We could not find the study we wanted

We could not find the study we wanted

I started this piece with a tidy story. Broad articles dilute the point, readers forget them, and most founder content fails because it tries to please everyone. That story has three parts: broad pieces dilute insight, readers forget them, and most founder content fails for that reason. I wanted to test the first two. I can’t back up the third at all.

None of the sources I found tests whether broad founder articles dilute insight or are forgotten more often. The claim is still our hypothesis, not a finding.

The memory research I found is mostly about word lists and ad recall, not articles. One set of four experiments had 240 participants recall 10-word lists S22. That tells us about recall of lists, not articles. A marketing article summarising memory research describes context effects: ads that matched their surroundings were remembered better in one field study S21. That covers ad recall, not founder writing, so I read it as a hint at most.

What buyers say they want

The 2025 B2B Thought Leadership Impact Report from Edelman and LinkedIn draws on nearly 2,000 global professionals, including hidden decision-makers who influence buying groups S9. The hidden buyers in the 2025 Edelman–LinkedIn report value thinking that informs or even challenges their perspective S9. The report excerpt we reviewed does not compare narrow and broad claims, so it does not settle the question either.

Thought leadership was linked to contact-sharing in one survey. In a self-reported, vendor-run 2019 Edelman–LinkedIn survey of more than 1,200 decision makers, marketers and sellers, said they had shared contact details after reading thought leadership . That did not compare narrow pieces with broad ones. It tells us the format can be tied to contact-sharing, not which version works best.