Social media is all fun and games until somebody . . . realizes they’re sharecropping.
a.k.a. We need your thought leadership, yesterday. And social media is not the (best) way to spread it. There’s another way: the gold standard way.
Hint: this quick essay will help you process the feelings you’ve been having about social media lately. And: it will direct the desire you have to craft more meaningful resources (books, essays, workshops, etc.) to grow your thought leadership and raise your online profile.
Originally published November 2021; updated September 2023
by: Regina Anaejionu
The ideas and platforms that will dominate this half of the century are disproportionately owned and shaped by the global minority.
It almost feels like the privileged few (who actively/passively disenfranchise the many) have a regular megaphone to spread their ideas, and everyone else has been given a reverse megaphone to play with. This is a problem, yes, but it’s existed for centuries. So why bring it up right now?
Because a massive shakeup is necessary. And without it, these ideas and platforms (tech/tools/resources) that the global minority are crafting and taking advantage of will soon reach escape velocity.
They’ll be so big, they’ll be virtually un-catch-up-with-able.
Of course, you’ve already seen this happen. Facebook (Meta). Apple. Tesla.
These are the big, always-on examples.
But, if you think about it, most of the “gold standard” ideas shared in speeches, universities, and books—on most of the topics under the sun: mental/physical health, business, money, technology—are also shared and shaped by the privileged, global minority.
So, to be clear, this means that the majority of nonprofits, government programs, college courses, books, and products available to “help” us establish wealth, learn specialized skills, heal, grow, obtain property, and gain true power in society are: (at best) not designed by people who can even begin to know our experience or design solutions that work for us, and (at worst) crafted so we don’t succeed and so that the gap in power and access widens.
We live in a “be so good they can’t ignore you” society. Where people who meet the “standard” of beauty, intelligence, professionalism, and “good values” love to say that everything is merit-based and fair.
The books that are in stores are the better books. The jobs are given to the better applicants.
Cool story, bro.
But back in the real world, I’m writing this plea/essay to call us to act in ways that help ensure our ideas, products, and platforms can achieve true scale in the next 5, 10, 20, and 50+ years.
I’m making this plea because we need your ideas—your thought leadership—in bookstores, schools, business, and more.
And guess what?
The social media companies that market themselves as “helpful, free tools to grow your platform” aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. In fact, they do damage to most people’s dreams and projects.
So, you may be wondering two things before you read any further:
1. What is this piece?
Three “reality checks” to help us actually grow our platforms and ideas.
2. Who is this piece for?
The traditionally disenfranchised people in society who have huge ideas to share that will change the world and/or solve meaningful problems.
People who have disabilities, or are BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, women, neurodivergent, and many more important groups of people.
“Storytellers are a threat. They threaten all champions of control, they frighten usurpers of the right-to-freedom of the human spirit—in state, in church or mosque, in party congress, in the university or wherever..”
— Chinua Achebe, in his novel Anthills of the Savannah
Reality check #1: The lifespan of your average social media post is shorter than you might think.
You’re perhaps familiar with the term: depreciation. If not, “depreciation” basically addresses how an item loses value over time.
Some depreciation is drastic—like when you buy a new car. The moment you drive it off the lot, the amount you can resell your car for decreases significantly. Estimates are that between 20 - 30% of your car’s “value” is lost in the first year you own it.*
So, if you have extra money to invest, a car probably won’t be your first choice, because the only real guarantee is that it will go down in value.
Another depreciating asset that you likely deal with even more than cars is social media content.
From the moment you tweet thread, or the moment you post on Instagram, your content may have seconds or hours of value before it’s so low it’s not worth mentioning.
When you prioritize publishing social media content, you’re prioritizing content that decreases in value over time. Very rapidly.
But, how fast does your work depreciate? You might wonder.
If you ask Google this question, you get a bunch of people quoting studies (example 1 | example 2) from 10 years ago, so I imagine things are way worse now . . .
And, you get a bunch of people making fancy infographics sharing either the half-life of social media (as in—how long it takes for a post to receive half the engagement it’s going to) or the full shelf life of a post.
Let’s simplify all this and estimate the below averages (check if these feel right to you, because my experience totally tracks):
TikTok & Twitter (or whatever it’s called now) posts have lost most of their value within 15 minutes if they don’t “go viral” first.
Facebook posts have gotten all their significant engagement within the first 10 hours.
Instagram posts have received almost all the attention they’ll ever get within 21 hours of posting.
LinkedIn posts have gotten most of their attention within 48 hours.
