..applause.

I’m still here in Montreal, and apparently live blogging from the sessions themselves are impossible. Due to that, I’m in my hotel room, blogging about the sessions I’ve seen thus far. Here’s my setup:

If you look closely, you’ll see the nectar of the gods on my left. Yep, look closely. It’s red bull.

Here in Canada, they have the regular red bull, but they also have this. It’s the original Thai red bull that really packs a punch. Anyone who knows me can surely attest to the fact that I love red bull and any energy drink that can lift me up a bit and make me type at inhuman levels. Well, there’s a full supply of this stuff here and I’m definitely taking advantage.

Yesterday’s session was entitled “Breaking Through the Barriers: Sales and Marketing.” The sesion was conducted by:

Alvidas A. Jasin: Director of Business Development at Thompson Hine LLP
Iris J. Jones, Esq: Client Services Advisor at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Sally J. Schmidt: President of Schmidt Marketing, Inc.
Adam L. Stock: Chief Sales and Marketing Officer at Dorsey Whitney LLP.

Right from the start, these experienced law firm marketing experts wanted us to know that they use the “s” word: sales. Rather than using Business Development or Marketing, they wanted to stress that “sales” is what they are interested in.

What’s the difference?

Sales takes place after all the marketing initiatives have gone on. It’s like Glengarry Glenross “always be closing…” That’s how they think of sales. When you think about it, that makes sense; all the marketing in the world means nothing if it doesn’t result in a sale.

With this difference as a starting point, the panel began talking about creating a sales culture. It’s a sublte shift in thinking that can create an enormous difference. Take, for instance, the Thompson Hine sales organization shift.

Before implementing a “sales culture”, the firm had a Marketing Manager that reported directly to the partner in charge of the office. Remember, this is a multi-office firm. Now, the firm has a Business Development organization. It works like this: There’s a Director of Business Development and a Business Development Advisory Team. Reporting to them are separate “Business Development Managers.”

This way, each business development manager focuses on one practice group. Let’s use an IP group for instance. Rather than having a separate marketing manager in each office, marketing is instead divided by group. The IP Business Development Manager is focused just on IP in multiple offices. That way, each BD Manager becomes an expert in one group nationwide.

Another shift in thinking has to do with staff. Sure, it’s nice to say that everyone in the organization- from partners to secretaries are conducting their work with marketing in mind. But the panel gave some examples of how, in reality, it can be pulled off.

One example dealt with how secretaries should be involved in the marketing process. One firm decided that in order to truly understand a client, the legal secretary should know the client’s secretary. They actually had the legal secretary meet with the client’s secretary for lunch in order to foster a multi-level relationship. Now that’s practicing what you preach!

One other “duh!” moment occured when the panel showed a chart showing revenue by clients. In many firms, more than 80% of their clients are producing less than 5% of the revenue. In contrast, .2% of clients are bringing in over 25% of the revenue. Let’s say you have 10 clients that bring you over $1 million. Then you have 3,300 clients that bring you less than $50,000. Should you really be spending your time and energy trying to attract clients that don’t cover the overhead?

I’m not saying to drop all the little guys. That’s not the case at all. But when you’re trying to attract new clients, it’s very important to look at the big picture.

At the end of the session, Mr. Jasin told us we’d be getting a free gift. What was it?

Since the title was “Breaking Through the Barriers”, he had everyone break a block of wood with their hand. The idea, of course, was that you shouldn’t look at the obstacle, but rather look past it to see where you want to be. I took a couple of photos of the participants:

I am now leaving to go see an ask the experts panel. Though I’ve been sitting next to Larry Bodine at these marketing sessions, I’ve yet to hear him speak. He’s been keeping track of this conference as well at his blog.

Until then, au revoir.

Popularity: 8% [?]

I’m here in Montreal, attending the Association of Legal Administrators Annual Conference. Yesterday I had the pleasure to hear Bonnie Shucha (of WisBlawg) talk about Blogging and RSS technologies for lawyers/law firms.

I’ll write more on that later…..

One highlight: During her talk, she was using powerpoint, and she referenced LawFirmBlogging.com!!! I was floored! She had no idea who I was (of course), so we were both surprised.

I was also fortunate enough to meet Larry Bodine, who is writing about the conference at his blog. In it, he covers Bonnie Shucha’s session as well as other marketing ideas here at the conference.

I hope to get a chance to speak with both again this week to discuss blogging. I’m now off to the Sales and Marketing Session, and will be blogging “live” from there (in quotes because I’m not sure if I’ll have a connection).

Popularity: 9% [?]

