Critical Thinking vs Thought Leadership in Content Production
This article is going to be a quick one between the differences of real thought behind the concepts that require change in the Content Production realm, so bear with me (as the scope is vast and could be dug much deeper, so if you want me to dive further, give us a note in the comments).
I will be purposefully putting Critical Thinking & Thought Leadership in opposite positions, as this is just a thought exercise, in regards to 3 fundamental questions that plague the current independent Content Production market (especially in Singapore).
Critical Thinking (CT), is focused on thinking strategically, leading change, creating a vision & engagement with others, inciting inspiration & understanding of the overall picture (it also deals with nuance, purpose, inference & possible negative repercussions). This is more a personal or leadership skill.
Thought Leadership (TL), honestly if done right, can/should include critical thinking, but it focuses more on an “authority” perspective of knowledge & specialized POVs while being rewarded & fomented by interpretation in the market of what is thought (bit vaguer, but the market loves it). This is more a market skill, a lot of thought leaders therefore fall for the “unique/my POV problem” without a bi-lateral approach (good or bad) of what might be necessary for change, as there are always KPIs to be met.
So then let’s dive into a few Content Production problems that these 2 modes of thinking can approach, and hopefully you can see why a lot of these problems do not change or get better.
“Content has no inherent value”
CT: Content itself, if there’s no transactional value to it (the selling or the buying of it or of any associated products connected to it) has no inherent value other than the time that is taken to consume it. So therefore the value of said content is correlated to the time of consumption and the value (if monetary) therefor is individualized to each person that consumes it (for Warren Buffet for eg, watching a 1min video on FB is worth $25,000).
TL: Each company creates content to engage with their audience, so there’s a direct relationship between said company/brand and their consumer, so the direct value of said content can be measured in a ROI approach through the marketing funnel, making it a quantifiable fact that content has inherent value. It only has no value when the returns to said company aren’t met.
“Creativity in content can be fostered & grown exponentially”
CT: The amount of educational, institutional & societal reform necessary to make a culture based creative approach to content creation, is tremendously difficult and would take 1 or more generations to implement effectively.
Schools can teach students to produce content but teaching creative thinking skills to support said produced content, might not be as easy. One is a technical skill, the other one requires purposeful failure, experimentation, exploration, questioning assumptions and firmly held societal beliefs while synthesizing an approach for the content produced.
TL: Social, Content & Communication platforms have given us an unlimited tap for creativity. If anyone has access to YouTube or TikTok or any video platform, they can inherently learn how to create content in the most creative way possible — therefore, creativity can be fostered and grown exponentially.
“Singaporean Content cannot compete with International Content”
CT: The argument shouldn't be made that local content can’t compete with content from other countries to grab an audience, it should be flipped to, local content should always foster to the local people first (to saturation) before it ever should even try to compete with an external face/direction. The issue being that for every time this is stated, the market argument that Singapore is a small society (and has a small market cap for content consumption), always indicates that any content produced for a local audience, will always be seen as too niche for an international audience (which is inherently nonsensical as for any business endeavor to be successful, the satisfaction & saturation of a niche should always be the first step in said business/content direction & model).
TL: Singaporeans have an eclectic & international taste, therefore since the whole market is open to the view of Singaporeans, you should think local, but act global in your approach to content development. It is true that your content might be compared to similar creativity from other international providers and the fund/budgets might be significantly different, but the true barometer of success of said content will be due to the creativity & audience approach on it. The best content will float up.
Yes, it can be said that both arguments are simplified and flippant, but the reality is that the complexity of solving an entire market issue, should never be seen or spoken about as simple soundbites. Thought Leaders are great (when well done) at synthesizing complex arguments & thoughts into bite-sized, catchphrases or concepts, but one needs to Think Critically about what is being said, so if it is ever to be implemented, biases, approaches, and the “my though trap/problem” is always filtered out.
So, what do you think? Should we start thinking more critically about thought leadership approaches to change, or should we start teaching more thought leaders to dig deeper into their statements to see their real approach to change (especially for the whole benefit of Content Production & in this case Singaporean Creators)?
