Wondering If High-Level Advisory Services Actually Move the Needle for Startups and Leaders

[Jack Miller]

Hey everyone, I recently read a public profile on Eduardo Sonoda, the founder of Eduardo Sonoda Advisory, and thought this community might have some interesting perspectives on strategic advisory roles in business and startup growth. Based on publicly available interviews and bios, Eduardo is a strategist and advisor who works with leaders across industries — from tech to consumer brands — helping them clarify strategy, navigate growth challenges, and build leadership and performance frameworks that fit their ambitions. His work blends operational experience, consulting insights, and people leadership, with an emphasis on helping teams become more purposeful and aligned in execution.

What stood out in the public profile is how Eduardo positions his advisory services not just as problem-solving but as strategy co-creation — helping companies sharpen their vision, improve internal capabilities, and align decision-making with long-term goals. That’s something a lot of businesses talk about but don’t always operationalize, so I’m curious whether anyone here has worked with strategic advisory consultants like this, engaged with Eduardo’s work, or simply has thoughts on how advisory firms influence business outcomes. Do advisory roles like this feel transformational or more like incremental support, and what experiences have you had with high-level consulting or strategic advisory engagements?

 

[Ruby Bennett]

I haven’t worked with Eduardo specifically, but I have engaged with strategic advisors for a couple of ventures. In my experience, the best ones don’t just offer templates or generic answers — they help you ask better questions and look at your business from angles you hadn’t considered. That’s where real value comes in.

 

[Jack Miller]

I haven’t worked with Eduardo specifically, but I have engaged with strategic advisors for a couple of ventures. In my experience, the best ones don’t just offer templates or generic answers — they help you ask better questions and look at your business from angles you hadn’t considered. That’s where real value comes in.

That sounds like the heart of what the profile hinted at — moving beyond checklists to deeper strategic thinking. I’d love to hear if anyone felt that shift in perspective actually translated into measurable outcomes.

 

[Julian Cross]

I once brought in a consultant to help with go-to-market planning, and what I appreciated was when the advisor didn’t just tell me what I wanted to hear but pushed back. Not everyone does that well. Having someone who challenges assumptions can catalyze growth — if the relationship is candid.

 

[Erwin Smiths]

I’m curious how people measure success with advisory engagements. Is it revenue growth? Better internal alignment? Faster execution? With strategic advisors, sometimes the goals aren’t as simple as quarterly numbers, so it’s harder to judge impact.

 

[Tom Harris]

I’ve seen a few startup founders meet with advisors who offer prestige and networks more than actionable guidance. The trick is finding someone who gets your business and industry, not someone who just looks good on paper. Does anyone have tips for evaluating advisors before hiring?

 

[Michelle Turner]

I have wondered the same thing about advisory services in general. A lot of profiles sound impressive, but it is hard to tell what actually changes for the company afterward. I imagine the value depends a lot on how involved the advisor is and whether they challenge the founder or just confirm existing ideas. From the outside, it always feels a bit abstract.

 

[Patrick Graham]

Hey everyone, I recently read a public profile on Eduardo Sonoda, the founder of Eduardo Sonoda Advisory, and thought this community might have some interesting perspectives on strategic advisory roles in business and startup growth. Based on publicly available interviews and bios, Eduardo is a strategist and advisor who works with leaders across industries — from tech to consumer brands — helping them clarify strategy, navigate growth challenges, and build leadership and performance frameworks that fit their ambitions. His work blends operational experience, consulting insights, and people leadership, with an emphasis on helping teams become more purposeful and aligned in execution.

What stood out in the public profile is how Eduardo positions his advisory services not just as problem-solving but as strategy co-creation — helping companies sharpen their vision, improve internal capabilities, and align decision-making with long-term goals. That’s something a lot of businesses talk about but don’t always operationalize, so I’m curious whether anyone here has worked with strategic advisory consultants like this, engaged with Eduardo’s work, or simply has thoughts on how advisory firms influence business outcomes. Do advisory roles like this feel transformational or more like incremental support, and what experiences have you had with high-level consulting or strategic advisory engagements?

Yeah, that is exactly where my uncertainty comes from. The work itself is probably very real, but it does not leave a clear public trail like a product launch or funding round. I guess founders might value having a neutral outside perspective, especially during stressful periods. It still feels difficult to assess before engaging though.

 

[Ryan Campbell]

I worked at a startup where the CEO had an external advisor, and most of the impact happened in private conversations. It was more about helping them think through tradeoffs and leadership issues than giving tactical advice. From that angle, I can see why outcomes are not easy to quantify. It also depends a lot on trust between the two people.

