Opinion-First Expert Research
Ask experts for judgments and talent signals instead of forbidden data points
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 94%
Landis treats expert conversations as a way to acquire tacit judgment rather than isolated data points. The researcher identifies people who understand an industry, then asks how they evaluate companies, teams, technologies, and talent movements. Strong opinions become useful when the expert explains the experience and mechanism behind them. Several independent conversations can reveal recurring patterns, such as which team executes well or where technical talent is migrating. This produces a richer picture than asking who will beat the next quarter, while avoiding the legal and analytical problems of trading on confidential information. The output is not a single tip; it is an updated map of competitive quality, organizational momentum, and industry direction that can strengthen or challenge an existing thesis.
Origin
Landis describes learning this approach through Silicon Valley relationships and service on startup boards, where operating realities and informed industry opinions are continuously visible. Extracted from Masters in Business.
Core principles
- 01Experts hold valuable tacit knowledge that raw metrics omit
- 02Sincere opinions can reveal competitive quality and direction
- 03Talent movement can signal changing organizational strength
- 04Quarterly performance tips are less useful and more dangerous than durable insight
- 05Good questions expose mechanisms rather than isolated facts
How to run it
- 1
Choose relevant experts
Find operators, engineers, customers, suppliers, or board members with firsthand knowledge of the industry being studied.
Pro tip Prioritize proximity to the work over prestige or public visibility.
Watch out A senior title does not guarantee detailed knowledge of the specific market.
- 2
Ask for judgments
Invite experts to compare technologies, companies, leaders, and strategic directions rather than requesting a single number.
Pro tip Questions beginning with why or how usually reveal more than questions beginning with whether.
Watch out Do not solicit confidential earnings, customer, or transaction information.
- 3
Probe the mechanism
Ask what experiences or observations caused the expert to form each opinion.
Pro tip Request concrete indicators such as product quality, execution speed, customer trust, or hiring strength.
Watch out Colorful confidence without supporting reasoning is not reliable evidence.
- 4
Track talent flows
Investigate where respected employees and leaders are moving because talent migration can indicate changing competitive strength.
Pro tip Distinguish an isolated departure from a sustained pattern.
Watch out Do not infer organizational collapse from one high-profile personnel move.
- 5
Triangulate signals
Compare independent viewpoints and look for recurring explanations, disagreements, and blind spots.
Pro tip Give extra weight to patterns reported by sources with different incentives.
Watch out A socially connected group may repeat the same rumor without independently verifying it.
- 6
Revise the thesis
Translate the recurring judgments into explicit changes to the competitive map or investment assumptions.
Pro tip Record what evidence would reverse the updated conclusion.
Watch out Do not let a compelling conversation override contradictory operating evidence.
In the wild
Several engineers independently praise a younger competitor’s technical leadership and mention respected colleagues moving there. The researcher asks why, verifies that the departures form a pattern, and examines whether product releases and hiring data support the judgment. The signal does not predict a quarterly result, but it changes the assessment of each company’s long-term execution capacity.
→ The competitive thesis is updated using triangulated organizational evidence rather than an earnings tip.
Common mistakes
Fishing for quarterly tips
Trying to learn who will make or miss a quarter targets fragile information and can create legal risk. Focus on durable competitive insight.
Collecting opinions without reasons
An unsupported judgment is difficult to evaluate or reuse. Always ask what observations produced it.
Trusting one connected source
A single source can be biased, mistaken, or repeating a rumor. Triangulate important conclusions across independent perspectives.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for investors, strategists, and operators who can speak with knowledgeable industry participants.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal for anyone seeking confidential information, quarterly earnings predictions, or a mechanical survey score.
From the transcript
“You ask people their opinions on things, You'll get much more valuable information than if you're just ask them for a data point.”
“What you really should be doing when you're talking to somebody is to ask yourself, this person is an expert, is something they know a…”
“By the way, the real talent is leaving company X and going to company Y.”
From the episode
Kevin Landis on Technology Investments (Podcast)
Kevin Landis