How Do You Build a Transformation Leadership Pipeline That Actually Works?

A Fortune 500 CEO recently dropped a bomb during a transformation planning session: “We have a three-year transformation roadmap and a five-year strategy, but looking around this room, I’m not sure we have the leaders to execute either.” That uncomfortable admission isn’t unique. It’s epidemic.

The mathematics are brutal and unforgiving. If 30% of current leaders won’t survive transformation—and transformation is becoming continuous rather than episodic—you’re facing a perpetual leadership gap that compounds like bad debt. Most organizations are building tomorrow’s transformation with yesterday’s leadership development playbook. That’s not strategy. That’s organizational suicide.

What Is the Transformation Leadership Crisis Costing Organizations?

The transformation leadership crisis costs organizations close to $1 trillion annually among the S&P 1500 alone, driven by excessive CEO turnover, ill-suited external hires, and unprepared internal successors. Research from Harvard Business Review reveals that companies forced to fire their CEO lose an average of $1.4 billion in shareholder value compared to those with functioning succession plans. The problem isn’t a shortage of bodies to fill roles—it’s a catastrophic shortage of leaders with transformation capabilities.

Here’s what nobody wants to admit: Your leadership crisis isn’t about finding leaders. It’s about having the wrong kind of leaders entirely. Traditional succession planning operates on the assumption that future equals past. It doesn’t. Not even close.

The gap creates strategic paralysis. Without transformation leaders, organizations cannot pursue ambitious growth strategies, respond to market disruptions quickly, build new business models, or transform at competitive speeds. They become victims watching competitors who solved this problem years ago.

Even worse? Deloitte’s research shows 86% of leaders believe succession planning is urgent or important, yet only 14% believe they do it well. That’s not a skills gap. That’s systematic organizational delusion about what transformation leadership actually requires.

Why Does Traditional Succession Planning Fail for Transformation?

Traditional succession planning fails for transformation because it assumes future leaders need similar capabilities to current leaders, when transformation actually requires fundamentally different capabilities focused on creating productive discomfort, accelerating pattern recognition, demonstrating intellectual humility, obsessing over execution, and maintaining high learning metabolism. These capability-based requirements differ dramatically from the technical expertise and political navigation skills that traditional succession planning prioritizes.

Let’s destroy four assumptions killing your leadership pipeline:

Assumption 1: Future Equals Past

This is organizational fantasy. Traditional planning assumes tomorrow’s leaders need yesterday’s capabilities. Wrong. Dead wrong. Transformation requires capabilities that steady-state operations not only don’t need—they actively suppress.

Your best steady-state operator becomes your worst transformation leader. Why? Because the skills that made them excellent at optimization make them terrible at disruption. They’ve been rewarded for decades for doing exactly what transformation requires them to stop doing.

Assumption 2: Internal Development Suffices

Organizations love believing they can develop all needed capabilities internally. It’s ego wrapped in budget constraints. But transformation teams need 30-40% external hires or consultants bringing capabilities that don’t exist in your four walls.

If you could have developed these capabilities internally, you already would have. The fact that you’re in crisis proves you can’t. Stop pretending otherwise.

Assumption 3: Linear Career Progression

Traditional pipelines assume predictable stages: individual contributor to manager to director to VP to SVP to C-suite. Clean. Linear. Comfortable. Completely wrong for transformation.

Transformation leadership requires non-linear development, lateral moves into uncomfortable territory, and career paths that look bizarre on org charts. Your HR systems actively punish the career moves that build transformation capability.

Assumption 4: Technical Expertise Priority

Succession planning typically prioritizes functional expertise. But transformation leadership is capability-based, not expertise-based. The Five Critical Capabilities—Productive Discomfort, Pattern Recognition Velocity, Intellectual Humility, Execution Obsession, and Learning Metabolism—have little to do with deep domain expertise.

In fact, deep expertise often creates blind spots that kill transformation. The more expert someone is in how things work today, the harder it is for them to envision how things could work tomorrow.

The Compounding Challenge Nobody Discusses

Here’s the nightmare scenario playing out right now in most organizations:

Year 1: Initial Gap – 30% of current leaders inadequate for transformation, limited bench strength, traditional pipeline producing wrong leaders, external market competition for transformation talent fierce.

