By Jordan Baker, Founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
The first 90 days of thought leadership PR should not be spent trying to make a founder look famous.
They should be spent establishing what that person genuinely knows, deciding which subjects they can credibly own, turning that knowledge into useful media angles, beginning targeted journalist outreach and learning what the market actually responds to.
You may achieve published coverage during those first three months.
You may secure interviews.
Journalists may begin responding.
You may discover one subject that generates significantly more interest than another.
What 90 days cannot responsibly guarantee is that somebody becomes a “recognised thought leader” by day 90.
Authority does not work to a stopwatch.
The purpose of the first three months is to create a serious programme, test it against reality and decide what deserves to be built on.
What does thought leadership actually mean?
Thought leadership has become one of those terms that can mean almost anything.
Posting every day on LinkedIn is not automatically thought leadership.
Having “CEO” in your title does not make your observations important.
Having strong opinions is not enough.
A genuine thought-leadership position combines:
experience
relevant knowledge
evidence
a recognisable subject area
a useful point of view
an ability to explain that point of view to other people
Journalists are particularly useful in this process because they do not need somebody simply to tell them:
“My company is brilliant.”
They need somebody who can help them understand a story.
Choose one or two credible subject territories
One of the worst early mistakes is trying to position somebody as an expert on everything.
Imagine a founder says:
“I want to be known for innovation, leadership, AI, entrepreneurship, culture, the future of work, sustainability and technology.”
That is not a positioning strategy.
It is a list of fashionable nouns.
A better starting point might be:
How medium-sized accountancy firms are adopting AI without losing human oversight.
Or:
Why consumer brands misunderstand the operational impact of moving from the UK to the US.
Or:
What fast-growing businesses get wrong when promoting first-time managers.
The narrower subject is easier for a journalist to understand.
It is also easier to support with evidence.
How do you know whether a subject is genuinely yours?
Ask:
What have I actually done?
What have I repeatedly seen?
Which decisions have I personally made?
Which problems have I solved?
What data do I have access to?
What could I explain under questioning?
Where would another specialist reasonably challenge me?
Could I demonstrate why I am relevant?
If your entire expertise is:
“I read quite a lot about AI”
you probably do not yet have a strong media position as an AI expert.
If you have spent ten years implementing automation in regulated professional-services companies, that is very different.
Who should be the spokesperson?
Sometimes the founder is right.
Sometimes they are not.
A business may have:
a charismatic founder
a technical director
a clinician
a lawyer
a head of research
a product specialist
another senior practitioner
The strongest spokesperson is somebody who combines credibility with availability and communication skill.
Seniority helps when the subject is strategic.
Specific expertise matters more when the subject is technical.
A CEO should not automatically comment on an engineering issue that the CTO understands far better.
Days 1–15: gather the foundations
The first phase should feel more like reporting than publicity.
Collect:
professional history
relevant qualifications
previous roles
real achievements
publicly verifiable information
useful examples
customer or market problems
existing interviews
research
company developments
topics the spokesperson cares about
topics they should avoid
anything sensitive or confidential
This stage also identifies weak claims.
For example:
“I've advised hundreds of businesses.”
Can we verify that?
“I'm one of Britain's leading experts.”
According to whom?
“I transformed an entire industry.”
How?
A journalist may challenge the same thing.
Better to deal with it before pitching.
Days 15–30: create the media-ready profile
A media biography should quickly answer:
Who is this person?
What do they do?
Why are they credible?
What subjects can they discuss?
What experience supports that?
Where are they based?
How can a journalist verify them?
Fair's own expert profiles typically include:
name
professional title
clear biography
credentials
LinkedIn
location
website
media room
and media availability
The aim is not to create an encyclopaedia.
It is to make verification easy.
Build a headshot and evidence pack
At minimum, prepare:
a current professional headshot
short biography
longer biography
correct job title
relevant qualifications
source links for important claims
website
LinkedIn
agreed expert topics
If the founder regularly cites statistics, create a source sheet.
