geeklawyer pointed me to an article in the The Times called ‘A blog shows we are not a stuffy, old-style firm. Discuss.‘

The article points out that geeklawyer is the first UK barrister to blog, but then incorrectly goes on to identify geeklawyer as:

“geeklawyer” — otherwise known as John Lambert, specialising in intellectual property, technology and media issues.

geeklaywer put it best:

John Lambert is indeed an intellectual property barrister and can be found here, but he is not me and I am not him.

So a paper does a story on legal blogs and gives you a mention. Can’t beat that, right? But then they identify you as someone else. Ouch.

The article goes on to talk about the merits of legal blogging. The first, as the title suggests, is that having a blog (quoting Nan Joeston, a San Francisco intellectual property expert):

“conveys an impression that we are not a stuffy, old-style firm but are aware of and comfortable with new ways to communicate with a broad audience.”

On the other hand, the article quotes sources that doubt blogging can help firms. One commentator felt that legal blogs aren’t interesting to clients. Another cautions that law firms should not build a marketing strategy on blogs.

I think some people out there are missing the point. Blogging isn’t meant to replace direct contact with potential clients. This isn’t an all-or-nothing thing. You can actually add blogging to a current marketing strategy without dropping something else.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a “legal marketing expert” here in Boston last year. After her presentation, I asked “What do you think of legal blogging?”

Before I could get out the last ‘g’ in ‘blogging’, she immediately said “I HATE IT!!!” I was a little bit confused, so I asked why.

“It’s a complete waste of time. Lawyers should spend their time lawyering. They should be billing time, not writing on a blog.”

I thought about that for a while and really should have asked her: “Well what are you doing right now? You’re a marketing consultant. You should be spending your time consulting……not speaking at a seminar.”

Having a blog may make your firm appear to be up to current technology and trends. But it is the content of the blogs that matter. Clients aren’t going to say “Whoa. I thought this firm was really traditional and conservative….but they have a blog? Well that changes everything!”

Going back to the quote in the article (this post is quickly losing focus as the caffeine is starting to lose its hold on my brain):

“Having a blog conveys an impression that we are not a stuffy, old-style firm but are aware of and comfortable with new ways to communicate with a broad audience.”

Do clients ever say “Man, I really wanted to hire this firm, but I don’t know if they’re comfortable with new ways to communicate with people that aren’t me?”

Popularity: 5% [?]

I just read a great post on Duct Tape Marketing called “Your Real Competition Is Perception“. In the post, author John Jantsch says:

When it comes to true competitors most small businesses don’t really have any. ……..I don’t think that any two businesses, regardless of the products or services they offer, are the same.

Mr. Jantsch’s point is simple: Your firm should spend less time thinking about competition and more time thinking about uniqueness. If your target clients don’t see you as having a unique value, they’ll think you are just like any other firm out there. And that’s where the competition comes in.

This was one of those “A HA!” momemts for me. The only time you’re actually competing with someone is when you are offering the same thing. McDonald’s and Burger King both sell french fries. They are competing with each other. There’s nothing unique to either.

On the other hand, Tiffany’s and Sam’s Club both sell diamond engagement rings, but you wouldn’t call them competitors, would you?

Of course not. There is a huge difference here. When you get right down to it, both companies are selling the same product. Here’s a little exercise: Let’s pretend that we have two identical engagement rings. The same exact carat weight, same band, etc. Literally identical (that’s why it is just a thought exercise…):

First, the Sam’s Club diamond:

Now, the one from Tiffany’s:

Now, like we said, these are absolutely identical rings. But there is a huge difference between the two. I’m sure many of you already know the answer:

Tiffany’s is selling a different product: their reputation. Sure, you’re getting a great ring, but even more….you’re getting a Tiffany’s ring. You are getting bragging rights and the envy of friends. You’re getting the knowledge that the person buying it was willing to pay more than what it is worth….because you are worth it.

To cut this short: even when you are selling something that seems interchangeable, you’re not really selling the same thing.

The only real competition exists when you don’t dare to set yourself apart.

Popularity: 14% [?]

Seth Godin has a post entitled “Q: What do you think of my brochure?“

In his post, Mr. Godin tells a simple, but often ignored truth about the corporate brochure:

People won’t read it.

Whoa. So you’re telling me that something law firms spend huge amounts of time, money and effort on won’t be read?

Yep.

He’s not saying that firms should ditch the brochure all together. Instead, he’s just saying that you need to think of what your target is going to do with it.

Best Case Scenario:
Mr. Godin says:

At its best, a brochure is begging for someone to judge you. It says, “assume that because we could hire really good printers and photographers and designers and writers, we are talented [surgeons, real estate developers, whatever]” And more often than not, people do just that.

So when developing a brochure, keep in mind that it is the initial perception that is the key. For a moment, take it as a given that someone is going to glance at the brochure and get an impression of you. Does that change what your brochure is going to look like?

Think of it this way: Imagine that you have a magic power that allows you to create a first impression. You’re standing in front of a prospect, and they are temporarily unconscious. When you snap your fingers, they will awaken, and the first thing they see is going to be a picture and a couple of words. The image is supposed to convey a feeling about your firm.