Search engines like Pinterest & YouTube can mean your content has a shelf life of months, or even a year or more.
Blog posts get most of the attention, visitors, and engagement they’ll receive in the first 2 years.
Now, if this is true (or even close to true), it may seem obvious to you what to do here, but . . . this is where one of the biggest, sneakiest social media problems of the last decade comes into play.
Social media companies don’t want us to pay attention to a list like this. And if we do happen across some data like this, they want our attention focused on hacks and tricks to improve our performance on the algorithm . . . which sounds like a good thing . . . but really just equates to us “users” spending more time on the platform and creating more content for the platform.
Social media companies want us to solve the wrong problem.
Instead of zooming out and reassessing our strategy and goals from the top down (how do I get out of this cycle or not even enter it to begin with?), we’re being conditioned to do more labor and try to prove our worthiness for the algorithm to give us a little more attention.
If 1 post on Instagram has an average lifespan of 21 hours, then it has the potential to work for us for 1,260 minutes.
Sounds nice, but . . .
If 1 blog post has an average lifespan of 2 years, then it has the potential to work for us for 1,051,200 minutes.
I repeat: 1,260 minutes vs. 1,051,200 minutes.
And even if you can create 10 solid Instagram posts in the time it takes you to create 1 blog post, you’re still comparing 12,600 minutes to 1,051,200.
Make the math make sense.
Don’t love blogging? Good news is blog posts are just one of the types of more evergreen content we’ll talk about shortly, but we’re not done with these social media companies yet.
So again: we are being conditioned to spend our time and brain power on how to “beat the algorithm” in order to grow and “have value” on these platforms, instead of asking if that’s even the right problem to solve.
My proof is the companies themselves. Their business model (mentioned in the next section), and even what they publish “for” us shows us this is their goal.
Companies like Instagram (Meta) are publishing blog updates about the new changes to their algorithm, giving us tips on how to use it for our businesses.
“How generous of them, right? All this free content.” - people
And companies like TikTok are boldly just announcing that we should post 1-4 times per day and ask ourselves: “How can we improve the content’s creative quality? How can we produce a continuous, high-volume supply of fresh content?”
So then, other businesses and influencers join in and start telling us how to get the most out of ABC platform now that the algorithm has changed.
“How generous of them, right? All this helpful content.” - more people
And pretty soon, every influencer and site is echoing ideas like these from Hootsuite:
Post on IG 2 - 3 times per day (including Stories), Facebook & LinkedIn, 1 - 2 per day, and so on.
And . . . we don’t want to be late, so we start adjusting:
“Okay, I’ll post 3x/day instead.”
“Fine. I’ll join yet another platform and post multiple times per day there too.”
“Okay I have to do one reel per day.”
“Okay, now I need to [insert some time-consuming strategy here].”
But . . .👇🏽
But this is all a part of the game that certain people made up to occupy us while they go and make the real money.
And just like video games, there are often new rules and required skills at each level. The same actions you did in Level 1 aren’t enough to get you past Level 3, so you’re always guessing, gaming, and spending time trying to find the hack.
🎮 + ⏳ = 📉
Except, the game of social media is to keep us doing the labor (creating assets that depreciate in hours) for free.
If they took months to depreciate, we wouldn’t use the platform as much. But because it’s hours, we “need” to spend more and more and more and more of our time on the platform for it to work for us.
And as you likely already know, we are the product on social media. Social media giants like Facebook sell our time and attention to the highest bidder—businesses who pay for ads because they want us to buy their goods.
Those businesses are the customers of platforms like TikTok/IG.
Not us. We’re built into their business model as the product.
So, just to make sure we’re tracking and mathing correctly:
we are the ones creating the content (labor) ✅,
which means we are the ones creating value on the platform ✅,
but we are also the ones having our attention and data used/sold as the product ✅,
and that attention is being sold to businesses who want us to buy more products ✅.
My friends, meet sharecropping.
I don’t want to diminish what sharecropping was, and still is, in our society, so here’s the quick backstory on why sharecropping was so terrible, and how it hurt Black farmers and families so much in the United States of America . . .
After the Civil war, so after 1865, people who were formerly held in slavery, along with poor white families, were “allowed” to use rich white families’ lands to farm (cotton, rice, tobacco, etc.) in exchange for a portion of their crops.
Since racism exists now, and existed then, farmers dealt with:
1️⃣ Having to borrow from landowners/merchants on credit (at wild interest rates) to get the animals, machinery, equipment, fertilizer, etc. needed to run the farm.
