I was watching a debate here in Massachusetts a few weeks ago and something hit me. Each of the candidates looked right into the camera and addressed me directly. They were talking to me.

But what if I wasn’t watching?

It’s one of those Tree-Falls-In-The-Forest scenarios. If a political candidate is targeting his talking points at me on T.V., but I’m not watching, what’s the point?

It happens all the time. Look at almost any T.V. show that isn’t a drama or comedy. Any news program will talk to you directly. Every night Brian Williams let’s me know that he’ll see me at the same time tomorrow.

Of course, this makes sense, since they’re only talking to the people who are watching and listening.

The process of packaging a message and aiming it directly at someone sure feels a lot like advertising, doesn’t it?

When you think about it, advertising is really an exercise in faith. You come up with a great campaign that you feel is perfect. It contains exactly the message you want potential clients to see. You then place the ad.

And that’s exactly where your control ends.

Once the ad is placed, you’re just hoping that people are reading it. Sure, you know the readership and circulation figures, but who knows if the people you want are actually looking at your ad, making an association, and keeping your firm in memory?

The answer is: You don’t. And we know that. But we chug along and make our ads and marketing pieces hoping for the ideal situtation to come true. We don’t try to find a way to make more people see the message. Instead, we try to make the message perfect for that one person who is going to read it.

Isn’t that, well, counterproductive?

Popularity: 4% [?]

I don’t want to whine here, but I’ve got some kind of stomach thing that’s got me out of commission for the most part. So, I’m just going to repost something here that I posted on my other blog. Sure, it has zero to do with legal marketing. But it’s about advertising, and that’s at least in the same ballpark, right? Here goes:

Three times this week I’ve seen a billboard that says:

So today during my lunch break I actually went to the site. Let me ask you this: isn’t your immediate thought that Volvo is soliciting stories from people and giving away cars? That was my thought.

With that in mind, I went to the site. A couple of my favorite people are expecting a baby in January and they don’t have a car. Knowing that Volvos are all about safety, I thought it would be cool if I could write a nice, heartfelt story about them and how a Volvo would improve their lives, and maybe they’d actually win one. It would be one hell of a surprise and a very nice wedding/baby gift, right?

So, I went to the site. And it looks like this:

But before filling anything out, I noticed a link that says: Before uploading, please take a moment to read our FAQs.

I clicked there and the first sentence says:

Is there a Volvo vehicle being given away as part of the “Who Would You Give A Volvo To?”" campaign?
No. The WWYGAVT campaign is intended to make people think about the safety initiatives Volvo has taken in vehicle development and therefore why they would consider a Volvo for the special individuals in their lives.

Right. So I’m supposed to write a story or send in a video about why I would give a Volvo to my friends because it will make me think of the safety initiatives Volvo has taken on.

What?

By thinking of who I would give a Volvo to, and submitting an entry with absolutely zero to gain, Volvo thinks it’s going to sell more cars? I just don’t understand this campaign. It makes zero sense to me.Edit: Adrants picked up on my post here.

Popularity: 5% [?]

I’m sure most of this blog’s readers have heard of the recent controversy over the SuperLawyer designation. In short, a committee appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that calling yourself a “Super” lawyer violates the professional code of conduct.

So, I think I’ve got the answer.

This morning, I created an award. I’ll give it out each year, and the selection process is absolutely a no-brainer. There are just two qualifications:

1) You need to be an attorney.
2) You have to post a comment on the Adequate Attorney page.

All adequate attorney honorees are encouraged to display the following graphic on their blog:

Popularity: 17% [?]

Legal marketing is hard. There. I said it.

When you’re trying to market a law firm you will, without question, face the following paradox:

“We want to seem ____________ but we don’t want to seem _________________”

Let me explain.

For example, in law firm advertising, firms want their campaigns to be clever, but not too clever. That would seem gimmicky…..like the firm is trying too hard to look “cute.”

Firms want to be seen as having expertise in specific areas, but they don’t want to be perceived as only serving that niche. For example, a tech firm the has expertise in the Open Source area definitely wants to show their specialty. However, they don’t want people thinking that Open Source is all the firm does, as having a niche practice can be a great opportunity to bring in business for other practice areas.

