Publishing opinions in a regulated industry is a small amount of risk for a specific and worthwhile return.
Writing something down is the fastest way to discover you do not understand it.
Several pieces here changed my mind while I was writing them. That does not happen in conversation, where a vague version passes unchallenged.
Every company in this industry says approximately the same things. Not because they are dishonest but because specificity requires excluding someone.
A published position is a commitment. It can be quoted back, which is the point.
If nothing here could be argued with, none of it would be worth reading.
People who disagree with the approach find out here rather than three meetings in. That is a saving for both parties.
Being wrong in public occasionally, which is uncomfortable and survivable. And accepting that anything published in a regulated industry is advertising, subject to substantiation, and permanent.
That constraint is genuinely useful. It removes the option of writing something that sounds good and cannot be defended.
Predictions. Performance claims. Anything about a specific client. Anything about a competitor I cannot substantiate.
That is a narrower field than it sounds and it still leaves most of what is interesting.
Would I say this in a room with someone who disagreed, and could I defend it if asked for the basis?
If both are yes, it gets published. If the first is yes and the second is not, it stays a conversation.
Read next
How to write about your own firm →