2️⃣ Receiving (at times) only a small portion of the crops they cultivated in exchange for their work. At times they received none of the crops they grew (for them to sell and make money from), and were thus in debt to the landowner the next season.
3️⃣ Suffering under laws that entitled “property owners to set the worth of a crop at settling time and did not obligate landlords to put contracts in writing or require tenants to have access to ledgers or records.”* Meaning: the person you’re borrowing land and money from can also randomly decide how much the crops you grew are worth.
4️⃣ And much more.
Being inside this terrible system, some farmers attempted to get ahead or get out of the cycle by maximizing how much they were planting and how much they were using the soil, which then depleted the soil’s nutrients and made it harder to grow healthy crops the next time around.
So, THAT is sharecropping.
It was a terrible, ugly, vicious cycle and is often spoken of as a newer form of slavery that was developed once Black people were “freed” in America.
And I’d argue that the gist of sharecropping on social media is:
We rent space on platforms we don’t own.
We pay for that space by becoming “the product” whose attention is sold to the highest ads bidder.
Our attention is also being usurped by the makers of the platform and what they’ve programmed their algorithm to show us.
Our data is being collected, stored, and reused without our knowledge or permission (at times).
We are still the workforce that fills the platform with value, ideas, content, and meaning.
HOW SWAY?
Just, how?
And yes . . .
An argument could totally be made: “Well, that’s just business. And people are choosing to be a part of it. Nobody is forcing them.”
That argument has technical correctness, but doesn’t address the spirit behind the deception and misrepresentation these platforms employ.
They market themselves as free (though Facebook changed the famous line on their signup page—“It's free and always will be”—in 2019), easy to sign up for, and simple to use to grow our businesses.
They spend a ton of time and money researching how to develop actually addictive products.
They are doing what’s in their power to make their chosen business model work.
And many people, many business owners, many underrepresented voices end up as collateral damage, when there’s another way to approach content creation and the spreading of ideas.
I repeat:
Underrepresented voices end up as the collateral damage of social media platforms pursuing their chosen business model.
Because, let’s be real.
The global minority of non-marginalized people we spoke of earlier—the people who are creating (or stealing) the “gold standard” in content on mental health, business, parenting, finances, physical health, creativity, career advancement, and other personal development topics—they are not playing the Instagram-TikTok-Facebook game that keeps us distracted.
Some of them use the platforms, sure, but they have a whole different strategy and content ecosystem set up to make sure their ideas and platforms run/guide this century.
Sharecropping keeps us poor and underresourced. The people who own the land, and the seed, and the equipment make the real money and have the real power.
Similarly, prioritizing social media limits our impact and helps ensure we reamain underresourced. The people putting their books in bookstores/colleges, creating software used by millions/billions of people, etc., are making the real money and deciding what the world looks/sounds/feels like.
Social media companies benefit by keeping us stuck. They wouldn’t have any free products to sell (as in: our attention) if we were to all scale down our use of it and instead spread our ideas the “gold standard” way (which we’re gonna outline and talk about below).
Now, I’m not picking on your favorite life coach, but let’s talk:
There is a reason Tony Robbins only posts on Instagram every few days. Sure, we say things like “Because he has such a big platform he doesn’t need to.”
But. That’s stopping too early in the thought trail.
Tony Robbins has written the books, built the software (yep, that’s a thing), and secured so much coinage spreading his ideas, Instagram just exists as a way to connect with the people who prefer or use that platform. He can also gauge interest for new products/ideas on Instagram, and guide people into feeling that they are getting to know him, deeply, but at scale.
He can post once a week (or not post) and maintain his market position. His ideas are being spread multiple times each second through somebody buying a book, or watching a documentary, or hearing a coworker share his content, etc.
He made great money through thought leadership content (and without picking on him, I might add, he was saying things that had been said before, but he packaged them differently), then used the money to spread his message further, invest in and build software, and secure a spot for his agenda in the future.
I’m stating reality, and not attempting to diminish any positive impact he’s had on people. One can easily consider what he’s done impressive.
We always assume that certain people (like Tony Robbins) don’t have to play by the rules because of how big they are, and then we follow that up with thinking we have to get big on social media (usually Instagram or TikTok) to have the same freedom.
What if the question is not ❌: “How do I get as big as Tony Robbins on IG?”
But instead, “How do I create a platform for my ideas where I have limitless impact through evergreen publishing and where my social media accounts grow as a byproduct?”
