You say it well – authority is externally granted.

So far I’d been thinking of authority as “one up” on expertise. You’re an expert + you get recognised for it and become influential. But you’re right – there are some pople who are named authorities who aren’t experts – very dangerous!

I really buy into the David vs Goliath angle. When we were preparing for out podcast interview together (http://ianbrodie.com/authority-marketing-podcast/episode-1-interview-with-tom-searcy/) Tom Searcy and I discussed this.

We’re in a really interesting situation: on the one hand, it’s getting more difficult for small firms to compete. Formalised procurement processes, the requirements for all sorts of policies and standards, etc. are piling on the bureacracy and handing the advantage to incumbents and large firms who can set up “proposal shops”.

Yet at the same time the web is making it easier form small firms to get out and get known.

Interesting, interesting times.

Ian

Results are two of many facets that contribute to the best offering; character, client “wants”, and execution to name a few others.
I agree that being better than the competition means providing the best results, yet very challenging to market.

Regardless of how large my competition is in size and reputation, they never faze me. Those attributes can be pitfalls. There’s much value to be leveraged by the little guy. Goliaths are not as hungry and have less to prove than the smaller Davids. My focus is always on what the client wants and my ability to deliver.

Thanks for letting me think out loud with you.

I’m talking about Professional Services here – not products.

In the professions – yes, there are niches and gaps where no one else is playing. But guess what – it’s usually for a reason. And the reason is that clients don’t value those points of difference.

So the leader is hated because of their pricing, value or way of doing business? I promise you, in the services, there are already people in those low priced and higher value niches – and pretty much every niche that is sustainable.

In a mature market – like it is for many consulting, legal or accounting services – the major niches that clients value are already occupied. Yes, there may be a few that others haven’t spotted – but it’s unlikely. Services are so malleable it’s easy for firms to move into niches. It’s not like they have to invest in a ton of R&D or create expensive new physical products with associated production machinery.

I disagree too with better not being client focused. Right at the start I defined better as being delivering better results for clients. What could be more client focused than that? it’s certainly more client focused than being in a niche just because it’s different to what others are doing.

And the reality is that although, as you say, there are older, more established competitors, few of them are really competing on authority. Look at law firm, consulting or accounting firm websites. How many are demonstrating their knowledge and insight?

Yes, the large national and international firms do. But most professionals don’t compete with them. Local accountants almost always compete against other local accountants – not KPMG or PWC. Few consultants or coaches go up against McKinsey or Accenture. Who they do go up against is the bunch of other local players with no established authority.

And establishing authority is certainly not about “yammering on about your superiority” – authorities just don’t do that. They prove and demonstrate their superiority in advance. They speak on their topic, they publish on it, they give away free and useful material.

Believe me, I’ve spent a long time trying to find differentiated niches for professional services business. Sometimes – but not often – it’s possible. Usually it’s just a fools errand, and the differentiated positions just aren’t big or profitable enough to sustain the business. Far better to invest your time in establishing authority in your “big niche”.

Ian

I disagree with your assertion that it’s better to promote your firm as ‘best’ in a category rather than creating a meaningful difference from competitors. Unless you are already the established leader of your vertical niche, you are likely competing with a number of firms who have been there longer and established themselves more. The idea of ‘better’ is easily the most common approach used in marketing, and therefore the least memorable or believable. Claims of superiority so often seem to ignore the most important concern of prospects: What’s in it for me?

Every leader in a business category has people who hate them for various reasons, including their attitude, their way of doing business or their pricing vs. perceived value. This creates an opportunity to gain authority—by offering a different attitude, different approach, or different value proposition—making you the leader of your own niche. And if your difference is based on a deep understanding of the needs of your prospects, then you will be more interesting to them than a firm who is constantly yammering on about their own superiority.

I’m reminded of a few lines from a book I value by Peter Hawkins and Nick Smith – Coaching, Mentoring and Organizational Consultancy: Supervision and Development (2006: McGraw Hill). On p241, describing the need for API (Authority, Presence, Impact), they write: (after a sentence about credibility arising from achievement / experience etc). To carry true authority in your being is embodied in how you enter a room, how you greet another, and how you hold your experience open as a resource for others, while not imposing it on those who do not ask. To fully take authority, I need to take my rightful space without embarrassment, and to stand my ground, on my ground and be well grounded physically, intellectually and ethically.”

I imagine this might fit well with where your thinking is going.

You’ve hit on the exact area that’s occupying my thoughts: what’s the difference between authority and expertise?

I can feel there’s a difference, but am not able to fully articulate it yet.

One way of putting my thinking is to say that experts are defined by what they know. Authorities are defined by people listening to them and acting on what they say.

Perhaps authority is just the upper echelons of expertise. But there also seems to be something in there about authority going beyond just knowing stuff into having real insight.

Originality seems to help too – starting a new field like you did, for example. Also, a lot of authorities speak from genuine personal experience – either their own, or from deep research which they carried out. They don’t just repeat the work of others.

And authorities need an audience – people who listen to them and act on what they say.

Just early thoughts – but many thanks for pushing the thinking forwards.

Ian