guess, Thoreau did for most of the rest of the time. I just thought it was ironic for him to refute his basic theory by buying into the very symbol Adam Smith used to describe the capitalist system Thoreau's book was criticizing: the nail itself, the quintessential symbolic fruit of the division of labor.

I agree: All talk, no walk is useless.

And I have yet to find ANYONE who can even DEFINE “social media”. (see e.g. http://conversative.net/blog/2009/04/05/social-…

nmw
http://jasonkeath.com jakrose

to me that is exactly what a thought leader is, though you are right, it is all words. if someone thinks your ideas are shite, they likely would not call you a thought leader.

“someone who extrapolates on what I've observed or experienced”
mncahill

Norbert: Try this for a definition: http://www.allthingscahill.com/2009/02/social-m…
http://chrisbrogan.com Chris Brogan

Somehow my last comment vanished. My fault.

Here's my idea: call me a charlatan.

I say this without irony or anger. I just really don't see the benefit of defending. My clients keep buying. They buy second projects (meaning they don't feel cheated). I get new referrals. The majority are Fortune 100s.

I'm okay with who I am.
http://twitter.com/sonyab Sonya

Leaders of any kind do not have to be practitioners, good at what they do, or have your best interests at heart. History (political and business) is rife with leaders who should never have been followed. Leaders are good at leading, even if it's down the rosy garden path. However, I want street cred. If I follow someone, I want him/her to be a practitioner, good at it, and have the community's best interests at heart. So, I would say, the best thought leaders are practitioners.
marketingsavant

Hey Adam,

As someone who makes a living in the practice of helping firms develop and execute thought leadership, I picked up on the back & forth between you and @schneidermike as it was going on (one the fundamentals that thought leaders practice is to stay “tuned in” to what's going on) out there…

I have to say that I was taken aback by the “thought leader does not have to be a practitioner” quote. In essence, they do have to be a practitioner, but it doesn't mean that they have to have done everything on which they posit a point of view.

For example, McKinsey may produce a wonderful whitepaper about the coming opportunities & challenges of working in Russia. While they may not have clients doing so, and they may not have a direct 'body of work' with Russia, one can simply look to their body of work in globalization as part of their practice and ascertain their qualifications to be a thought leader, so to speak, on Russia.

The other example are coaches. You have great coaches in many sports and professional disciplines who are not, by the nature of their job, practitioners at what they're thought leading on. However, they have unique insight, a point of view, a philosophy and the ability to teach (educating the market/customers/constituents is also a fundamental for thought leadership). While they may have been practicioners at one time, they were often not the best.

As it relates to Chris Brogan and CRM social media. Perhaps, Chris is not a CRM guru by trade, however, as a marketer, technologist and business leader, (and social media notable, at the very least) his blend of work, though not directly related to the discreet discipline of CRM, could quite readily qualify him as a thought leader int the CRM and social media spaces.

Further, thought leadership is attained through audience validation. An audience (customers, prospects, fans, donors, whatever) “bestows” the “title” of thought leader on an individual. A thought leader to one person or group isn't necessarily a thought leader to a different person or group. Someone may be the thought leader in an industry, their town or in their association, but may not be considered so in another context.

By all of the criteria by which we measure thought leaders (this is a sample: http://www.marketingsavant.com/2009/02/the-elem…), Chris has the majority of the qualifications.
http://schneidermike.com schneidermike

@jakrose, it's more about who says what about whom. This all started when I called Chris a “thought leader”. Of course it would sound bad if Chris was “Tarzan”ning around, beating his chest and calling himself a thought leader, but it sounds awesome when I say it [or if you or someone else in the space were to say similar].
http://social.name/ Norbert Mayer-Wittmann

Yes, I checked that out.

The way I see it, that includes the entire world wide web.

Certainly some software facilitates interaction more than other software, but even just following a link can be a form of interaction (I'll admit that that's a little extreme, but the point is: without a clear definition of what social media is supposed to refer to, people cannot say very much — or much that might be considered meaningful — ABOUT it)
http://www.thekmiecs.com adamkmiec

I don't think I was asking you to defend – again it's not an attack. If your clients keep buying then you must be doing something right. I can't wait to see whatever it is you're working on actually come to light so I and the rest of the world can see it.
http://www.thekmiecs.com adamkmiec

Very well stated. I appreciate the depth you went into here. Awesome stuff. I think “Fiery Irish Rose” really nailed it here: http://www.fieryirishrose.com/2009/07/the-real-…

The people she throws out as thought leaders are the ones I respect.
http://social.name/ Norbert Mayer-Wittmann

I've decided to entertain the idea that perhaps “social media” might refer to a SUBSET of the world-wide web (rather than including all of it).