Year 3: Widening Gap – Original transformation leaders burning out from carrying the entire load, transformation demands increasing, competitors building stronger pipelines while you talk about it, traditional development still producing steady-state leaders.

Year 5: Crisis Point – Multiple transformation initiatives lacking leaders, capability gaps limiting strategic options entirely, losing the talent war for transformation leaders, organizational capability falling behind market requirements.

This isn’t hypothetical. This is your current trajectory unless you blow up traditional succession planning and rebuild it for transformation.

How Do You Identify High-Potential Transformation Leaders?

You identify high-potential transformation leaders by looking for constructive dissatisfaction, rapid learning velocity, comfort with ambiguity, pattern recognition abilities, and influence without authority—capabilities that traditional high-potential identification systematically misses or actively screens out. According to McKinsey research, organizations with successful leadership development are eight times more likely to focus on behavior critical to business performance rather than generic competencies.

Traditional HiPo identification is a perfect system for finding people who will maintain the status quo brilliantly. It focuses on current performance ratings, technical expertise depth, political navigation skills, executive presence, and results delivery. All the things that made someone successful in the world that’s ending.

Transformation potential identification must assess fundamentally different indicators that make HR uncomfortable and line leaders suspicious. Here’s what to look for:

The Early Indicators Nobody’s Measuring

1. Constructive Dissatisfaction

Look for individuals who question why things are done certain ways, propose alternatives to established processes, express frustration with pace of change, see opportunities others miss, and challenge authority respectfully but persistently.

Traditional systems call these people “difficult” or “not team players.” Transformation systems call them “future leaders.” The difference in labeling determines whether you develop them or lose them.

What this actually looks like: Email threads where they question fundamental assumptions. Meeting contributions that challenge conventional thinking. Proposals for radical rather than incremental improvements. Side projects exploring new approaches. Informal leadership of change initiatives that nobody asked them to lead.

2. Learning Velocity Indicators

Identify those who master new domains rapidly, apply knowledge from one area to another, seek learning opportunities proactively, learn from failure as fast as from success, and teach others what they’ve learned.

This isn’t about credentials or training hours. It’s about speed of competency acquisition, cross-functional project participation, how they handle unfamiliar assignments, knowledge sharing behaviors, and the quality of questions they ask.

3. Ambiguity Navigation

Watch for people who volunteer for ill-defined projects, make progress without clear direction, create structure from chaos, remain energized when others are paralyzed, and find opportunity in uncertainty.

Most organizations filter these people out because they make management nervous. They start projects before getting permission. They experiment without complete specifications. They move forward while others are still analyzing. They’re exactly who you need for transformation.

4. Pattern Recognition Abilities

Notice individuals who connect disparate pieces of information, spot trends before they’re obvious, transfer insights across domains, see system-level implications, and predict second-order effects.

These capabilities show up in strategic planning contributions, problem diagnosis abilities, innovation idea quality, market insight generation, and cross-functional connection making. They see what’s coming before it arrives.

5. Influence Without Authority

Identify those who lead without formal position, build coalitions for change, influence across boundaries, gain followership naturally, and create movements not just compliance.

Evidence sources include informal leadership roles, cross-functional respect, change initiative participation, network analysis results, and peer nominations. These people don’t wait for permission to lead. They lead because people choose to follow.

The Hidden High-Potentials Your System Misses

Traditional HiPo identification systematically misses the very people you need most:

The Questioners – Often labeled “difficult” or “not team players,” they challenge senior leadership respectfully, ask uncomfortable questions, push back on conventional wisdom, refuse to accept “because we’ve always done it,” and focus on what could be rather than what is. Your performance management system probably rates them poorly. They’re gold.

The Boundary Spanners – Frequently overlooked for being “unfocused,” they work across multiple departments naturally, build networks outside their function, understand business holistically, connect ideas from different domains, and resist functional silos. Your succession planning probably has nowhere to put them. They’re exactly who you need.

The Experimenters – Sometimes seen as “risky” or “undisciplined,” they try new approaches without permission, run unofficial pilots, test hypotheses quickly, learn from rapid failures, and create proof points for change. Your risk management probably wants to fire them. Keep them.

The Young Catalysts – Often dismissed as “inexperienced,” they bring fresh perspectives, challenge generational assumptions, understand emerging technologies intuitively, connect with future customers, and question traditional business models. Your experience requirements screen them out. Big mistake.

