Credible Roots / Distribution
Distribution
How we build distribution for founders
Everything permanent starts with being known. This is the part that makes the rest possible, and it is the part almost nobody sustains long enough to see work.
More than five years in personal branding. Runs atharvsankpal.com and works with founders and businesses in the US on their digital presence. Previously produced AI video for brands.
Published 2026-08-14
Researched against primary sources, drafted with AI assistance, then reviewed and approved by the named author. How we write · About the author
We run six things continuously: LinkedIn three to five times a week, AI avatar video from your own likeness, podcast placements we book and prepare you for, long-form articles on a site you own, PR pitching you to journalists as a source, and distribution of the same thinking across the channels your buyers use. All of it drafted from a weekly session with you and approved by you. The goal is that your industry comes to treat you as the person who knows, because that is what produces the coverage, the invitations and eventually the permanent record. It takes about an hour of your time a week, and it takes longer than most people are willing to wait.
What we actually run
Six things, every week or every month, for as long as the engagement lasts. There is nothing clever about the list. The difficulty is doing all of it consistently for long enough, which is exactly why most people do not.
LinkedIn, three to five times a week
Written in your voice from a weekly session with you, carrying actual positions rather than observations nobody could disagree with. Text still carries more weight than video in professional contexts, which is why this is the anchor channel.
AI avatar video
Built from your own likeness and voice so you can publish on camera without filming every piece. Reviewed and approved by you before anything goes live. It is you, not an invented character.
Podcast placements
We find the shows your buyers already listen to, pitch you, and prepare you. A podcast appearance is unusually durable: it leaves a transcript, show notes and a link that keep working long after the episode drops.
Long-form on your own site
Substantial articles under your name, on a domain you control. This is the asset no platform can take away, and the page search engines and AI tools resolve you against.
PR and earned coverage
Pitching you to journalists as a source worth quoting. This matters more than any other line here, because coverage written by other people is the only kind that counts toward a permanent record later.
Distribution across channels
The same thinking reshaped for each surface your audience actually uses. Trust is built across places rather than in one, so being everywhere your buyer looks matters more than being excellent in one spot.
Why this order, and not the other one
Most people arrive asking about the end of the process. They want the encyclopedia entry, the knowledge panel, the box beside their name in search.
None of those are things you can buy directly. Every one of them depends on independent sources having written about you, and independent sources write about people they have heard of. So the work that looks like the destination is actually downstream of the work nobody asks for.
| Stage | What is happening | Roughly when |
|---|---|---|
| Publishing | Consistent output under your name across channels | First weeks |
| Recognition | People in your industry start knowing who you are | Months |
| Inbound | Invitations, press requests and warm introductions arrive unprompted | Within the first year, usually |
| Coverage | Other people writing about you, which is the currency that counts | Follows recognition |
| The record | Knowledge panel, and eventually an encyclopedia entry if coverage supports it | Second year at the earliest |
We do not open Wikipedia work in the first year. There would be nothing to submit.
Where this actually leads
The sequence matters more than any single piece of it, and it runs in one direction only.
You publish consistently
Specific, useful material under your own name, on a subject narrow enough to own. This starts in month one.
People start recognizing you
An audience accumulates. So does a body of work that both people and machines can retrieve.
Opportunities arrive unprompted
Podcast invitations, speaking, journalists looking for someone to quote. None of these can be scheduled, all become likelier as more people know your name.
Independent coverage accumulates
Other people writing about you, which is the only currency the later layers accept.
The record becomes possible
A knowledge panel, and eventually an encyclopedia entry, if the coverage reaches that bar. This is the destination, not the starting point, and it is usually a second-year conversation at the earliest.
Which is why we do not open a Wikipedia engagement for someone with no coverage. There would be nothing to submit.
Why this runs first, not last
Wikipedia review takes weeks. Knowledge panels take considerably longer. If those were the only things running, you would spend months with nothing to show and no new evidence accumulating.
Publishing changes that. It is the only layer that produces results in the first month, and it is also the input to the others: it is what gives journalists a reason to quote you, gives answer engines something to retrieve, and gives a future Wikipedia draft the independent sources it will need.
What we do not promise
- A follower number, or any metric target. Reach is the mechanism, not the deliverable.
