New: AstrolabeX, the AI visibility audit for senior tech leaders. Join early access →
All insights
4 min read
88% Believe It Works. Only 17% Rate It Well.
Edelman and LinkedIn found decision-makers overwhelmingly trust executive content, and rarely think the content they get is any good. That gap is the opportunity.
In 2020, Edelman and LinkedIn surveyed 1,164 US business decision-makers about the expert content companies publish. The headline finding was a contradiction. 88% said this kind of content is an effective way to improve their perception of an organization. Only 17% rated the quality of what they actually read as very good or excellent.
Four years later, in the 2024 edition of the study, the share rating it very good or excellent had fallen to 15%. Belief in the format held up. Satisfaction with the execution didn’t.
Bad content isn’t neutral
Most teams assume a weak post simply gets ignored. The data says otherwise. In the 2020 study, 38% of decision-makers said reading poor-quality content had lowered their respect for a company, and about a quarter said they had decided not to award business to a company after reading something that disappointed them.
So publishing is not a free option. A mediocre post from a senior leader carries their name and the company’s reputation into a buyer’s inbox, and it can cost you a deal you never knew was in play.
Why most executive content disappoints
When we review leadership content across companies, the same weaknesses show up repeatedly.
It says what everyone says. “AI will change everything.” “Customers come first.” Readers can’t find anything they couldn’t have read from a competitor.
It has no evidence. No numbers, no named situations, no decisions with stakes. Opinions without proof read as marketing.
It sounds like no one. Heavily edited copy, or copy produced by generic AI tools, loses the leader’s voice. Readers notice. One analysis by Originality.ai estimated that more than half of long LinkedIn posts in 2025 were likely AI-generated, and buyers have become quick to scroll past them.
It isn’t aimed at anyone. Content written for “the market” in general rarely lands with the specific people who make decisions.
What decision-makers say they want
Edelman’s research has been consistent about what earns attention. Decision-makers value content that challenges their assumptions, offers a perspective they hadn’t considered and is grounded in real expertise. In the 2025 edition, 64% said they spend more than an hour a week reading this kind of material, and 95% of “hidden” buyers, people in the buying group who rarely talk to sales, said strong content makes them more receptive to outreach.
That’s an audience with time and appetite, waiting for something worth reading.
Closing the quality gap
The gap between 88% and 17% is where the advantage sits. You don’t need to out-publish competitors. You need to be in the small group whose content buyers rate highly.
In practice, that means a few disciplines:
Start from real experience. Every piece should trace back to a decision, a pattern or a lesson the leader actually lived.
Pick a fight with a common assumption. Say what you believe that others in your industry don’t.
Show the proof. Numbers, before-and-after, specific (anonymized where needed) situations.
Keep the voice. Edit for clarity, not for blandness. If the leader wouldn’t say it out loud, cut it.
Write for named audiences. Know which roles each piece is for and what they care about.
Measuring quality, not volume
Most teams track impressions and follower growth. Those numbers matter, but they don’t tell you whether content is good. Better signals include who engages (titles and companies, not just counts), whether sales conversations reference the content, and whether journalists, event organizers or AI engines start citing the leader.
That’s the job our platform is built for. Voice StudioX keeps every draft rooted in what the leader actually said, with quality checks before anything reaches them, and MeridianX tracks which content reaches the people who matter.
Belief in the format is already there. The opening is quality.