What do you want that feeling to be? And more importantly, what images and words are going to be in line with that feeling?

Worst Case Scenario:
Again, Mr. Godin says it best:

At its worst, a brochure solves a prospect’s problem (the problem of: what should I do about this opportunity?) by giving them an easy way to say “no.”

If your brochure looks too amateurish, that’s the impression that the prospect gets of your firm. If it looks too “corporate”, they may see your firm as bland. It really is a fine line.

So what should you do?
Customize.

There is a real temptation to make a brochure that is standard. Something that could be used for all practice areas and representative client industries. But since we now feel that people aren’t going to read the actual text, we know that a prospect isn’t going to look through gobs of text to see if the firm can do their work.

What if you had a brochure that is so flexible that it could not only be customized to the targeted practice area, but could be customized to the client?

Popularity: 7% [?]

Inspired again by the Cluetrain Manifesto, I had an idea this morning.

Too many times I find myself trying to justify a new marketing initiative by pointing out that “this is what other firms are doing.”

Allow me to make a sweeping generalization: Law firms are resistant to change. There. I said it. Law firms are resistant to change. Yep. I said it again.

By showing that other firms are doing the same thing, you are showing that your idea isn’t just some wacky new way to promote your firm. But at the same time, the result is sameness.

Here’s a little mental exercise I try to use whenever I’m trying to implement something new: pretend you know nothing.

For example: Your firm wants to send out client surveys to find out client perception.

The first instinct would be to see how other firms are doing it. I would go to Google and look for client survey strategies. I may look for a consultant who specializes in conducting client surveys.

Instead of going this route, pretend you know nothing about client surveys. Pretend you’re the first firm to even try this. This fundamental shift in thinking brings about a number of questions:

• 1. What are we hoping to accomplish with the surveys?
• 2. What are we trying to find out from our clients?
• 3. Who are we going to ask?
• 4. What questions are we going to ask?
• 5. How do we get clients to respond?
• 6. What’s the motivation?
• 7. What are we going to do with the answers we get?
• 8. How are we going to change what we do based on the feedback?
• 9. If a client gives a suggestion and we can’t make the change, what are we going to say to the client?
• 10. Will this help us, or hurt us?

Instead of jumping ahead and starting to formulate questions based on what other people are doing, pretending to be oblivious to the status quo changes everything.

Here’s another small shift in thinking that can be a real eye-opener.

Say you’re a law firm marketer. Your main question would be: How do we get more clients, or how do we get more work out of our current clients?

Flip that.

Instead of being a marketer, think of yourself as “Client Advocate.”

Rather than working for the firm, think of yourself as now working as the liaison between clients (both current and potential) and the firm. What new questions does this change bring?

Popularity: 6% [?]

This is pretty off-topic, but is an excuse for why I haven’t been blogging for the last 5 days. Thursday was my birthday, and I decided to take Friday off to have a day to just relax. So, over the weekend I decided to build a blue-screen - a backdrop for digital photography allowing me to easily remove the background in Photoshop. For around $30 I was able to build a perfect blue-screen backdrop using PVC piping and cloth:

After:

Sure, it’s not perfect, but given some more time in Photoshop, I’ll be able to do some nice chroma-keying.

Popularity: 4% [?]

An ad in the Boston Herald today:

I’ve been seeing quite a few ads that parody law firm ads lately. There was the “Pizza Law” ad in January, and now The Center for Consumer Freedom’s ad for Shakem Downe & Bolt.

The Center for Consumer Freedom is: “a nonprofit coalition of restaurants, food companies, and consumers working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.”

The basic premise for this organization is that personal choice is paramount. Companies should not be held responsible for addiction. When you hear about someone suing McDonalds for being obese, these are the guys trying to fight them.

The group takes the angle that there is a:

growing cabal of “food cops,” health care enforcers, militant activists, meddling bureaucrats, and violent radicals who think they know “what’s best for you” are pushing against our basic freedoms. We’re here to push back.

The Center for Consumer Freedom has several campaigns:

1. ActivistCash.com- This site takes a shot at any kind of activist group that is against companies represented by the Center. Examples are Adbusters magazine, the American Corn Growers Association, the Center for Food Safety, the Humane Society, and Mothers Against Driving Drunk.

ActivistCash.com, a project of the Center for Consumer Freedom, provides the public and media with in-depth profiles of anti-consumer activist groups, along with information about the sources of their exorbitant funding.

Despite their innocent-sounding names, many of these organizations are financial Goliaths that use junk science, intimidation tactics, and even threats of violence to push their radical agendas. We’ve analyzed over 500,000 pages of IRS records to bring you a comprehensive snapshot of where their money comes from, tracking more than $800 million to date.

2.AnimalScam.com- This site is against PETA:

The modern animal rights movement is not what it seems. Today’s activists have perverted once-sensible animal welfare goals by putting animals ahead of human beings and employing a “by any means necessary” philosophy to achieve their goals of “total animal liberation.”

3. CSPIScam.com- Against the Center for Science in the Public Interest

4. PhysicianScam.com- Against the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

That’s all I have for today. It is my birthday today and I am taking tomorrow off for St. Patrick’s Day. Have a great weekend!

Popularity: 10% [?]