That doesn't mean it's my opinion, but rather that I'd like your feedback on whether / how that might be the case:

http://conversative.net/blog/2009/07/29/social-…

Here's a little thought experiment (to get the juices flowing): just because a website in Germany or Russia or China is not on a list of “social media” sites maintained by some rating agency and or statistical number-crunching service doesn't make those sites any more / less social. If you would not like to interact with 300 million people in China, then that is simply YOUR decision to ignore them — but they are probably using the web much in the same way as you or I use it: to interact in a SOCIAL manner.

But that's just IMHO — and I welcome any + all different opinions (and I'm happy that Adam also celebrates the multitude of different opinions… much in the spirit of Voltaire [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall ;] ).

nmw
http://www.marketingprofs.com bethharte

Sorry, had to jump in here [right here, in this exact spot! ]. Adam, your list of Wiki postings really don't carry much weight either…for me anyway, sorry. It's just a listing, right? They don't really give us insight into YOUR part. What strategy did you perform? What tactics? Did you have a measurable plan? Did you meet the measurable objectives? What creative process did you use? What was unique or different? Did you use typical marketing tactics or something new and innovative? Did you come in under budget? Did you let the clients lead the campaign or were you in the driving seat? Were the clients happy? Can I call them for a recommendation? You get the picture… (Not picking on you per se, just the notion of “mine is bigger than yours.”)

I could point people to a lot of things that I've done, but it's not the story and it surely doesn't explain my part or my thinking process. As well, I've been engaged in social media for 5 years. Do I have case studies? Nope. But I think people know me well enough to know that I can walk the walk…and talk the talk.

Pointing to work doesn't separate the charlatan from the thought leader. I've seen a TON of social media case studies that were junk. Perhaps what's good marketing, PR or social media is in the eye of the beholder.

In reading between the lines here I think a lot of people are pointing fingers at Chris and others NOT because they truly want to see their work, but because they want to know the secret sauce of THEIR success and try to recreate it because they can't do it themselves. (Hmmm, I think some ears are burning…)

I LOVED that Chris said there isn't a comparison here. He's doing something NEW and not recreating an interactive agency. And that's what I think is bothering some folks because they can't wrap their heads around it or recreate it.

As well, Chris or anyone else is NOT beholden to share their work with anyone else. The only people that matter are our clients and our management.

So, to answer your question should thought leaders also be practitioners? Yes. I think they should. But as I said above, they don't need to prove that to anyone who ISN'T buying/paying.

Just my $.02 for what they are worth.

Great discussion here Adam!
http://www.thekmiecs.com adamkmiec

Beth-

What I provided were links. I can provide others, like this http://www.oneclub.org/os/osi/showcase/?year=20… – you can open up Communication Arts or Creativity and see the real work produced.

There's a difference between talking about what you can do/what you've done and being able to show it. Show it is a loose term – it could be visual, it could be a reference, it could your name in print. My overall point is that there are too many people being put on pedestals without anyone saying…wait a second, what have they done.

I don't want Chris's secret sauce, assuming it exists…and I don't think what he's or others is new…circa 1999 this same thing was going on when it came to websites. He and others don't need to show their work – but I can tell you that many clients…myself included wouldn't hire someone that couldn't show me what they've actually done in the real world.

If I attend a conference and Chris or Laura or some other “thought leader” is on stage I deserve to know the facts – after all I paid to attend and listen
Pingback: links for 2009-07-29 | The MarketingSavant Group
http://www.marketingprofs.com bethharte

Is it that for every topic someone speaks on you want a specific case study or tangible proof of exact experience?
http://www.thekmiecs.com adamkmiec

I guess in the simplest form…I don't want to see a bio that says “Person X has been a long time leader in the Y space. He/she has helped companies like A, B, and C do X, Y, and Z.” It's all fluff. If I'm paying to hear from an expert or a thought leader I want to know why they are worth my dollar. For example when Frank Eliason speaks they can point to very SPECIFIC things he has done to be considered a credible “leader.” Ditto for Amy Worley, or @vegasbab, and many others.

If we're operating in the world of transparency, why is it so hard?
http://www.fieryirishrose.com/ Vegasbab

I have to side with Adam on this. As a client I want someone who has DONE it. Great example – I'm currently looking for full mobile marketing solution. If you've never synched with my back end systems aka you've DONE it vs. talking about it, you're out of the mix. Thought leaders are great, but unless you can make it happen operationally, your thoughts are useless to me.
http://123socialmedia.com barryhurd

I join this a bit late, but throw in my spare change.

Thought leaders are hard to define in any space, especially one that touches across large entities. I have several international clients, as well as several “competitors” that have utilized my skills.

Since I do audit and competitive intelligence work with a social media focus, it is very easy to realize that I sign non-disclosure agreements on a daily basis. In some cases I don't find out anything. In other cases I find twenty million dollar client lists online (ouch.)