This becomes invaluable when a journalist has a deadline.
Days 20–40: map journalists and publications
Do not start with a database containing 20,000 journalists.
Start with the subjects.
Which reporters actually cover them?
What have they written recently?
Which audiences are useful?
Is the story better for a trade title?
A national business desk?
A consumer publication?
A local outlet?
A specialist newsletter?
The objective is not the largest media list.
It is a relevant one.
Days 30–50: develop the first commentary angles
Imagine an experienced recruitment founder.
Weak idea
“CEO available to discuss leadership.”
Too broad.
Stronger idea
“Why companies promoting their best salesperson into management may be creating a retention problem.”
Now we have a proposition.
Questions to test:
Has the founder seen this?
Can they explain why?
Do they have examples?
Is there supporting research?
What would someone disagree with?
Can they say something more useful than “training is important”?
A good angle should survive those questions.
Build several angles, not one identity
You might create:
Territory: First-time managers
Angle: Why technical performance does not automatically predict management ability.
Territory: Hiring
Angle: Why AI screening may increase applications without improving candidate quality.
Territory: Retention
Angle: Why high salaries can fail to solve a management problem.
These are related.
That consistency helps build recognition.
Days 35–60: begin targeted outreach
A good pitch should make the journalist's decision easier.
It should establish:
what has happened
why the topic matters
why the source is relevant
what the person can contribute
how quickly they are available
It should not begin with four paragraphs about the client's awards.
Weak pitch
“Leading entrepreneur and visionary CEO John Smith is available to discuss leadership, business and innovation.”
Stronger pitch
“Companies promoting strong individual performers into management roles may be creating a retention problem, according to recruitment founder John Smith, who has spent 14 years hiring senior commercial teams. He can explain three warning signs that a technically successful employee is not ready to manage people, and why salary increases often fail to fix the resulting problem.”
That gives the journalist something to assess.
Reactive opportunities do not obey your calendar
A 90-day plan cannot schedule the news.
An unexpected announcement may create a perfect opportunity on day 12.
A planned angle may become irrelevant on day 47.
Good thought leadership combines planning with responsiveness.
That also means the spokesperson needs some availability.
Days 45–70: deal with journalist questions properly
This is where campaigns often become real.
A journalist replies.
They want:
three more sentences
a phone call
an example
a statistic
another expert
an interview tomorrow morning
Speed helps.
Accuracy matters more.
If the founder does not know something, they should say so.
If the question is outside their expertise, decline or suggest another appropriate source.
The goal is not to be quoted at any cost.
Do founders need to write their own comments?
No.
Fair can draft material based on genuine input, previous approved views and accurate evidence.
That is normal.
What Fair cannot do is invent the opinion and then attach the founder's name to it as though it came from genuine expertise.
The founder remains responsible for confirming that the statement represents what they actually believe and know.
Days 60–90: build a repeatable rhythm
By now you should have evidence.
Not necessarily coverage.
Evidence.
Which subjects produced replies?
Which journalists engaged?
Which explanations felt strong?
Which areas were too generic?
Was the founder fast enough?
Did interviews create further questions?
Did one topic repeatedly fail?
This is when thought leadership becomes iterative.
90-day planning table
| Period | Main objective | Client input | Agency action | Evidence of progress |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Days 1–15 | Establish credibility | CV, experience, evidence, boundaries | Discovery and positioning | Clear subject territories |
| Days 15–30 | Build media profile | Bio approval, credentials, imagery | Create expert assets | Media-ready profile |
| Days 20–40 | Map editorial landscape | Audience priorities | Journalist research | Relevant media map |
| Days 30–50 | Develop angles | Opinions, examples, evidence | Draft commentary ideas | Pitchable themes |
| Days 35–60 | Begin outreach | Fast factual sign-off | Targeted pitching | Replies, questions, requests |
| Days 45–70 | Handle opportunities | Interviews, technical answers | Coordination and follow-up | Interviews and deeper engagement |
| Days 60–90 | Refine programme | Strategic feedback | Review and adjust | Better-defined recurring topics |
How should you judge day 30?