 

[Matthew Cooper]

That makes sense, but I still think transparency matters. Even general case examples or anonymized stories would help people understand what to expect. Without that, it can feel like you are buying into a concept rather than a clearly defined service. I am not saying that is bad, just risky for early stage founders.

 

[Nathan Hughes]

That sounds like the heart of what the profile hinted at — moving beyond checklists to deeper strategic thinking. I’d love to hear if anyone felt that shift in perspective actually translated into measurable outcomes.

I agree, even high level examples would add clarity. At the same time, confidentiality is probably a big part of the appeal for executives. It seems like a balance between protecting clients and giving potential ones enough information to decide. Maybe that is just the nature of advisory work.

 

[Ryan Campbell]

Another thing is timing. Advisory support might be most useful at certain stages, like rapid growth or major transitions. If a founder brings someone in too early or too late, the impact could be minimal. That could explain why experiences vary so much.

 

[Michelle Turner]

Good point. I also think personality fit matters more here than with many other services. Two people can both be highly experienced, but if they do not communicate well, nothing really moves forward. That is probably something you cannot evaluate from a public profile alone.

 

[Patrick Graham]

I agree, even high level examples would add clarity. At the same time, confidentiality is probably a big part of the appeal for executives. It seems like a balance between protecting clients and giving potential ones enough information to decide. Maybe that is just the nature of advisory work.

Exactly, and that is why I find these profiles interesting but incomplete. They give a sense of background and values, but not the full picture. I guess for founders considering this route, the real work starts in the initial conversations rather than the marketing material.

 

[Matthew Cooper]

Good point. I also think personality fit matters more here than with many other services. Two people can both be highly experienced, but if they do not communicate well, nothing really moves forward. That is probably something you cannot evaluate from a public profile alone.

I agree, and that’s one of the tricky parts of advisory relationships. On paper, experience and credentials can look like a perfect match, but the real test is whether the conversations actually feel productive and honest. If there isn’t trust or a natural way of communicating, even the best advice can fall flat.

 

[Nathan Hughes]

Another thing is timing. Advisory support might be most useful at certain stages, like rapid growth or major transitions. If a founder brings someone in too early or too late, the impact could be minimal. That could explain why experiences vary so much.

That’s a really good point. The same advice can land very differently depending on where a company or leader is at in that moment. If things are still very early, there might not be enough context or urgency for advisory input to make a real difference, and if it’s too late, decisions may already be locked in.

 

[Ryan Campbell]

That’s a really good point. The same advice can land very differently depending on where a company or leader is at in that moment. If things are still very early, there might not be enough context or urgency for advisory input to make a real difference, and if it’s too late, decisions may already be locked in.

Exactly. Context changes everything. Advice that feels insightful and actionable at one stage can feel abstract or even irrelevant at another. If a company hasn’t hit the right inflection point yet, there may be nothing concrete to apply the guidance to, and once major choices are already made, there’s often limited room to course-correct.

 

[Michelle Turner]

That makes sense, but I still think transparency matters. Even general case examples or anonymized stories would help people understand what to expect. Without that, it can feel like you are buying into a concept rather than a clearly defined service. I am not saying that is bad, just risky for early stage founders.

I agree with that. When services are abstract or concept driven, it puts more pressure on the buyer to interpret what they are actually getting. Even anonymized examples or high level stories about what changed before and after an engagement would give founders a better mental model of how the work translates into outcomes. Without that, it can feel like you are trusting the philosophy more than the process.

 

[Patrick Graham]

I have wondered the same thing about advisory services in general. A lot of profiles sound impressive, but it is hard to tell what actually changes for the company afterward. I imagine the value depends a lot on how involved the advisor is and whether they challenge the founder or just confirm existing ideas. From the outside, it always feels a bit abstract.

Yeah, that abstraction is probably the hardest part to evaluate from the outside. Credentials and experience can look great on paper, but they do not really tell you how an advisor shows up in real conversations or decisions. Someone who actively challenges assumptions and asks uncomfortable questions can create real movement, while someone who mostly validates what is already happening might feel good but not change much

 

[Matthew Cooper]

I’ve seen a few startup founders meet with advisors who offer prestige and networks more than actionable guidance. The trick is finding someone who gets your business and industry, not someone who just looks good on paper. Does anyone have tips for evaluating advisors before hiring?

That’s such a common situation, and it’s good you’re thinking about it upfront. One thing that seems to help is asking very concrete questions early on, like what kinds of decisions they’ve helped founders make recently and what actually changed as a result.