State of the
Industry 2026
216 thought leaders. 13 countries. One honest conversation about what's working, what isn't, and where the gap is widening.
You're a true expert.
So why is it still so hard?
We asked 216 thought leaders the uncomfortable questions about money, time, and what's actually working. The data kept pointing at the same answer, and it may not be what you expect.
None of this is a talent gap. Every piece of it is fixable. Here's the full picture...
216 thought leaders.
One honest conversation.
If you're reading this, you're probably one of them, a professional speaker, coach, trainer, consultant, or facilitator somewhere in the world trying to figure out if what you're doing is working.
This year's pool skews experienced. The average respondent has been running their business for nearly 15 years, with a median of 12. Nearly a third have been at this for 20 years or more. This isn't a report about people figuring it out. It's a report about people who've been in the game long enough to know when something has shifted, and to feel it.
53% have some form of team (contractors, VAs, employees, or some combination). 47% are flying solo. For those with teams, the average size is 3. The model works precisely because it doesn't require a lot of bodies to generate real revenue. But how you structure and systematize that small operation makes an enormous difference in what you actually earn.
What everyone is wrestling with
"For me, it's feast or famine. Right now I'm completely buried in creating and delivering content, but a few months from now I have holes in my schedule which make me nervous."
"Breaking through the noise of the overly saturated speaker market. There are so many of us, and it's hard to differentiate myself."
"The disconnect between how good I am at what I do, how much the world needs it, how much positive feedback I get, and how much I'm grinding, hustling, and still financially struggling and worn down moving it forward."
That last one showed up in some form across dozens of responses. And it points to something the data confirms: being exceptional at your craft and running a sustainable business around it are two completely separate skills. This report is mostly about the second one.
The industry isn't in crisis. But it is at a crossroads. And the gap between thought leaders who will thrive and those who will plateau is becoming harder to ignore.
Wanting more revenue and having a system that produces it are two different things.
Two-thirds of thought leaders say generating more revenue is their #1 priority. That number has never been higher. Before you read on, ask yourself honestly: does how I spend my time actually reflect that priority? For most people in this survey, the answer gets complicated fast.
The industry earned real money.
It also hit a wall.
Revenue compressed. The growth story is very different from two years ago, and the reasons behind it are more specific than most people realize.
Two years ago, we called this industry "not slowing down at all." That was true then. It's less true now. The average is down roughly 16% from peak. And the proportion of people growing their revenue dropped from 60% in 2024 to roughly 36% this year. That's not a typo. Nearly 40% fewer people are growing.
Where most people landed
The largest concentration (nearly a third of the industry) sits in the $100K–$250K band. That's a real business. But it's also a band where the ceiling is easy to hit, and breaking through it almost always requires something to change in how you operate, not just how hard you work.
Why revenue changed: the decline side
"2025 was my most challenging year in business. That was in part because of the reduction of funding of DEI initiatives and departments, which was a big source of speaking engagements for me."
"My revenue dropped from 2024 as I had three large clients cancel all training due to the tariffs."
"Revenue has dropped off a cliff. I have several willing prospects, but all have cited extreme budget pressure."
"Yes, it dropped dramatically, more than 80% year over year, and the lowest revenue year in 26 years. I attribute the change to economic factors, some believing that AI replaces expertise, and a personal failure to maintain a healthy pipeline going into early 2025 as a result of an extremely difficult year in my personal life."
We share that last one not to pile on, but because it's the version of the story most people don't say out loud. Sometimes the market is hard. And sometimes life gets in the way of the pipeline. Both can be true at the same time.
Why revenue changed: the growth side
"Revenue has increased due to disciplined outreach and CRM use, more referrals from a better keynote, and consistency over time finally paying off."
"I am up 30% from last year. Mostly because I raised rates and am bundling speaking and consulting more."
The 2026 Optimism Gap: The median revenue goal for 2026 is $226,500, implying roughly 48% growth from where most people actually landed. Hope isn't a pipeline strategy.
The market stopped carrying people for free. Some grew anyway.
The headwinds were real: budget cuts, economic uncertainty, political noise around DEI. And yet some people grew significantly. Look at what they did: raised fees, systematized follow-up, leaned harder into referrals. None of those are luck. If you're setting a revenue goal for 2026, work backwards from it. What specifically has to be true about your pipeline, your fees, and your follow-up habits for that number to actually happen?
The hours are there.
They're just pointed the wrong direction.
Ask a thought leader where their working hours go and you'll hear: social media, outreach, content. Ask where their revenue actually comes from, and you'll get a completely different answer.
Read this table slowly.
| Channel | Time Spent | Revenue Driven | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social Media | 31.5% | 2.3% | -29.2% |
| Referrals / Word-of-Mouth | 25.9% | 64.7% | +38.7% |
| Direct Outreach (Cold) | 20.8% | 12.6% | -8.3% |
| Inbound / Content / SEO | 9.3% | 6.5% | -2.7% |
| Bureau / Agent Partners | 4.6% | 6.5% | +1.9% |
Social media consumes nearly a third of this industry's marketing bandwidth and accounts for 2.3% of revenue as a primary driver. Referrals, the channel producing nearly two-thirds of all revenue, gets less attention. Yikes.
