Most B2B thought leadership content efforts fail before anyone starts writing.
A ghostwriter reads three competitor posts, assembles an outline or proposal, and sends it up for approval. The executive skims it, finds nothing to object to, and signs off. But…finding nothing to object to is exactly the problem.
What gets published is what everyone in the category already said. It ranks for nothing. Nobody cites it. Sales won’t send it.
This works the other way around. The raw material comes from your executive, not from the internet: the argument they make in every QBR, the pattern they’ve watched repeat across forty deals, the thing they’d say on a podcast and never put in writing because writing takes time they don’t have.
We extract it. Then build a holistic publishing plan around it.
How it works
It starts with a working session. Ninety minutes, recorded, structured around the positions your executive actually holds rather than the topics your content calendar wants covered. Most of that session has us pushing on claims until they’re specific enough to be disagreed with by someone.
That’s the test. A claim nobody could argue with isn’t a position, it’s a description. And it won’t get traction in AI search…or anywhere else, frankly.
We map the defensible arguments, identify which ones survive contact with the evidence, and cut the ones that turn out to be category boilerplate. What’s left becomes a claim inventory: a small set of positions your executive can defend, sourced and specific, with a publishing sequence attached.
Then we turn it into a quarter’s worth of content. Articles and posts in their voice, videos and webinars with a real POV. Structured so an AI engine can lift a clean answer and attribute it correctly.
What you get
- A claim inventory of defensible positions with sourcing, scored for novelty and falsifiability.
- A published sequence: one pillar piece plus supporting articles, each built around a claim your executive owns rather than a keyword your competitors also bid on.
- LinkedIn posts in first person that don’t read like a marketing department wrote them.
- FAQ and article schema on every piece, because a position nothing can parse is a position nothing will cite.
- A quarterly cadence your executive or SME can sustain, which mostly means one recorded conversation instead of eleven Slack threads about a draft.
Who this is for
Founders, CEOs, CTOs and leading subject matter experts at B2B tech, medtech, and govtech companies who have a genuine point of view and a calendar that keeps it unpublished.
It works best when the executive has operating history worth mining. It works badly when the goal is volume, or when the real ask is a byline with someone else’s opinions under it.
Why us?
The person in the room with your executive is the person who writes the draft. No account layer, no junior writer three steps removed from the interview, no strategy deck that gets handed to someone who was never there.
At Vendavo, a campaign built on a single defensible claim from SMEs produced 80+ MQLs and 1,200+ press mentions. At Evisort, bylined content plus SEO and AEO/GEO implementation drove a 316% increase in blog traffic in about a month; revenue grew 35% over just six months.
Executive thought leadership content is crucial in AEO/GEO. So we know how to build AEO/GEO/SEO campaigns with executive content; we were doing it long before most agencies ever understood it thanks to our work with AI clients.
How to get started
Before we draft anything, we run content through our own proprietary models to see how original a draft or published piece is versus what’s already out there in your category. We’ll score how citeable it is when an AI engine parses it.
What comes back is an analysis of which claims are impactful, which are just boilerplate in a confident voice, and which are worth rewriting.
Send us something you’ve already published. We’ll tell you what an AI engine would do with it.
What if our executive isn't a good writer?
Many aren't, and it doesn't matter. Writing ability and having a defensible position are unrelated skills. The session is a conversation, not a dictation exercise, and the transcript is raw material rather than a draft.
How is this different from a ghostwriter?
A ghostwriter usually starts with a topic and researches their way to a draft, which means the finished piece contains whatever the internet already said about that topic. We start with what your executive believes and work outward to the evidence, then create an entire strategy to extend it across your GRM and demand gen surfaces.
What if their position turns out to be wrong?
Better to find out in a recorded session than in the comments. Part of the work is pressure-testing claims against the evidence before they get published, and occasionally that means cutting an argument the executive was fond of.
Will this help us show up in ChatGPT and AI Overviews?
That's the intent. Generative engines cite sources that add something the settled position doesn't already contain, so original claims have a structural advantage over restated consensus. We also handle the mechanical side, which means schema, extractable answer blocks, and clean entity signals.
How long before anything gets published?
First piece typically lands two to four weeks after the session. The content sequence publishes across the quarter rather than all at once, since a claim needs time to get picked up before the follow-on pieces have anything to build on.