The Recovered Failures – Frequently written off after setbacks, they demonstrate resilience, learn deeply from failure, show intellectual humility, understand risk viscerally, and bring battle-tested wisdom. Your “high-performer only” succession planning excludes them. Their failures make them more valuable, not less.

What Development Strategies Actually Work for Transformation Leaders?

Development strategies that actually work for transformation leaders focus on experiential learning through real challenges, learning while doing, context-specific capability building, using failure as a learning opportunity, and cohort-based development rather than the classroom-heavy, risk-free, generic competency approaches that dominate traditional programs. Research shows that first-time manager training delivers a 29% ROI in three months and 415% annually when using these experiential approaches.

Most leadership development assumes linear skill building, classroom learning transfer, generic competency models, risk-free practice, and individual development focus. That’s perfect for developing leaders who maintain steady-state operations. It’s worthless for transformation.

Transformation leadership development requires a complete philosophy shift: experiential learning through real challenges that could actually fail, learning while doing rather than learn-then-do, context-specific capability building tied to your transformation needs, embracing failure as the primary learning mechanism, and cohort-based network development that creates a transformation community.

The Three-Horizon Development Model

Horizon 1: Foundation Building (0-2 years)

Objective: Build base transformation capabilities through actual transformation work.

Core experiences include leading small transformation projects where failure won’t kill the company, participating in innovation initiatives with real budgets and real consequences, working outside comfort zones on problems they’ve never solved, experiencing controlled failures where the learning is captured systematically, and building cross-functional networks that break down silos.

Development methods: Innovation lab assignments with real deliverables, startup rotations where they see how transformation actually works, change project leadership with actual authority, executive mentoring from proven transformation leaders, and transformation simulations that feel like combat training.

Key milestones: Demonstrating productive discomfort without melting down, showing rapid learning ability across domains, building influence skills across boundaries, delivering actual transformation results, and expanding organizational networks beyond their function.

Horizon 2: Capability Expansion (2-5 years)

Objective: Develop advanced transformation skills through significant transformation leadership.

Core experiences include leading significant transformations with real budget authority, working across business boundaries on enterprise priorities, navigating political complexity without getting destroyed, building transformation teams from scratch, and creating new business models that actually launch.

Development methods: Business unit transformation roles with P&L responsibility, external advisory positions on boards or with startups, corporate venture assignments building new businesses, global project leadership spanning cultures and time zones, and board observation opportunities seeing enterprise governance.

Key milestones: Pattern recognition mastery across complex systems, intellectual humility demonstration in high-stakes situations, execution obsession evidence through consistent delivery, team transformation capability that multiplies impact, and strategic thinking evolution from tactical to enterprise.

Horizon 3: Enterprise Leadership (5+ years)

Objective: Master enterprise transformation capability and system-level change.

Core experiences include driving multi-business transformation across divisions, shaping organizational culture at scale, building transformation capability throughout the enterprise, navigating board dynamics and shareholder expectations, and creating market disruption that changes industries.

Development methods: Enterprise transformation leadership with CEO-level visibility, external board service on public or significant private companies, CEO/senior team shadowing on major decisions, market-facing leadership roles representing the enterprise, and transformation consulting to other organizations.

Key milestones: Enterprise pattern recognition across markets and industries, organizational transformation capability that survives leadership changes, market disruption creation that competitors must respond to, sustainable change delivery that compounds over time, and next generation development that multiplies transformation capability.

Specific Programs That Deliver Results

1. The Transformation Fellowship Program

Structure it as an 18-month rotational program with four 4.5-month assignments across different transformation contexts, mixing internal transformation projects with external startup or consulting rotations, using cohort-based learning where fellows learn from each other as much as from faculty.

Assignment examples: Digital transformation project implementing new technologies, business model innovation creating new revenue streams, cultural transformation initiative changing how people work, merger integration team combining organizations, and startup partnership program building external ecosystems.

Learning components include weekly cohort discussions processing real experiences, executive mentoring from proven transformation leaders, external expert sessions bringing outside perspectives, failure analysis workshops where failures become case studies, and transformation simulations testing decision-making under pressure.

Selection criteria: Demonstrated transformation potential through actual attempts at change, 3-7 years experience providing foundation, cross-functional interest and boundary-spanning behavior, learning agility evidence through rapid skill acquisition, and leadership without authority demonstrated through influence.