🤔
At the end of the day, Tony Robbins has freedom with how he uses social media. It doesn’t own his time and attention, or limit his impact.
That’s what you want too, right? You’ve been feeling gross about social media for a while, yes?
All these “free” social platforms meant to “empower” us or “enable us as creators” should cause us to stop and think. If they’re directing our attention to how “free” they are and what we now need to do to keep up with their algorithms, can’t we be pretty sure they’re doing so because that’s what they want us to be occupied with?
It doesn’t benefit major social media companies (in a modern, capitalistic business sense) to encourage us to do the things that actually help us change the world and grow our businesses, and spread our ideas the way “gold standard” people are.
Because in reality, the “gold standard” method has very little to do with social media.
I learned this from personal experience (that I’ll tell you about), but I’ll also share examples from other people to illustrate this.
Reality check #2: Most of your competitors, and most social media companies, do not want you to figure out how to spread your ideas the “gold standard” way.
Let’s say you have a big, meaningful thing you want to do in the world: for example, help people write memoirs they can use for activism, or help people start a specific kind of business that changed your life . . . which path do you choose 👇🏽 if you want to make maximum impact in six months and are able to work a 40-hour work week?
Path A:
Post 2 times per day on Instagram and then “network” with potential clients. Total work time: 1.5 hours per day.
Post 2 times per day on LinkedIn and network. Total work time: 1 hour.
Post 2 TikToks per day. Total work time: 1.5 hours.
Serve clients and customers for 2 - 3 hours per day.
And then do this every weekday for 6 months.
Note: If 6 months is about 26 weeks, then that’s 130 weekdays. During those 130 weekdays, you’ll have:
Created 260 Instagram posts and spent 195 hours on the platform.
Created 260 LinkedIn posts and spent 130 hours on the platform.
Posted 260 TikTok videos and spent 195 hours on the platform.
Spent about 325 hours on client work.
Total work hours in 6 months: 845 (or 32.5 per week)
And everything you produced was a depreciating asset that is no longer working for you after about a day or so.
At the end of 6 months you’ve created zero assets that have the ability to continue to sell your work, grow your platform, or impact lives.
So, you have to keep this cycle up to keep having an impact.
Path B:
Post 2 - 3 times per week on Instagram. Turn your best 1 or 2 posts each month into a lean social media ad. Total work time 3 hours per week.
Post 2 - 3 times per week on LinkedIn. Turn your best post of the month into an ad. Total work time 3 hours per week.
Post 2 blog posts or YouTube videos (or other evergreen content) per month. Total work time 15 hours per month.
Host a signature introductory workshop/class online. Total work time 7 hours per month (because it’s the same class every month).
Serve clients for 1.5 hours per day (you take on fewer clients because you also sell your workshop each month).
Work on the book you’ll publish soon. Total work time 5 hours per week.
In 6 months (which is 26 weeks and 130 weekdays), you’ll have:
Created 65 Instagram posts and spent 78 hours on the platform.
Created 65 LinkedIn posts and spent 78 hours on the platform.
Created and published 12 blog posts or videos, spending 90 hours.
Hosted 6 live workshops that took you 42 hours.
Spent 195 hours on client work.
Finished and launched your targeted, short book, spending 130 hours on it.
Total work hours in 6 months: 613 (or 23.5 per week)
Plus: you’ve optionally spent $150 - $300+ per month on ads to help scale the spread of your ideas. Again, this is optional.
With Path B, you’ve created 12 assets that, on average, will continue selling your work, growing your platform, and impacting lives for 2 years or more. And 1 asset (your book) that will likely sell, grow, and impact for 5–10 years or more.
I’ve been doing about 1/3 of the posting in Path B for the past seven years and have:
Made more than a full-time income each month.
Sold multiple spots in my monthly workshop to new people every month (starting four years ago).
Booked 99% of my client list and 100% of my multi-month group program from workshop attendees without sales calls and without pitching them during the workshop. So, I haven’t spent any time trying to convince people to work with me.
When I was first getting started in my current business ~12 years ago, I followed Path B more “strictly” . . . as in, I was consistent with blogging, publishing books more often, etc., but I have never (in 10+ years) followed Path A.
Why? Let me ask you a question.
And it’s not a trick question:
What’s more valuable to you: 1 follower on Instagram who has consumed your last 3 posts or 1 book customer who has read your last book?
When I published my second print book in 2014, I quickly had more book customers than followers on Instagram. My Instagram account grew as a byproduct of people finding my blog content, YouTube videos, or book. Instagram wasn’t then, and isn’t now, my focus. Or what I rely on to find clients.
