The Ad Space Race

December 29, 2005 | Filed Under Selling the GC 

To end this trilogy on face-to-face client contact and its implications, I’d like to briefly examine how legal marketing fits into the mix. The starting point for many firms is their advertising. I actually find law firm advertising interesting; but I’m not sure it always delivers on what is promised–or intended.

When you flip through the pages of glossy legal publications, you see no end of law firm ads. Magazines such as the excellent American Lawyer (ed. note: “product placement” alert) have no small number of well-designed and carefully executed ads. If this is about branding, or about entering the current or future client’s mindset, then it certainly has a place in an overall legal marketing strategy.

But I think that much of the advertising that is intended as legal marketing really is an exercise in law firm vanity. The high (or low) point of this for me was the firm that ran double page ads that were almost totally blank. I can’t recall the name of the firm (which tells you something right there) but I recall thinking “more money than brains” as I blasted by. Is that the best tagline of a new firm branding campaign? What did the agency tell the firm they would gain by this “bold initiative?”

The other type of ad that is popular is the “list of awards or benefits” type of ad. Look at us, we’re number one. Check us out, we have X attorneys in Y offices in Z countries around the world. Do these firms think we are taking notes as we read?

It’s almost as if some firms have a large legal marketing budget and by God are going to spend six or seven figures on these sort of ads, come hell or high water. While expensive, it’s so easy. Have a few different ads designed, pick the ones that make the marketing committee feel good about themselves, place them in a few publications and then sit back and wait for the GCs to call. Is the phone ringing off the hook?

I think I know the answer. For me, I would never put a firm on my mental list to bolster my starting rotation because of an ad. How would some firm get there?

First, I would want some personal referral or validation from someone I trust. How do you get one of these? Start by doing a good job with current clients. Second, make it clear to these clients with periodic off-the-meter, face-to-face meetings that you are interested in their business and in contributing to their success. If you don’t know what keeps that GC or managing counsel up at night, you don’t really know them and you’re probably not getting any referrals. Third, I would try to come up with at least one unsolicited idea every year that might save the client money (even if its risks a short-term reduction in my billings).

I know these are not easy, and that they are time-consuming. Certainly not as convenient as hiding behind an ad or a slick brochure and think you are developing business.

But don’t despair. Act. Pick up the telephone right now and schedule a meeting early in 2006 with your best client, or one who you’d like to do more work for.

I’d take that call. I’d look forward to that meeting. And what did that cost your firm? Almost nothing.

There, now you can go out and celebrate with a good conscience.

Happy New Year to you and yours. Please stop back here in early 2006. I think it is going to be a very interesting year.

What Face Means For Place

December 28, 2005 | Filed Under Legal Resources, Selling the GC 

I wrote yesterday about the value of personal contact in a legal world dominated by fast communication that is mostly high-tech, not high-touch. Patrick Lamb was kind enough to pick up on this topic and offer that his firm’s client surveys show that clients appreciate lawyers who care enough to look them in the eye from time-to-time.

Today, a few thoughts about what this may mean for office location and space design for the forward-looking law firm.

First, I need to add an assumption to the “clients appreciate face time” one: most face-to-face contact is at the client’s place of business (or perhaps at some other location like a court). My informal sampling of GCs indicates that less than 25% of personal meetings with lawyers are at the lawyer’s office. The main reasons for such visits are for things like deposition prep or to negotiate or close a transaction. Hardly the time (or place) for asking a client some open-ended questions and listening.

If we accept that lawyers need to spend more time with clients and clients rarely visit their law firm’s offices, a question pops up: why do most firms in large cities persist in putting all their people in pricey high-rise space under long-term leases?

Here are a few of the reasons offered (and my response):

– Clients are impressed. (But they never visit! And if they do, they understand why they just got their notice of a rate increase in 2006).

– Partners deserve the prestige attached to tony addresses. (And how late in each year does that partner’s income statement go green?)

– Associates see it as a bullish sign of the firm’s future. (What is the new billable hour target?)

– Recruits factor location into their decision on which firm to join. (Ever try expanding your law school recruiting universe beyond the Top 10?)

– Staff likes the excitement and “halo effect” of a great address. (Right. And how much does it cost them to park or commute?)