Law firms that have been in business for a considerable amount of time often use their legal tradition as a selling point. However, relying too heavily on the past can be seen as being resistant to the future as well as the present.

Firms want to be seen as being up-to-date on technology/legal issues/regulatory concerns. Blogging is a pretty good example of this. But, as with all things there is a line. Sure, you want people to think “Wow. This firm is really ontop of things.” But, do you have the same opinion of a firm that has a myspace profile?  A firm that puts ads on YouTube? Or, a firm that buys an ad on the million dollar home page?

Finally, firms want to be noticed, but having their logo everywhere can take away from the perception of professionalism. Some attorneys/firms see advertising and marketing as unbecoming. But, given the competitive nature of the legal industry, firms need to create awareness. The result: a delicate balance.

Reminds me of my favorite Steven Wright quote:

“There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore looking like an idiot.”

Popularity: 6% [?]

I just read an article at BusinessWeek online entitled “Disaster Leads to Law Firm Marketing Coup“, which made me consider some interesting questions about legal marketing.

The article talks about the Boston firm of WilmerHale, which has been chosen to represent Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney against the head of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, Matt Amorello. For those unfamiliar with the situation, here’s a nice recap. In short, a concrete slab fell on, and killed a passenger in a car driving through a Big Dig tunnel. Governor Romney is now putting the blame on the head of the MTA, Matt Amorello, and wants him removed from his post. Governor Romney has now turned to WilmerHale to represent him in his case to oust Amorello.

With that said, the article goes on to talk about how law firms do pro bono work because it can often be a good marketing opportunity. From the article:

“Pro bono legal assistance is generally thought of as something that law firms provide as part of their civic duty, to help indigents charged with a crime or nonprofit organizations with miniscule budgets. In fact, WilmerHale says on its Web site that its pro bono program is “based on the belief that there is more to our professional mandate than advocacy for the most powerful and successful members of society.”

……What’s really happening here is more about marketing than helping the underdog. In the murky world of legal marketing, where opportunities for publicity and access to influential decision-makers are key to a firm’s success, this nonpaying assignment is a marketing coup for WilmerHale.”

While I agree that the publicity WilmerHale will receive from representing Governor Romney pro bono will far outweigh the costs, I’m a little bit at odds with the “murky world of legal marketing” statement. For some reason the article really rubbed me the wrong way. It’s tone is accusatory, and gives me the following mental image:

It’s 1:00 am on a rainy Tuesday night. A representative from the WilmerHale Secret Legal Marketing Conspiracy Squad pauses on a street corner, leans against a street light, and lights a cigarette while drips of water from his hat drop into a puddle below. As he takes a drag, a man walks out of the nearby dive bar, nods his head, and says “We’re ready for you.”

Over the next several hours, the man from WilmerHale and representatives from the Romney administration hammer out a complex plan for world domination, starting with ousting the head of the Turnpike authority, ending at the White House.

Am I wrong here? Is there something about legal marketing that is inherently “murky”, secretive, and manipulative? Granted, when you talk to someone and saw the words “lawyer advertising” the idea of personal injury attorneys with 1-800 numbers during breaks in the Jerry Springer Show come to mind, but every industry has the exception to the rule.

Am I wrong in that I see absolutely nothing wrong or dishonest in what WilmerHale is doing?

Popularity: 13% [?]

Seth Godin has a post entitled “How to live happily with a great designer” that does a great job explaining why so many companies settle for safe, average ads/print/brochures. One great line:

If you want average (mediocre) work, ask for it. Be really clear up front that you want something beyond reproach, that’s in the middle of the road, that will cause no controversy and will echo your competition. It’ll save everyone a lot of time.

But, he says, if you want great stuff, you’ll have to accept the fact that it will offend someone or it will make them nervous:

The Vietnam Vets memorial offended a lot of people. The design of Google made plenty of people nervous. Great work from a design time means new work, refreshing and remarkable and bit scary.

Read the whole post here.

Popularity: 20% [?]