Thought leadership seems to have become one of the industry’s biggest go-to reputation plays. But does it live up to its purpose of provoking thought and action? Is it becoming synonymous with generic content marketing in a world where every senior leader has a point of view, every brand wants authority and every platform has become a publishing channel?
In an era when leaders are trying to establish credibility, build visibility, demonstrate trust, highlight expertise and inspire change from a place of licence and authority, how can thought leadership stand out from the noise of opinions in a crowded room?
In a world where people are increasingly leaning into artificial intelligence (AI) tools for insight, inspiration and to inspect the quality of their content delivery, what guardrails are necessary to differentiate between ‘goosebump-inducing’ thought leadership and the AI slop that’s populating social media feeds? How can you give people reading thought leadership something that is actually worth their time?
Several brand-side marketers and senior agency leaders gathered to answer these questions, among others, at a round table discussion hosted by Campaign Middle East in partnership with Bloomberg Media at Campaign House at Cannes, France, during the week of the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity 2026 .
Contributing to this discussion, moderated by Campaign Middle East Editor Anup Oommen, were:
At the outset, the leaders discussed what separates a real point of view from corporate wallpaper. The answer, the leaders said, came down to credibility, usefulness, accountability and human judgement.
The room also largely accepted that AI can accelerate research, sharpen structure and make communication more accessible. Yet, the strongest contributions circled back to one simple truth: tools can help carry the load, but they cannot own the belief.
The first challenge is purpose and perception. Too much executive content is judged by visibility rather than by whether it has changed anything for the reader. The stronger test is whether it pushes someone to reconsider, question or act.
Passant El Ghannam , Chief Marketing Officer – MEA, Kraft Heinz , argued that impact does not always need to appear as a hard conversion. Sometimes, the value lies in shifting someone’s lens, even slightly.
“If a piece of thought leadership influenced someone, if it makes you think or offers a different perspective, then I think that’s good content,” she said.
That raises the bar. If the work is only useful to the person publishing it, then it is closer to self-promotion than leadership. Real value begins when the audience walks away with something they can use.
Amit Nayak , Managing Director – MEA, Bloomberg Media , said the market is moving from mere recognition towards usefulness, referencing a Bloomberg Media report that is soon to be published.
Nayak raised key questions, asking: “How do you create value for those engaging with the thought leadership? So, what does the data show? How can you add credibility that makes it something that’s useful for them, so that they engage with it deeper?”
Several participants returned to the same point: authority cannot be borrowed. Thought leadership must be owned by those who have the licence or authority to speak on the topic. Especially in categories such as government, investment, healthcare and business, the person speaking matters as much as the idea itself.
Khaled AlShehh…