2. The Innovation Catalyst Network

Enable transformation while building capabilities through part-time transformation roles where people maintain their day job but lead innovation initiatives, building transformation skills while delivering real innovation impact and creating an internal network of change agents.

Activities include leading innovation challenges with actual implementation budgets, facilitating design thinking sessions solving real problems, championing new technologies that could transform operations, building innovation culture through visible wins, and connecting external insights to internal needs.

Development benefits: Real transformation experience without full career risk, visible leadership platform building their reputation, network building opportunity across the enterprise, skill development while delivering business value, and career path optionality creating multiple futures.

3. The External Immersion Program

Send rising transformation leaders on 6-12 month external assignments including startup company placements seeing how disruption actually works, consulting firm rotations experiencing multiple transformations, technology company exchanges understanding digital-native cultures, and venture capital fellowships seeing innovation from the investment side.

Learning objectives: Experience radically different cultures and ways of working, see alternative approaches to common problems, build external networks providing future talent and partnerships, understand disruption from the disruptor’s perspective, and bring back insights that challenge internal assumptions.

Critical re-integration plan: Transformation role guaranteed upon return, share learning forums where they teach what they learned, apply external insights to internal challenges systematically, build on relationships created externally, and champion new approaches backed by external proof points.

How Do You Build the Organizational Infrastructure?

You build organizational infrastructure for transformation leadership by creating dedicated academies with transformation-specific curriculum, integrating transformation capabilities into succession planning systems, establishing transformation leadership brands that attract talent, and building formal support structures that sustain development beyond individual programs. Without this infrastructure, individual development efforts die when champions leave or priorities shift.

Most organizations treat leadership development as a series of programs rather than as organizational infrastructure. Programs come and go. Infrastructure endures and compounds. You need infrastructure.

The Transformation Leadership Academy

Create a dedicated academy with transformation case studies from your industry and others, capability building modules focused on the Five Critical Capabilities, simulation exercises creating transformation pressure, action learning projects solving real business problems, and external expert sessions bringing world-class faculty.

Faculty model includes internal transformation leaders who’ve delivered results teaching what actually works, external experts bringing fresh perspectives, academic partners providing research foundation, transformation consultants sharing cross-industry insights, and peer teachers where participants teach each other.

Learning methods: Cohort-based programs building transformation communities, individual coaching addressing specific development needs, team projects delivering business value while building capability, external immersions seeing transformation elsewhere, and virtual collaborations connecting global talent.

Integration with work is critical—projects must be tied to real business challenges with executive sponsorship, immediate application of learning to current work, manager involvement ensuring transfer, organizational sponsorship providing resources and air cover, and results measurement proving business impact.

Succession Planning Integration

Traditional succession planning focuses on functional expertise, internal candidates only, like-for-like replacement, risk mitigation emphasis, and steady-state assumptions. Transformation succession planning requires capability-based assessment using the Five Critical Capabilities, internal and external pipeline development, transformation readiness focus rather than current role similarity, opportunity creation emphasis seeking growth, and continuous change assumptions.

New succession metrics: Percentage of successors with demonstrated transformation capabilities, external hire integration success rates, cross-functional readiness across business units, innovation track record creating new value, and learning velocity across different challenges.

Succession review changes must assess the Five Critical Capabilities systematically, include transformation experiences as requirements not nice-to-haves, evaluate learning agility through actual evidence, consider external benchmarks rather than just internal comparisons, and plan capability development paths for each successor.

Creating a Transformation Leadership Brand

Internal brand building makes transformation leaders visible through success story highlighting, speaker series featuring transformation leaders, communications featuring their work prominently, public recognition at major forums, and role model building showing what great looks like.

Create aspiration by showing career paths transformation leaders follow, demonstrating impact they create for business and career, highlighting rewards both financial and developmental, building community among transformation leaders, and celebrating failures as learning opportunities publicly.

External brand building attracts transformation talent by sharing transformation stories in industry media, highlighting development opportunities available, showcasing culture that supports transformation, building external reputation as transformation leader, and creating talent magnetism where people seek you out.

Recruitment strategies must target transformation leaders specifically, assess for capabilities not just experience, sell development opportunity as much as current role, highlight challenges that will stretch them, and build diverse pipeline across backgrounds and perspectives.