It can be a valuable tool, but I spend very little time there. I opt to spend $5/day or $10/day ($150 to $300 per month) on an ad instead of 50 - 100 work hours per month there.
Note: These are not just any old ads, or any old Instagram posts, or any old books that make this system work for me and my clients, but we can talk about that another time (or in the Intellectual Property OS Program).
So what is this “gold standard” way to publish online that people like Tony Robbins and James Clear have mastered?
And are there more examples than just them?
You may notice that Tony, James, and Donald have sizable social media followings. And as we talked about earlier, that can easily lead a person to think that this is what they need in order for their ideas to have the most meaningful amount of reach. Let’s dig into some data first, then I’ll show you some examples with smaller followings online.
James Clear has 1.7 million followers on Instagram at the time of writing.*
“Well, dang. That’s a big number. So, you’re saying I should go after big IG numbers, right?” - people
“Nah.” - Regina
Because you have to keep searching for, and thinking about, what’s going on in the background:
James Clear has over 3 million subscribers on his email list.
He has 2 million people visit his website (and blog posts) every single month.
And he has sold over 25 million copies of Atomic Habits.*
*His Instagram following (which I pulled as of September 2025 while reformatting this piece) is the smallest number here. For every 1 follower on IG, almost 15 people own his book. Which resource is more valuable to him? 2 million people read his work on his website every single month; 1.7 million people get some of his content in their IG feed each month. Which platform is more valuable to him?
James Clear’s social media grows as a byproduct of all his other work. His blog, his email list, and the people who tell others about his book, daily, are the primary drivers of sales and meaningful spread of his ideas. Not social media.
I’m not saying to abandon social media, I’m arguing we should use it the gold standard way.
Tony Robbins has sold significantly more books than his 6.7 million IG following.
Just one of Donald Miller’s websites had 124,000 visits last month (when I ran the check).
Gold standard publishers are incomparably more invested in the quality of their website content, their books, and their enjoyable/easeful business model than they are in what sound is trending on reels.
It feels silly to even put those things in the same sentence 🙄: print books that sell hundreds of thousands (or millions) of copies vs. worrying about which way to point or dance in this here reel.
And note: none of the examples above average more than a post per day on IG. And most of them post fewer times than once per day . . . just a few times each week.
You may notice that Priya, Tara, and I don’t have social media followings comparable to Tony Robbins or James Clear. But here’s what we do have:
Websites that receive thousands and thousands of visits each month. P.S. we all have articles and blog posts on our sites.
Business and publishing models that make sense for making a lot of meaningful impact, and a track record of impact.
Books that sell more copies than our social media followings.*
And none of us post more than ~3 times per week on IG. Tara and I haven’t posted in months at the time of this writing. I’m not suggesting you adopt this same posting schedule stat 🤣, just highlighting another way people interact with social media.
*I’m taking a guess on this since I don’t know Priya and Tara’s book sales stats and they don’t post them on their sites, from what I can tell.
As for me, my first print book is pictured above—don’t judge the cover design, I was just learning. This book alone didn’t sell more than 20,000 copies, but it did get picked up by multiple colleges in the U.S. as a required textbook in their small business classes. Also:
My second print book sold over 12,000 copies in its first few years (which made over $200K in revenue and over $100K in profit).
Between all my print and digital books, I’ve sold well over my 24,000-person IG following.
I’ve also developed curriculum for a digital business course for an HBCU and spoken on college campuses (as well as other conferences).
I’ve run two different websites in the past that both had ~5 million pageviews in 6 years.
All while posting less content per year on social media than most people say you should publish in a month.
What’s my point here?
In the age of AI—and tons of people competing for attention online, if you are a thought leader with meaningful ideas to share:
Trying to compete on quantity is actually foolish.
Trying to compete on quality will weed a few people out, but is clearly not enough because so very many people are already trying that.
Competing on placement, relevance, and the strategic platform you build for your thought leadership is a much better way to spend your energy.
And success with gold standard publishing that uses a thought leadership model is not just for the “big guys” who have millions of followers.
“Placement” means getting your ideas where they can do the most good: in evergreen books, articles on your website, videos on YouTube, essays, guest posts in leading publications, etc.
“Relevance” means that because many of your followers will be book customers, or workshop attendees, or people you carefully selected for your ads to be shown to, your online connections will feel your content is very relevant to them. They’ll be more inclined to share your ideas/work and buy from you than the average social media follower.