At day 30 I would mostly assess foundations.
Do we know what this person stands for?
Are the credentials clear?
Do we have usable themes?
Is the client responsive?
Do the proposed angles genuinely fit the media?
If not, fix them.
It is too early to say:
“No national newspaper article, therefore thought leadership failed.”
How should you judge day 60?
Now I would want to see external evidence.
Have pitches gone out?
Are relevant journalists responding?
Are they asking questions?
Have we had interview interest?
Are certain angles generating nothing?
This is when early strategy adjustments become appropriate.
How should you judge day 90?
Now I would review the complete chain:
foundations
activity
journalist response
interviews
published coverage
topic relevance
client participation
any available business signals
An active campaign with no published coverage and almost no journalist interest should not simply continue unchanged forever because “PR takes time”.
Something needs examining.
What if there is no coverage after three months?
Ask why.
The angles are weak
Change them.
The spokesperson is too broad
Narrow the subjects.
The evidence is poor
Build better evidence.
The target publications are unrealistic
Adjust the media strategy.
The founder never responds
Fix the working process or reconsider the campaign.
Journalists engage but stories keep being delayed
That is different from total silence.
Context matters.
What if the founder has almost no time?
Then the programme needs to reflect reality.
A managed agency can handle:
research
story development
drafting
journalist targeting
outreach
follow-up
monitoring
reporting
But when a journalist asks for the expert's view, eventually the expert has to exist.
If the founder cannot respond during the working week at all, fast-moving commentary becomes difficult.
Some work can be batched.
Evergreen opinions can be pre-developed.
But genuine breaking news cannot always wait until Sunday afternoon.
Does one article make someone a thought leader?
No.
It can be a good start.
Two sentences in a larger national article still count as legitimate coverage.
PR often works through exactly those contributions.
A small quote can support:
credibility
brand awareness
search visibility
AI visibility
a public association between the expert and a subject
Smaller contributions can also lead to larger opportunities later.
But one quote does not automatically create recognised authority.
That develops through repeated, relevant evidence.
Real Fair examples
Fair's current Thought Leadership PR material includes historic examples such as Vineta Bajaj, whose professional experience supported commentary around CFO leadership, retail and business growth, and Jessica Crane, whose campaign combined business expertise with founder storytelling.
These examples show that thought leadership does not have one editorial format.
It can include expert commentary, interviews, business discussion and founder experience.
They should not be interpreted as evidence that another founder will follow the same timeline or receive the same coverage.
What comes after the first 90 days?
Ideally, you now know more than you did at the beginning.
You know what journalists care about.
You know which subjects fit.
You know whether the spokesperson works well in interviews.
You may have the first articles.
You may have journalists returning.
The next phase can then deepen the strongest territory.
Perhaps a second spokesperson is introduced.
Perhaps original data becomes useful.
Perhaps the founder starts contributing longer-form pieces.
Perhaps company stories become relevant too.
PR works particularly well when each phase teaches the next one.
Make the first month useful even if no pitch goes out
Some founders are keen to begin pitching on the first day because visible activity feels reassuring.
That can be sensible if a genuine, time-sensitive opportunity is already available, but it should not become a rule that replaces research. A poorly evidenced comment sent in a hurry may make it harder for a journalist to trust the spokesperson later.
A useful discovery interview should move beyond the founder's career history.
Ask them to explain a difficult decision they made, what evidence informed it, what they changed their mind about and where they disagree with conventional advice in their profession.
Those answers are more promising than a generic claim to be passionate about their industry. The PR team can then test whether each answer has relevance beyond the company.
An internal positioning sheet can be short but specific.