Thought leaders whose primary revenue driver is social media earn less than a quarter of what referral-driven operators earn. For most people in this industry, social media is a time channel, not a revenue channel.
"Social media is not working as well as it used to."
"How to keep up with all the social media, and where should I spend time, stop wasting time?"
"I've gotten two jobs from social media in 25 years of doing business. Phone calls are rarely answered. Outbound marketing is met with silence. Inbound marketing, referrals, and people who have seen me speak are my greatest sources of leads."
The AI problem hiding inside this problem
When we asked about the biggest time-suck in the business, 33% said Marketing/Social Media Content, second only to Sales/Outreach at 39%. And the most common AI use cases? Content creation, writing, social posts.
The industry is using AI to produce more content for the channel that produces the least revenue. Nobody planned it that way. Social media feels productive (posts go out, metrics move, likes accumulate), but none of it is showing up in the pipeline.
"Tapping a content-saturated audience."
"I think people are getting annoyed with AI slop and feeling constantly sold to. As a result, relationships will be even more important than in the past."
The uncomfortable number: Of respondents who spend most of their time on social media, 62% said their primary revenue driver is still referrals. They already know where the money comes from. They're spending their days somewhere else anyway.
Track where your time actually goes this week.
Not where you think it goes.
Most people in this survey are spending roughly a third of their working hours on social media and generating almost nothing from it in return. That's not an argument to abandon it entirely. It's an argument to treat referrals like the revenue channel they already are. Pick five past clients or warm contacts this week. Reach out with no agenda. See what happens. Then build that habit into your calendar before you write another caption.
The single biggest predictor
of revenue in this survey.
Your niche, your tenure, your topic: none of these explain the 3x gap. How you run the back half of your business does. And that gap is close to 3x. That's not noise. That's a pattern.
How would you describe your back-office setup?
How do you check the health of your business?
| Method | Avg. Revenue |
|---|---|
| CRM / Dashboard | $401K |
| Spreadsheet I update manually | $317K |
| My head / Inbox | $155K |
How would you describe your follow-up system?
| Follow-Up Approach | Avg. Revenue |
|---|---|
| Dynamic (automated workflows) | $455K |
| Assisted (VA manages the flow) | $384K |
| Static (CRM as database only) | $318K |
| Manual (mental notes, inbox) | $166K |
Big doors swing on small hinges. In this industry, the hinge is whether you treat your business like a business.
What the growers actually said
"Revenue has increased due to disciplined outreach and CRM use, more referrals from a better keynote, and consistency over time finally paying off."
"My revenue went through the roof. I became more visible and put better systems in place to manage things."
And what the struggling side sounds like
"Ensuring I have a system in place from beginning to end. I recreate proposals and contracts every time, which is draining."
"Driving revenue, feeling organized, not knowing how to use my systems."
One more number: Respondents pay for an average of 6.6 software subscriptions. They actively use 4.3. That's roughly 2 tools per person costing money and producing nothing. The problem isn't access to systems, it's the gap between having the tool and building habits around it.
"I feel like I'm not using the tools we have the right way."
The technology isn't the bottleneck. The behavior is.
Three variables predicted revenue more consistently than anything else.
Back-office setup. How you track pipeline health. How you follow up with leads. Each one independently correlated with a 2–3x revenue difference. Together, they describe whether you're running a business or winging it. Pick the weakest of your three and spend 30 days fixing just that one. The CRM you actually use daily beats the perfect system you never open.
Everyone is using it.
Almost nobody agrees if it's actually helping.
When we asked whether AI had reduced work hours or just increased content volume, the industry split. But not evenly, and the split comes with a $74K revenue gap attached.
That gap isn't just a perception difference. It's a revenue difference. Respondents who said AI genuinely reduced their hours averaged $356K in 2025. Those who said it only increased their volume averaged $282K.
The content trap
The most common AI use cases in this survey, by a wide margin: social media posts, LinkedIn content, blog writing, newsletters, captions. A smaller group mentioned proposals, research, and email drafts. A smaller group still mentioned systems, CRM workflows, and operational automation.
The industry is primarily using AI to produce more of the thing that produces the least money. The technology is fine. The direction is the problem.
"I also used it for social media content in the past but don't very often anymore because it all sounds like the same slop."
What the 41% are doing differently
"I use AI for market analysis, past client analysis, re-engagement campaigns, tracking deals, daily briefings, and organizing content. It handles several tasks that my virtual assistant used to do."
"Transcribing sales lead calls and crafting follow-up strategy and communications."
"I use Claude to set up systems and flows in my CRM."
"Crunching data for cold outreach, writing first drafts, building an app."