And a “strategic platform” relates to building your body of thought leadership work as an intentional ecosystem, which we talk about in the next (and last) section below.
If the average Instagram post has a 1,260-minute average lifespan, but a blog post has a 1,051,200-minute (2-year) lifespan, and the average book has a 2,628,000-minute (5-year) lifespan, then . . .
A single post on Instagram lasts .1198% as long as a blog post or article. (Not even 1%).
Or .0479% as long as a book.
👆🏽 To prioritize social at the expense of evergreen resources is “sharecropping” social media, IMO.
Because, said another way, you’d have to create 834 Instagram posts to have as much air time as 1 blog post. That means you’d need to publish 2.28 IG posts per day (including weekends) for a year. To take the place of ONE BLOG POST.
You’d have to create 2,085 IG posts to have as much air time as 1 book. That’s 5.7 posts per day for a year (including weekends).
And, there are diminishing returns for your content when you post multiple times per day, so posting 2–6 times per day may not even be as effective as what we just said above.
Gold standard social media is:
Where your accounts grow as a byproduct of the other work you’re doing that is longer lasting and evergreen.
Being connected almost exclusively with people who sought you out after connecting with your ideas on another platform (like your website, or in your book).
Using targeted “thought leadership” ads, so you can get back to valuing your time more than money.
When you only post on IG/TikTok/LinkedIn to work out your ideas for more evergreen pieces, or because you’re already well paid, have your impact engine rolling, and want to have fun online.
People (who are disproportionately a part of the global minority) have found a way to publish evergreen resources and scale their growth & impact with minimal social media use, by maximizing evergreen content impact. Their social media grows as a byproduct of their deeper work.
You can have the same thing. It feels like people who are in positions of power and comfort want us to do what they say and not what they do. Because what they do is more easeful and pleasant than what they want to distract us with (“post 3x/day on social!” “Use Facebook to grow your business for free!”).
It’s like investing: one person is earning money off the interest (byproduct, if you will) of their other money, and they tell the other person to go work a minimum wage job to earn their money. That second person then has to spend every cent of their wage to live, and the cycle continues.
I’ve been in the latter position, and it is rough.
But, we have the chance to invest and make money on the interest. Meaning: invest our energy creating evergreen content and make money selling our knowledge-based products as well as from the byproduct growth of our overall platform (including social media).
And all this growth will be with the right people . . . who love, share, and buy our ideas and intellectual property.
We gotta have higher standards for our marketing and meaningful work than getting big on the ‘gram.
If you want each blog post, each YouTube video, each podcast episode, each book, or each social media post you publish to have maximum efficacy, you’ll want to make sure each piece is intentionally designed to be a key part of your overall thought leadership ecosystem. And you’ll probably want to stop using “know-like-trust” marketing (a.k.a. expert content marketing), influencer content marketing, and what I call “secret holder” content marketing.
Hint: I explain all 3 of these and talk about your 4th option (thought leadership marketing/publishing) right here on the info page for my crash course called Intellectual Property OS.
In the crash course, we focus on a few key things:
Your Why—A Well-Defined North Star: We go through key exercises to help you identify your core tenets (driving beliefs), the “big, important, specific question” driving your work, and more.
Your What—An Always-On Web: We plan a unique 4-part thought leadership ecosystem (of content and products) designed to bring your ideas a steady influx of new people each week.
Your Who—The Community You Help Transform: We completely reimagine what you know about your best-fit community using a 5 key exercises.
The How—A Systematic Approach to Content: Next, we implement a repeatable approach to creating more appreciating assets (that are growing in value) and fewer depreciating assets (like social media) . . . while still filling your overall thought leadership ecosystem and creating your body of work.
Reality check #3: A new content publishing model for under-resourced, overworked experts and activists is necessary.
You and your ideas deserve a model built on gold standard publishing, not constant social media labor.
Let’s let the influencers track likes and follows and how many times they can release a new reel this month.
You track when people save your ideas, click on them, and use them to change their lives or businesses.
You track transformation and sales.
For people who have traditionally been marginalized in this society, there is no such thing as “be so good they can’t ignore you” or “go viral on TikTok so many times they can’t ignore you.” I guarantee you they can and they will.
For thought leaders, it’s about being strategic, not playing by the “sharecropping” social media rules they’ve given us and instead using gold standard thought leadership publishing to grow our impact in lasting formats . . . that help the rest of our platforms grow as a byproduct.
Thank you for reading, and I’d love to see you soon in the Intellectual Property OS Program.