I know Scott would probably never refer to himself as a "thought leader."

I picked that title because I thought "book author" wouldn't be as descriptive.

I like him because I find his _thinking_ interesting. I rarely find people referred to as "thinkers," though, so I went with thought leader.

Scott says that speakers aren't generally paid for the quality of their speeches. I think that constantly being around these types of events may have given him a distorted perspective of what a "good" speaker is. Most people are absolutely awful at effectively conveying information of any sort orally. I'd almost call good speaking a lost art in an age where someone like Obama is praised for it. If you can go up on stage and present a complex subject in an understandable way to a large audience you probably are worth a couple grand at the very least.