Bruce Allen has a nice, concise article on Law Firm Branding from an insider’s perspective.

Excellent stuff.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Congratulations goes out to the winners of this year’s Legal Marketing Association Your Honor Awards.

In the Identity category, the Boston-based law firm of Choate Hall and Stewart took first place for their comprehensive rebranding effort. The firm was given a special award for “Integrated Marketing”.

An article in Law Firm Inc. spotlights Choate’s marketing manager, Betsy Huntley and Burkey Belser of Greenfield Belser who created the new brand identity. I have had the pleasure to hear Mr. Belser speak, and was given the opportunity to interview him here.

Over the last few weeks, I’ve referenced the book “Your Marketing Sucks” a LOT. In the book, Mark Stevens says you should never hire a designer who applies for awards. In fact, he says:

Fire your advertising agency if it even thinks about applying for a Clio or other creative award.

Well, I think this is the exception. Because this award is not for making a pretty ad. It’s an award for integrated marketing, which, for a law firm, is the holy grail.

Congrats!

Popularity: 2% [?]

Last week I attended a Legal Marketing Association meeting here in Boston that included a panel of journalists discussing how and why they cover legal stories. The panel included representatives from both general and industry newsletters.

Though I think the meeting would be most useful to larger firms, the panel gave some advice on how and when a firm should contact the media for a story idea.

Marketing professionals at law firms understand how beneficial it is to be covered in the press. If an article gives a favorable impression of a firm, the exposure could be better than advertising money could buy.

However, it is important to know that the news is just that: news. News is not advertising.

Though introducing a new attorney may be a significant, interesting story within a firm, it may not be considered newsworthy for the outside world. Panelists agreed that though news of this sort is not likely to generate a story, they are happy to receive notices of this sort. In fact, one panelist (representing an area business newspaper) said that receiving notices of new partners, attorneys, etc. are useful to him, as it makes it easier to find experts to interview when a story breaks.

The most repeated theme of this panel was the idea that newspapers are interested in what firms are doing, but do not want to publish thinly-veiled PR pieces. There simply has to be an objective news story underlying anything they write about. They understand that the firm would love to be the subject of a glowing puff piece, but that’s not what they’re about.

I saw a good example of how a firm had an angle that helped them garner press attention in Your Marketing Sucks by Mark Stevens:

For one investment firm, we put a headline on a news release that read “Bulls, Bears, and Armadillos.” Everyone knows that bull is the term for an optimist on Wall Street, and if you are negative you are a bear. But an armadillo? It was a term we coined for an investor who armed himself against a prickly stock market. That was intriguing to the media, and, as a result, the investment firm got substantial press coverage.

(pg. 155)

The takeaway: Don’t try to put one over on journalists. They need content, so they’ll welcome your input and story ideas. Just make sure you give them an actual story, not just fluff.

Popularity: 3% [?]

No, not you.

That’s the title of a book I just finished by author Mark Stevens.

In it, Mr. Stevens puts forth one central theme: if every dollar you spend on marketing does not return more than one dollar in sales, your marketing sucks.

I think a lot of people think of marketing as an expense of doing business. We advertise because all our competitors are advertising. We do it because we have to. The book says it is necessary to scrap that way of thinking.

One thing that I have definitely been guilty of is looking at the competition first before coming up with ideas for a marketing campaign. When a law firm asks me to come up with a web site or ad campaign, I would look at what their competitors are doing. I would say to myself “Okay, if the other firms are creating clever, professional looking ads, I want to create something that one-ups them.”

Wrong way of thinking. Instead of the original goal (create a campaign that gets us new clients), the new goal is: create a campaign that looks better than our rival. It has shifted from something based on a measurable strategy to an ego-driven ideal. Bad.

One of the biggest complaints I’ve heard about law firm marketing is: Everyone looks the same. And sometimes that’s the goal of a law firm. The firm wants to be seen as an equal, so they set out to look like the competition.

When I think of this, I picture boxes of store brand cereal.

In the cereal aisle, having a box that looks like the name brand makes sense. The store brand has the exact same product, so they try to look similar (even though kids know the difference!).

But should a law firm do that?

Popularity: 7% [?]

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: 4% [?]

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: 3% [?]