On the flipside- I contribute a lot of insight on my blog, which a lot of PR and University folk stop by and even use for coursework (the first request I received for coursework quotation made me feel like an uber-geek)

On the other hand, there are A LOT of those imposters out there who know how to game a system for simple numbers… who cares if you have 50k followers? (Laughingly, I tried keeping my follower count under 1000 for the longest time because of the methodology I had for using it)

On a client basis, it is also hard to define what makes or breaks the model of being proficient/expert with social media. I routinely audit companies that have been “suckered” by top firms or who have done something technically simple, but incredibly costly. In some cases the “expert” did such a good job building a relationship and greasing the gears that the client was “happy” even though the results were non-existent.

Some examples:

A top ten clothing retailer who paid $100k for a Facebook app that had 72 retail users.
A top ten home builder who had paid over $500k in Google PPC, but was never provided an ROI / conversion column six month into the campaign
A top one-hundred traffic site that had accidentally added “no index” to it robots.txt file (ouch)

I come back and then readdress the question: “Does a thought leader need to be a practitioner?”

Yes. Absolutely.

Otherwise the “thought leader” is a salesperson, not a thought leader. There are SO MANY people spitting out random thoughts here and there, that 1 person out of 1000 will be correct about the future. Does this make them right? a thought leader? a guru? No… it just makes them lucky.

We could compare the same idea to all the stock market wackos who claim they predicted X years in advance. If 95% of your predictions and thoughts are incorrect, the other 5% is just normal luck (not insight or thought leading)

In your comparison to baseball, there may be a difference in theory of hitting the ball and actually swinging at it- but a thought-leader is more comparable to the superstar on the team, instead of the superstar coach.

If we apply ideas of general management to social media, every corporate director could claim they have “social media expertise” – you can read more about my thoughts on defining social media expertise on this article I wrote back in March http://ow.ly/iw7Y
http://www.marketingprofs.com bethharte

My Twitter comment to you: “Saying “I produced it” [your link up above] is the antithesis of what you are beating @ChrisBrogan & other speakers up about, right?”

I don't think “beating up” is the wrong phrase here…you are surely 'beating the rug,' so to speak, to get out of it what you feel you need/derserve from the social media space you even said that yourself (“entitled to my opinions”) and that's completely understandable.

My point to my posts above (call me a devil's advocate if you will) is that asking for “proof” (what you've been discussing with Chris) is the antithesis of what you've provided us as an agency (and I say that because you pointed us in that direction w/your link), proof but NO thought leadership.

I totally get your point and I think this has been a great discussion…that said, I, personally, want to see BOTH thought leadership AND proof (and in the social space the proof can also be the person's actions or online reputation…like their community, their blog, their conversations — again subjective, mileage will vary). I don't want a dog & pony show only, I want to know how the agency or consultant trained the dogs and ponies and the process they took to do so.

Also, I think there's a sense in the social media space that self-promotion is a no-no (which could be part of what you are experiencing). Why? It makes no sense to me because after a while I think people earn the right to promote the great things they've done. Like you, I want to see what people are working on because I'd like to be able to refer them. Knowing how they think and what they do tactically is helpful.

Thanks Adam! This has been fun (I like to debate, don't take it personally) and insightful. I know you've been thinking about this topic for a while, so I am glad to see you finally blogged about it.
http://www.thekmiecs.com adamkmiec

Beth

here's the difference…my thinking can be seen on this site, on other sites, on twitter, in Connect Marketing In the Social Media Age, and in the speaking I've done…and I've got the real world examples as credentials. I've got both halves of the equation.
http://www.marketingprofs.com bethharte

You certainly do! But, that said…it's sort of “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” You are asking for proof positive from social media thought leaders, I get and understand that.

My point is that some people aren't as discerning as you…in fact most aren't. My argument (since you work for an agency, I am going to start there) is that a lot of agencies say “the do social media” and yet *they* don't walk the walk either.

My only point is that it goes both way and I am trying to provide some balance to the conversation here.

Valeria Maltoni (Conversation Agent) had a post on agencies that were also social…it was VERY short.

I don't know what you've done as a social media practictioner, I'd love to see what social media programs you have put together for clients. Do you have anything other than the links above? (Like I said, I am always looking for references.)
mikewagner

Great question and resulting exchange.

The teacher in me believes I can take nearly any subject and make it exciting and practical without a lot of practitioner experience.

And, the opportunist in me recognizes there aren't always very high thresholds for claiming expertise; anyone can, for example, claim to be a “social media expert”, or so it seems these days.

But the “do I write this guy a check for a speech and/or consulting” judge inside me says, “I'll write the check for the communicator who is also a practitioner”.

I've spent more than a few years practicing what I speak/write about, Performance Branding. Clients seem to respect and value that fact as much as my ability to teach and entertain when called upon to do so.

Again, thanks for stirring the pot!

Keep creating…a brand worth raving about,
Mike
http://twitter.com/SIGEPJEDI → JOSH CARRICO ←

I agree with you 110% and we also see/saw this within SEO/SEM
Pingback: Why I Hate Chris Brogan
Pingback: Whiskey Notes and Parachuting Fish » The Real Thought Leaders