- Guaranteed press placements. We pitch; editors decide.
- Virality. Nobody can sell that, and anyone claiming to is selling luck they do not control.
- Attribution you can put in a spreadsheet. When the opportunity arrives it will say someone had heard of you.
- Anything published without your review and approval.
Who this fits
| A good fit | Not yet | |
|---|---|---|
| Time | An honest hour a week, every week | No appetite to be involved |
| Views | Has real positions and will state them | Only comfortable with approved neutral language |
| Subject | Wants to own one specific thing | Wants broad general visibility |
| Horizon | Thinking in years | Needs pipeline this quarter |
| Visibility | Comfortable being the face of it | Would rather the company were the face |
The whole method, published
Everything we run is documented, including how to do it yourself.
Who this is built for, and how
What this produced for one client
A B2B sales leader with fifteen-plus years of experience and effectively no digital footprint. Voice notes about an hour a week, everything else ours. Three months later: roughly a thousand LinkedIn followers, entirely organic with no paid promotion, and inbound conversations beginning to arrive. Both published cases, including what we are not claiming.
You can also just do this yourself
We publish the entire workflow, including an honest count of the hours it takes each week. The full do-it-yourself guide is here. If you have five to seven hours a week, run it yourself; nothing is withheld. If you do not, that is the specific problem we solve.
What the research actually shows
This is one of the better-evidenced areas in B2B marketing, because the same study has been run annually since 2018. The 2025 edition surveyed 1,934 management-level professionals across seven markets.
Published research
| Finding | Figure | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Decision-makers who say thought leadership is a more trustworthy basis for judging a company than its marketing materials | 73% | 2024 Edelman-LinkedIn B2B Thought Leadership Impact Report |
| Decision-makers moderately or very likely to be more receptive to outreach from a consistent publisher | 90% | 2024 Edelman-LinkedIn B2B Thought Leadership Impact Report |
| C-suite who say a piece of thought leadership at least occasionally made them question an existing supplier | 70% | 2024 Edelman-LinkedIn B2B Thought Leadership Impact Report |
| “Hidden buyers” in finance, legal and procurement who say strong thought leadership makes them more receptive | 95% | 2025 Edelman-LinkedIn B2B Thought Leadership Impact Report |
Edelman and LinkedIn have published this study annually since 2018. The 2025 edition surveyed 1,934 management-level professionals across the US, Canada, UK, Germany, Singapore, Australia and India, fielded March to April 2025. Self-reported survey data, with the usual limits that carries.
Questions people actually ask
What exactly do you publish for me?
Three to five LinkedIn posts a week, AI avatar video built from your own likeness, roughly two long-form articles a month on your own site, and the same thinking reshaped for the other channels your audience uses. Everything is drafted from a weekly session with you and approved by you before it goes out.
Do you actually book the podcasts?
Yes. We identify the shows your buyers already listen to, pitch you, and prepare you for the recording. Each appearance leaves show notes, a transcript and a link, which keep working long after the episode.
Is the PR real media relations?
Yes. We pitch you to journalists and publications as a source worth quoting on your subject. That is deliberately part of this rather than a separate service, because independent coverage is the raw material everything later depends on.
How long before this does anything?
Publishing starts in the first weeks. Recognition builds over months. Inbound and unprompted invitations tend to arrive somewhere in the first year. Anyone giving you a date is guessing, and the honest framing is that you are raising the probability of good things rather than scheduling them.
How much of my time does it take?
About an hour a week, plus review. The arguments and examples have to be yours or the output reads generic, which defeats the point. Everything else is ours.
Read the thinking behind it
Sources
- Edelman and LinkedIn. 2025 B2B Thought Leadership Impact Report — seventh annual edition, nearly 2,000 management-level professionals across seven markets.
- Edelman and LinkedIn. 2024 B2B Thought Leadership Impact Report — roughly 3,500 management-level professionals across seven countries.
Where a claim rests on documentation, the documentation is linked above rather than summarized. Corrections go on our corrections page.
How this was made: written from the work we do for clients and from the research cited on this page, drafted with AI assistance, then reviewed and approved by the named author before publication. Our editorial standards.
Start with the subject worth owning
The first call works out what you should be known for. Everything after it is execution against that one decision.
Book a 30 minute call