These are operational use cases, not content ones. The parts of the business that historically ate time without producing anything visible. Proposal research. Follow-up sequencing. CRM management. Pre-meeting prep. The $74K revenue gap probably lives right here.
AI isn't going to replace thought leadership. The reason buyers pay premium fees for speakers is because a real person, with real credibility and real presence, shows up and does something unrepeatable. That doesn't change. But the administrative weight of running a speaking business (research, proposals, follow-ups, logistics) is where AI has a genuine role.
Pull up the last ten things you used AI for.
Count the operational ones.
How many were content for social or newsletters, and how many were operational: proposals, research, follow-up emails, client prep, systems? If the ratio is heavily content-side, that's worth examining. Pick one operational task you currently do manually and spend an hour this week seeing if AI can take a meaningful piece off your plate. Start with proposals or pre-call research.
Most of the revenue you're chasing
is already right in front of you.
Not in a new audience. Not in a new offer. Not in a rebrand. In three places people either haven't noticed, haven't systematized, or haven't had the confidence to charge for.
Licensing: the multiplier almost nobody is using
| Licensing Approach | Avg. Revenue |
|---|---|
| Yes, distinct revenue stream | $633K |
| Yes, but no separate fee | $466K |
| No, for my use only | $243K |
78% of respondents fall into that last category. They're handing over their IP and walking away from a 2.6x revenue multiplier, often because it never occurred to them to charge for it. The IP already exists. The only thing missing is the invoice.
Bureaus: in the game but not winning it
Being registered with a bureau and being actively sold by one are very different things. Among the 39% who do work with bureaus, a meaningful portion report that bureau-sourced revenue still makes up 0% of their total. They have the relationships. They're not getting booked through them.
"I've been booked steadily for six years, but I want to grow and command higher fees. My main bureau likes to keep my rate low, and I know I can earn more."
Deals already in motion, and being dropped
That's a follow-through problem, not a lead generation problem. The prospect showed up. The money was in the room. What happened next determined whether it closed.
"I don't do the sales work I need to do. I don't follow up as quickly as I should."
"Making time for sales follow-up outreach weekly."
Raise your rates
"I am up 30% from last year. Mostly because I raised rates and am bundling speaking and consulting more."
"I'm booking fewer gigs at higher price points which I prefer. Work less. Make more."
The pro-bono cost: Respondents who did four or more free engagements in 2025 averaged $80K less in revenue than those who did none. Free speaking has a real cost.
Three levers. Pick one.
Licensing: Look at what you're already handing clients and ask whether any of it has independent value you're not charging for. Bureaus: If you have bureau relationships that aren't producing, call your contact this week, not to pitch, just to ask what would make you easier to sell. Follow-up: The next deal you lose at proposal stage is almost certainly recoverable with one more well-timed touchpoint. Build the reminder before you need it, not after the deal goes cold.
The thesis we started with
turned out to be exactly right.
We came into this research with a hunch. Six sections and 216 respondents later, it isn't a hunch anymore. The gap in this industry is systems.
Systems are what separate the top performers
from everyone else. Full stop.
The speakers earning $400K+ aren't necessarily the most talented people in the room. They're the ones who have decided to treat this like a proper business, with real pipeline tracking, real follow-up systems, real structure around their time and their IP. The craft got them in the door. The systems built the business.
This isn't a rookie problem.
The average respondent has 15 years in. They know what they're doing on stage. The gap shows up in how they run everything else.
The market got harder. Systems determined who survived it.
Revenue compressed across the board, but the people who grew did so with discipline: raised fees, tightened pipelines, leaned into referrals.
Time went to the wrong channel.
31% of hours on social media. 2.3% of revenue from it. Referrals drive nearly two-thirds of all bookings and get treated like an afterthought.
The 3x gap has a single explanation.
Back-office setup, pipeline tracking, and follow-up discipline each independently correlated with 2–3x revenue differences. Together, they explain almost everything.
Most people are using it backwards.
The $74K revenue gap between AI camps lives in whether you're using it for content (low-value) or operations (high-value). The tool is fine. The application is the question.
The money is already in the room.
Licensing, bureau relationships, and follow-through at the proposal stage: three places where deals are already warm and slipping anyway. Systems catch them.
The speaking business works.
When you run it like one.
This isn't a story about the industry being broken. The top performers in this survey are proof that real revenue is available. What separates them isn't luck or connections or a better topic. It's the decision to build the systems that a real business requires. A CRM that gets used. A follow-up system with teeth. A pipeline tracked weekly, not just remembered vaguely. That's the playbook. It's been sitting here the whole time.
The report found the gap.
Now find yours.
The 3x difference came down to systems: back-office setup, pipeline tracking, follow-up. The Systems Check-Up shows you exactly where yours stand in about five minutes, with the specific gaps costing you bookings.
Take the Systems Check-Up →Thank You To Our Partners
The organizations that made
this research possible.
