In marketing, stating the obvious can often be beneficial. Sometimes we take facts for granted, and in doing so, lose perspective.

With that said, let me ask a question: What makes legal marketing different from, say, soft drink marketing?

1. Impulse Purchase
When you’re walking down the aisle in the grocery store and see soda, you can easily grab a 2 Liter bottle without even thinking about it. You might not even be thirsty but you realize (at an almost subconscious level) that at some point, you will be. The need for soda is not an immediate one, but since it can be conveniently stored in the refrigerator, the purchase is a no-brainer.

Obviously, this is not the case for legal services. No one thinks “maybe I’ll need to retain an attorney eventually, so I think I’ll look for one now.” Well, almost no one.

2. Tangibility
When you buy your favorite cola, you can see, hold, and taste the product. It’s concrete. You know exactly what you’ve purchased. You can feel the item you’ve spent your money on.

Legal services cannot be touched, making it very difficult to judge value.

3. Ease of Transaction
When you’re looking to buy soda, you know exactly where you can get it. It’s available nearly everywhere. There are soda machines nearly everywhere you look. Every gas station, convenience store, supermarket, office, arena and movie theater has soda. In the vast majority of instances, you can purchase a soda in less than two minutes.

But when you know you need to retain an attorney, where do you go? You first need to identify attorneys that can do the work you need. Then you have to evaluate the attorneys to choose the one you’ll use. Finally you have to contact them. Do you call? Email? Most likely you won’t have purchased the services of an attorney on the same day you decided you needed one.

4. Referral
It’s easy to recommend a brand of soda to someone. Honestly, you don’t even need to say a word. Just take a sip and look like you’re enjoying it, and you’ve given your approval to anyone in eyesight. If it’s a new brand and it’s enjoyable, people will often say “Wow. This is good. Try this.”

But unlike thirst, the need for legal service referrals are rare. Sure, when you’ve used an attorney and a friend is in the same situation, it’s likely that you’ll recommend your attorney. But how often does that happen?

5. Price
You know exactly how much a can of soda costs. You can afford it. You’ve probably got enough change in your pocket right now.
But how much will it cost for your divorce? Even after talking with an attorney you probably don’t know. And is it worth it?

6. Reason for Purchase
This is the big one.
When you are going to buy a soda, it’s a stress-free purchase. Either you’re thirsty, or you’re planning for the future, knowing you’re going to be.
When you need an attorney, it’s because you have a problem. You’re facing something that you cannot take care of by yourself. You’re stressed. Choosing the right attorney can be the difference between relief and absolute disaster.

So what’s my point?
Again, everything I’ve said is absolutely obvious. There’s nothing groundbreaking here. I’ve made no new discoveries. Soda is not legal services.

So, is your approach to marketing leveraging these important differences? Or are you closer to marketing a cola?

Which sounds more familiar:

1. When advertising, my firm:
a) Tries to get our name in front of as many eyes as possible
b) Carefully targets our potential clients

2. We see our clients as:
a) People that buy our services
b) Relationships that are ongoing

I’m not saying one is better than the other. They’re just different.

Popularity: 3% [?]

This post really isn’t related to legal marketing. But I think the overarching message still can be applied.

Bank of America announced yesterday that it will give $3,000 to their employees that buy hybrid vehicles. The program covers about 20,000 employees who live in or near LA, Boston, and Charlotte, three cities where the bank has the top share of deposits.

And the free publicity has been amazing.

The Boston Metro, a free daily newspaper is running the story on page 3, with nearly a full page dedicated to the news. In it, the Metro quotes Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who said:

So what they’ve done is make an enormous statement. This is going to have Detroit listening. The whole nation is going to be listening.

So, let’s look at this as a marketing move. I don’t mean to sound cynical, and I’m not saying that Bank of America is offering the $3,000 purely as a marketing stunt. Their motivation isn’t my point.

There are 21,000 workers eligible for the cash. Let’s just say that 10% are going to take BofA up on their offer (yes, I realize that’s not going to happen, but let’s just pretend). So, doing the quick math, that’s 2,100 employees at $3,000 each. The total expense to the bank: $6,300,000.

Now, I understand that six million dollars is nothing to sneeze at. But for a huge, national bank, that is a small expense. In 2002, the bank spent about $160 Million on advertising. I can’t find a current number, but I’d be willing to be that number has increased in the last 4 years.

Look at what the bank is getting for their offer:

• Nationwide Newspaper Coverage: I’ve seen the Boston Globe, Metro, and the Boston Herald, all of which are covering this story. Other papers throughout the country, like the NY Times, are running it as well.
• TV News Coverage: I actually saw this story before the al-Zarqawi story when I got up this morning.
• Government Endorsement: Politicians like the Massachusetts Governer are eager to attach their names to a story like this.
• Goodwill: BofA now enjoys an enhanced public perception from people concerned with the enviroment.
• Employee Loyalty: Who wouldn’t like to work for a company that offers you $3,000 for buying a hybrid car? Even if you have no plan to purchase one, it would feel good to work for a company that offers new, unexpected benefits.
• Recognition as an Innovator: Being one of the first companies to offer this kind of incentive shows that BofA is innovative and willing to try new things.

Compare that to buying an ad.

Popularity: 3% [?]

In my last post, I wrote about how law firms often start their marketing from the middle. Over the weekend I gave it some more thought, and came to an obvious approach to counter this way of thinking.

I am absolutely positive that this is not a new idea, and I’m sure someone more eloquent than me has said it better. But here goes: start from nothing.

For marketers, experience and knowledge are the skills that justify our existence within a law firm. And it is through the lens of our own “expertise” that we approach each marketing endeavor. We think “I don’t think ___ will work. I tried it at my last company and the results were underwhelming.”

Well, forget all that. At least temporarily.

Try out this little mental exercise and you may be surprised what you’ll learn about your current marketing efforts.

Today is your first day at your firm. Whether you are a marketer or an attorney, today is the first day for you. And you’ve been given one assignment: you have to do something marketing related. What do you do?

For me, the first step would be to figure out the ultimate goal. Why are you marketing? Are you simply tasked with bringing in new clients? Maybe you’re there to get more business out of existing clients.

Regardless of the reason, starting with a clear slate allows you to have an “untainted” perspective. Instead of just trying to “do marketing”, you will instead be able to question why you should be spending your time on a particular activity.

Here’s another example for attorneys: Imagine that you woke up this morning and learned you are now a solo. What marketing activities would you continue to perform, and more importantly, what would you do differently.

I realize that their are obvious differences, but that’s not the point. The point is perspective. If you’re able to think outside of your preconceived notions of what marketing is, you’ll be able to figure out whether you are really accomplishing a goal….or just going through the motions.

Popularity: 3% [?]