How Can You Measure Pipeline Effectiveness?

You measure pipeline effectiveness through quantity indicators like pipeline depth by level, quality indicators like capability assessment scores and success rates in stretch assignments, velocity indicators like time to transformation readiness, and business impact metrics linking leadership development to organizational performance. Research shows organizations globally invest $60 billion annually in leadership development, but most fail to measure outcomes properly.

Most organizations either don’t measure leadership pipeline effectiveness or measure the wrong things. They count program completions, satisfaction scores, and learning objectives met. None of that predicts transformation capability.

Pipeline Health Metrics That Actually Matter

Quantity Indicators: Number of identified high-potentials with transformation capability, pipeline depth by organizational level showing bench strength, diversity of backgrounds ensuring different perspectives, external hire integration success rates, and geographic distribution enabling global transformation.

Quality Indicators: Capability assessment scores on the Five Critical Capabilities, transformation experience depth through actual transformation leadership, success rate in stretch assignments measuring results, promotion readiness for next-level transformation roles, and retention rates of high-potential transformation leaders.

Velocity Indicators: Time to transformation readiness from identification, development program completion rates and time, capability building speed across the Five Capabilities, internal fill rates for transformation roles, and ready-now percentages for critical positions.

Development ROI Metrics

Investment measures include development program costs, coaching and mentoring investment, opportunity costs of stretch assignments, external program fees for immersions, and infrastructure costs for academies.

Return measures include transformation success rates of developed leaders, innovation metrics from their initiatives, speed of organizational change they enable, business results from their transformations, and talent retention value they create.

Comparative analysis: Internal development versus external hire costs, development versus recruitment ROI, speed to productivity comparing internal and external, success rates in transformation roles, and long-term value creation over careers.

Early Warning Indicators

Pipeline risks show up as declining identification rates, increased development dropouts, reduced stretch assignment volunteers, lower capability assessment scores, and intensifying external talent competition.

Mitigation strategies: Enhance identification methods to find hidden talent, improve development experience to reduce dropouts, increase support systems for stretch assignments, accelerate development timelines, and strengthen value proposition for transformation leaders.

What Are the Most Common Pipeline Development Failures?

The most common pipeline development failures include the patience problem where organizations abandon efforts before seeing results, the traditional trap of using steady-state methods for transformation development, the elite island syndrome that alienates the broader organization, and the one-size problem assuming all transformation leaders need identical development. These failures destroy more leadership pipelines than any other causes.

Organizations make predictable mistakes killing their transformation leadership pipelines. Here’s what failure looks like:

Failure 1: The Patience Problem

Organizations start pipeline development with fanfare then abandon it when immediate results don’t materialize. The issue: expecting twelve-month results from five-year investments.

Warning signs include questioning ROI after one year, reducing investment in year two, returning to traditional methods that feel comfortable, focusing on quick fixes instead of capability building, and losing executive sponsorship when initial enthusiasm fades.

Prevention strategies: Set realistic five-year timelines communicated clearly, celebrate early wins even if small, track leading indicators showing progress, maintain executive sponsorship through transition periods, and show progress consistently through quarterly updates.

Failure 2: The Traditional Trap

Using traditional development methods for transformation capabilities guarantees failure. The issue: applying steady-state development to transformation requirements.

Warning signs include classroom-heavy programs with minimal action learning, generic leadership content not tied to transformation, risk-free simulations with no real consequences, individual focus without cohort learning, and technical skill emphasis over capability building.

Prevention strategies: Real transformation projects with actual failure risk, customized content tied to your transformation challenges, embrace failure learning systematically, cohort approaches building transformation communities, and capability focus on the Five Critical Capabilities.

Failure 3: The Elite Island

Creating exclusive programs that alienate the broader organization kills transformation capability at scale. The issue: developing individual stars while organizational capability erodes.

Warning signs include resentment from non-participants, “teacher’s pet” syndrome destroying credibility, disconnection from daily operational reality, unrealistic expectations about transformation leaders, and cultural antibodies attacking transformation initiatives.

Prevention strategies: Transparent selection process everyone understands, broad participation opportunities beyond core program, give-back requirements where participants develop others, realistic positioning about what program delivers, and cultural integration ensuring transformation leaders stay connected.