Some large firms in large cities have partly addressed this issue by putting back-office staff in lower cost areas nearby (or even offshore). What the next step may be is for firms to have a main location in a city (but with less space and less “cachet”), and some satellite locations in suburbs where the rents may be cheaper and staff commutes would be shorter. Or just bite the bullett and allow some lawyers to telecommute. If you don’t have an hour long commute each way to work, perhaps you have a little more time for maintaining balance–or even the occasional client visit.

But wait! I thought yesterday we found that telecommuting was so yesterday? You need face-to-face interaction in the firms just as much as you need it for clients, right?

And you do–but I’d wager that on many days lawyers who are on the same floor of a large-footprint building on Fifth Avenue communicate mostly by email anyway. The firm could have a weekly practice-group meeting on one day and a skills development meeting later in the week Both 60 minutes or so. Then a large room of smaller office spaces that provide laptop hookup and phone access. These offices could spur interaction among lawyers and you wouldn’t need a dedicated office for everyone, because of vacations and travel. And the legal tech vendors who have sold the virtues of investing in digitizing files and firm records finally have a legitimate chance at providing some payback.

I’m sure I don’t understand all the intricacies of space selection and design of the modern law firm. But when I see firms jockeying for a new “signature” building, and later submitting their interior design to magazines for their annual awards, I know one thing: I’ve never retained a firm on the basis of its offices. And I have to think that the overhead costs inherent in the current space model are a big driver of higher rates and higher billable hour quotas. And I have decided against retaining more than one firm because of these factors.

Tomorrow, I’ll close out the year by stepping back from face and place and provide a GC-eye view of what lawyers do instead of client visits. A preview: It’s typically called legal marketing or client development–and it ain’t either of ‘em.

A Place for the Face

December 27, 2005 | Filed Under Selling the GC, In the News, General 

Why can’t we all work in our pajamas?

The New York Times reports on one aspect that separated the recent New York City transit strike from previous ones–the ability of some workers to function remotely from the office.

I expected the article to go on to extol the virtues of telecommuting. Then, in an interesting twist, it veers left and quotes a few members of academia who give two cheers for office face time:

“Even in a world of casual instant-messaging and near-free phone calling,” said Jonathan Zittrain, a professor of Internet governance at Oxford University, “a shout down the hall still matters.”

“In an era when so much of our communication is electronic, the value of a face-to-face meeting has actually intensified,” said Mitchell L. Moss, a professor of urban policy at New York University, “since the phone and e-mail have become routine while a meeting reflects the importance of the person or topic.”

The article underscores the challenges to lawyers who only interact with their clients by phone, fax or email. The good news is that it can be very efficient. The bad news is that it may not always be very effective.

In the in-house environment, this can be challenging for corporate counsel who have clients spread out over the nation or the world. It is particularly helpful to have some personal relationships forged by one-to-one contact at times–like when you are delivering a message on compliance that the key client may not want to hear.

In the law firm environment, it is common for some partners and very common for some associates to have never personally met a long-term client. I feel that if a lawyer ever wants to move up the trust food chain with a client, you have to supplement good service and high value with a personal relationship. With a personal relationship, you are less likely to be thrown into this year’s beauty contest with other commodity-type service providers.

And it may go without saying–visit your client on their home turf. I have heard some lawyers complain that they are “too busy to travel” or “can’t bill for client relations time”. My answers: (a) you will have plenty of time to travel when your clients drift away and (b) you can’t bill for any time when you don’t have a client in the first place.

Tomorrow, a few thoughts on what this may mean for law firms–like where they have their offices and how they build out their space for business.

Give That Dog a Bone

December 22, 2005 | Filed Under Selling the GC 

Quick, name that law firm by looking at their signature icon:

Sit. Stay. Bill. Good dog!

If you said Bingham McCutchen, then this advertising pet trick is working.

When I first saw this picture in a glossy ad (I believe it was in the American Lawyer), I figured that the firm is either (a) savvy in a goofy sort of way or (b) the victim of one of the most elaborate practical jokes in the history of modern legal marketing.

This ad is apparently part of an initiative by Bingham, as described in a recent issue of Law Practice magazine. According to Bingham’s chief marketing officer, Elizabeth Chambers, these ads:

…meet the first test of good advertising: “They are visually striking (rich in vibrant color), they hold your attention, and they are likable. As a result they engage the reader right away and thus help us convey our message.”

It’s getting deep…

Ms. Chambers claims that the ads have been well received by clients, employees and “talent” they hope to hire in the future.