It might include:
a two-sentence professional biography
two main subject territories
five defensible talking points
a list of evidence sources
clear boundaries around topics the founder should not address
It should distinguish statements that can be attributed immediately from claims requiring fresh verification. That makes later reactive work much faster without implying that every response can be pre-approved.
What should an actual monthly review change?
A review meeting should produce decisions, not simply a spreadsheet of activity. Imagine two angles have been pitched.
One received several questions from sector journalists but no article yet; the other produced no relevant response.
Those outcomes suggest different next steps. The first may need a clearer example or an available interview. The second may need a different audience, stronger evidence or replacement altogether.
The review should also examine whether the team is reaching the right publication types.
A founder seeking B2B buyers may prefer specialist articles even when national outlets offer greater headline readership.
If every outreach target is chosen only for prestige, the campaign may be working towards the wrong goal. Relevant trade coverage can be useful evidence of expertise, while larger publications may be appropriate when the topic genuinely has wider significance.
Finally, ask what the founder actually learned.
An unexpected journalist question might reveal an underexplored angle.
An interview that required several corrections might reveal gaps in the briefing pack.
A slow factual approval might reveal a process problem rather than a story problem.
These observations should lead to tangible improvements in how the next month is run, whether or not coverage has already appeared.
Avoid making thought leadership a personality contest
Thought leadership is often discussed as though the spokesperson must cultivate a dramatic persona. That can be counterproductive for people whose real strength is calm technical explanation.
A specialist accountant, clinician or engineer may provide outstanding journalism without delivering provocative soundbites or constant personal opinions. They need to be understandable, accurate and useful.
An agency should therefore adapt the communication approach to the person and the relevant media. Some founders are excellent in live interviews; others provide stronger written explanations. Some can talk broadly about industry direction, while others are most credible addressing one tightly defined practical issue.
A 90-day plan should identify those differences and build around them rather than forcing everyone into the same executive-profile template.
Frequently asked questions
Can you become a recognised thought leader in 90 days?
You can build the foundations, begin targeted media outreach and potentially secure meaningful opportunities within 90 days. What you cannot responsibly guarantee is recognised authority by a fixed date. Public credibility depends on the quality of the expertise, the relevance of the contribution, journalist interest, publication decisions and repetition over time. A three-month plan should therefore be viewed as an operational starting period rather than a promise of status.
How many PR pitches should a founder send in the first three months?
There is no useful universal number. Fifty irrelevant pitches are not better than ten carefully chosen ones. The volume should be driven by genuine stories, relevant news developments and the number of journalists for whom each angle actually makes sense. Fair normally prefers fresh, relevant pitching rather than repeatedly bombarding the same journalists. Quality and fit are more useful measures than a fixed email quota.
Do founders need to write all their own commentary?
No. A PR team can interview the founder, use approved previous material, draft responses and turn complicated expertise into clear journalist-ready language. The founder still needs to provide genuine opinions and factual knowledge, particularly on technical or professional matters, and should approve material attributed to them. The agency can do the writing. It cannot manufacture authentic expertise.
What happens if no articles have appeared after three months?
Review the whole campaign rather than immediately blaming either “PR taking time” or the agency. Look at whether strong angles were developed, whether relevant journalists were approached, whether those journalists responded, whether interviews occurred, whether the spokesperson participated properly and whether the evidence was strong enough. If almost nothing is generating interest, the strategy should change. If there is substantial journalist engagement but publication has not yet occurred, that is a different position. An ongoing campaign should be accountable and adaptive.
Ready to build a public profile around genuine expertise?
If you have real experience and something useful to contribute, Fair Public Relations can help develop credible media angles and approach journalists who cover your subject.
Explore Thought Leadership PR, PR for Founders, or contact us.
We build around genuine insight and earned editorial opportunities, not promises of becoming famous in 90 days.
About the author
Jordan Baker is the founder of Fair Public Relations and a former UK national journalist.
View Jordan Baker’s media expert profile