Failure 4: The One-Size Problem

Assuming all transformation leaders need identical development ignores individual strengths and contexts. The issue: standardized development for customized challenges.

Warning signs include standard program for all participants regardless of needs, ignoring individual strengths and development areas, missing specific development needs for different roles, cultural misalignment in global programs, and participant frustration with irrelevance.

Prevention strategies: Individualized development planning based on assessment, multiple pathways to transformation leadership, strength-based development leveraging natural capabilities, cultural sensitivity in global deployment, and flexible approaches adapting to context.

How Do Different Organizations Approach This Differently?

Different organizations must adapt transformation leadership pipeline building to their specific contexts: small-to-medium enterprises leverage partnerships and external programs to overcome resource constraints, global organizations balance local adaptation with global consistency, rapid-growth companies accelerate development while maintaining quality, and traditional industries start gradually while building proof points. One-size-fits-all approaches fail because context matters enormously.

Pipeline building looks different depending on organizational context. Here’s how to adapt:

Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs)

Challenges include limited development budgets, fewer internal opportunities for stretch assignments, smaller talent pools, intense competition from large companies, and severe resource constraints.

Adapted strategies: Partner with other SMEs sharing development costs, use external programs at universities or consultancies, create stretch through scope expansion not just hierarchy, leverage board connections for external opportunities, and build ecosystem approaches sharing talent.

Global Organizations

Challenges include cultural differences in leadership approaches, varying transformation readiness across geographies, distance and coordination complexity, legal and regulatory differences, and significant communication barriers.

Adapted strategies: Regional adaptation of global frameworks, global cohorts connecting across boundaries, virtual collaboration technologies, cultural intelligence building as core capability, and local-global balance in development approaches.

Rapid Growth Organizations

Challenges include constant organizational change disrupting development, rapid role evolution changing requirements, unclear career paths in flux, difficult external hire integration, and culture dilution from rapid growth.

Adapted strategies: Accelerated development programs compressed in time, clear capability frameworks despite organizational flux, strong culture embedding mechanisms, formal integration programs for external hires, and flexible pathways adapting to growth.

Traditional Industries

Challenges include significant resistance to change, limited internal transformation examples, deeply risk-averse cultures, restrictive regulatory constraints, and concerned stakeholders questioning change.

Adapted strategies: Start with willing groups as pilots, show value early through quick wins, respect constraints while pushing boundaries, build gradually creating proof points, and create tangible evidence transformation works.

People Also Ask

Traditional vs. Transformation Leadership Development

Aspect	Traditional Development	Transformation Development	Impact Difference
Learning Approach	Classroom-heavy, theoretical, risk-free simulations	Experiential, real challenges, actual failure risk	8x more likely to drive business performance
Selection Criteria	Current performance, technical expertise, executive presence	Transformation potential, learning velocity, disruptive thinking	Identifies hidden talent traditional systems miss
Timeline	Linear progression, 10-15 year executive path	Accelerated development, 5-8 year transformation path	40% faster readiness for transformation roles
Focus	Individual skill building, functional expertise	Capability development, cohort-based learning	Creates transformation communities vs. isolated stars
Success Metrics	Program completions, satisfaction scores, learning objectives	Transformation results, capability scores, business impact	415% ROI vs. unmeasured outcomes
Career Paths	Predictable hierarchy, functional silos, vertical progression	Non-linear paths, cross-functional moves, lateral development	Broader capability vs. narrow expertise

Frequently Asked Questions

About the Author

Todd Hagopian has transformed businesses at Berkshire Hathaway, Illinois Tool Works, and Whirlpool Corporation selling over $3 billion of products. Hagopian doubled his own manufacturing business acquisition value in just 3 years before selling, while generating $2B in shareholder value across his corporate roles. He is the author of The Unfair Advantage. As Founder of the Stagnation Intelligence Agency, he is a SSRN-published author. Todd is the leading authority on Stagnation Syndrome and corporate transformation. He has written more than 1,000 pages (www.toddhagopian.com) on Corporate Stagnation Transformation, earning recognition from Manufacturing Insights Magazine and Manufacturing Marvels. His research has been published on SSRN. He has been Featured over 30 times on Forbes.com along with articles/segments on Fox Business, OAN, Washington Post, NPR and many other outlets, his transformative strategies reach over 100,000 social media followers and generate 15,000,000+ annual impressions.