Just what is the message that Bingham is conveying?

Let’s free associate a bit. What’s the first thing that pops into your mind when you see the picture above? Here’s a few that I thought of that made the cut (email me for the one that didn’t):

– “Who let the dog out?”

– “I hope he doesn’t jump on my leg at the closing!”

–”He was Bingham’s prize show dog, and is in the lobby under glass.”

– “Is he wearing dark grey slacks and black loafers with square toes?!”

– (Bingham partner to prospective client) “If he sniffs your crotch it means he wants to work on your deal.”

– (Gunner associate to another, both in Fido’s entering class) “There’s no way he will make his 2,200 hours this year. He sleeps all afternoon on the couch in the library.”

– (Bingham associate overheard saying) “The worst part is having to carry a little plastic bag when we go for a walk during breaks in depositions.”

But in an era of me-too lawyer advertising, I guess you have to give Bingham some credit for pushing the invisible fence a bit.

I would have used this dog (he works cheaper, but not as clean):

Watch your step...

Last Google Post of 2005

December 21, 2005 | Filed Under Law 2.0, Technology 

… I promise.

As expected, Google finalized its $1 billion investment in AOL yesterday. Reuters provides some of the details.

As I speculated last time, the “partnership” includes some integration of Google Talk and AOL Instant Messenger. The New York Times reports that:

The Google-AOL deal involves a range of other forms of cooperation. Notably, AOL will allow users of Google’s new Google Talk instant messaging system to chat with users of AOL’s messaging network, the largest in the country. Until now, AOL has resisted linking its system with those run by its major rivals - including Yahoo and Microsoft, which recently agreed to link their own. It does connect to Apple Computer’s message system and several services aimed at corporate users.

There will be a somewhat complex procedure to link the two systems, however. Google Talk users will need to add an AOL screen name to communicate with other AOL users.

If I were an eBay shareholder, I’d wonder about the Skype acquisition, which could end up costing circa $4 billion. For 25 cents on those dollars, Google gets a link-up with AOL that has to be profitable out of the chute and almost gets a Skype-killer thrown in for free. (And anyone who thinks eBay sellers want to be Skype’d by potential buyers has never done much online selling–the best part of using eBay is not having your phone ring incessantly from tire-kicking cretins.)

Say what you want about Google. These people are scary-smart. (Here’s how they find talent.)

I declined yesterday to offer any ideas to West or Lexis/Nexis on what could be done on their legal search properties in the wake of the Google/AOL deal. Upon reflection, that’s not a very giving thing to do late in this holiday season.

So here’s one unwrapped gift to my friends in Eagan and Dayton: look at your home page.

What?

Look at Google. They obsess over their home page (I think you can find it without a link). See this interview with Marissa Mayer, a director of consumer Web products. This excerpt is from a profile a few years ago about what they do with customer feedback:

There’s this one user, a Google zealot - we don’t know who he is - who occasionally sends an e-mail to our “comments” address. Every time he writes, the e-mail contains only a two-digit number. It took us awhile to figure out what he was doing. Turns out he’s counting the number of words on the home page. When the number goes up, like up to 52, it gets him irritated, and he e-mails us the new word count. As crazy as it sounds, his e-mails are helpful, because it has put an interesting discipline on the UI team, so as not to introduce too many links. It’s like a scale that tells you that you’ve gained two pounds.

Ms. Mayer was also covered recently in Fast Company.

Now look at the home pages of Westlaw’s Findlaw and Lexis/Nexis. Findlaw’s design (click on the “Legal Professional” tab at top) is not bad, although the print is a bit small (and the one ad is below the fold). The fact that FindLaw is going after the consumer and pro legal markets at the same time is a challenging mission to pull off.

Lexis/Nexis is more of a hodge-podge, in my humble opinion. I look at it, and want to leave. I would have checked out LexisOne, but couldn’t find it off the home page. Hmmm, they must not want to encourage use of free content…

Google’s challenge in the AOL deal is not to dilute the franchise by inserting too many graphics or banners, no matter how tempting or profitable in the short term.

The challenge for West and Lexis/Nexis is to figure out what they want to be in the next five years and then simplify their initial and ongoing user experiences to enhance the likelihood that customers will stick around and still pay the (increasing!) content fees.

Google is free, fast and easier to use. That’s called competition with a capital “c.”

Next Page »