Regular readers of this blog would recognize the name Bruce Allen, as I often link to his blog posts. Mr. Allen is the Chief Marketing Officer at Rutan & Tucker LLP. From Rutan’s press release:

Allen’s previous experience includes service with international law firm Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP and financial powerhouse Deloitte & Touche LLP, where he created marketing initiatives that were innovative and highly effective. He has served on numerous boards and committees for industry organizations and fundraising events, and is veteran of the United States Marine Corps.

I’ve been following Mr. Allen’s blog for some time now, as he has chronicled the firm’s rebranding process. I contacted Mr. Allen yesterday and he was kind enough to do the following interview.

LawFirmBlogging: I’ve been reading your Blog for some time now. It’s very interesting to me to see the legal marketing process from an insider’s perspective. So I was wondering: what does your firm think of your Blog?

Mr. Allen: I believe most of the firm is indifferent to my blog. Not in a negative way but in a “that’s his thing” way. I also believe that some members of the firm pay attention to what I write, a few out of fear of what I might say (negative about the firm or competitively weakening), and others out of real interest in learning, hearing, and understanding. No one from the firm has spoken to me, on behalf of the firm, about my blog.

LawFirmBlogging: It’s been great following your rebranding process. How did you get started with the rebranding effort?

Mr. Allen: I came to the firm in the best of situations. There was already keen interest in doing “something” to change the brand of the firm and they were simply looking for the right people to make that happen. To start the process I simply focused on trying to reveal, through them, what the “something” was that they thought was missing with focus groups and one-on-one meetings with dozens of partners.

LawFirmBlogging: It seems that one of the most difficult things for a law firm marketer is getting buy-in. And with branding and identity being such intangibles, how do you convince partners that it’s worth the time and money?

Mr. Allen: It is a wonderful advantage for marketers that, in marketing, there are not a whole lot of new ideas. Just new variations on what has already been done before. When I take new ideas to the partnership I make sure to know the details about what has worked in the past for other firms and companies, and how that experience relates to what I plan to do.

I also believe I have an age/experience advantage that equates to credibility. Hearing new ideas from “the old guy” goes down a lot smoother with perceived credibility. And, at least in these types of situations I make every effort not to have an, “I don’t know” moment.

LawFirmBlogging: One theme I keep going back to is this: since law firms are inherently risk-averse, it seems like they need external validation for any new effort. How does an in-house marketing professional leverage outside consultants to get things done?

Mr. Allen: I think this is two questions. One is about validating choices, and the other is about leveraging outside professionals.

When it comes to validation of choice the best choice is to ask clients what they think. Not all of them. Just a few, but enough to prove or disprove a decision path. I could ask consultants to line up all day to tell the partners that they are making a good choice yet the partner will not be swayed until they hear it from whom they trust the most. Their clients.

What outside professionals do bring to the game is immediate results within their specialty. Partners expect of marketing what partners expect of themselves; Immediate results. I am personally not afraid to tackle most marketing tasks but when I need solid, fast results going outside is the answer. The only drawback of course is the cost. But if I can get a project to the street one week or month quicker then every result gained can be credited against the extra cost.

LawFirmBlogging: Many, if not a majority of law firm marketers are not attorneys themselves. When a non-attorney is trying to give marketing advice to an attorney, occasionally you’ll get the “why am I listening to you? You aren’t a lawyer?” pushback. How do you deal with this?

Mr. Allen: This is one of the peculiar questions bouncing around firms never asked anywhere else. No one at Disney says to a marketer, “You’ve never worn the Mickey costume on Main Street. Why are we listening to you?” No one at Apple says to a marketer, “You’re not a programmer. Why are we listening to you?”

The role of a marketer is to understand the product (the attorneys, the mouse, the computer), understand the market (clients, guests, consumers), and then to use professional marketing skill and intuition to bring the two together.

LawFirmBlogging: One of your posts is titled “Finding the Intuitive Law Firm Marketer.” In it, you talk about finding the partner who “simply speaks from their feelings about what is feeling right and what feels wrong without imagining themselves a marketer on top of being a lawyer or accountant.” I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about how the intuitive marketer can be an example to other attorneys.

Mr. Allen: When asked for an opinion about something most people respond in three parts(if their opinion will be negative). “(1) I don’t believe that will work (2) because _________ . (3) Here is what I would do.”

Intuitive marketers usually do not include pasts 2 and most of the time 3. They often ask questions about other alternatives and I always sense an inherent trust in my ability in the same way they trust theirs (to be good lawyers). For many people, not just lawyers, making that leap in trust is akin to impossible.

LawFirmBlogging: One thing marketers must be careful of is the distinction between fads and trends. There is so much talk about RSS, blogs, podcasts, etc. Obviously I think blogging is the real deal. Of all the new marketing opportunities out there, which do you think will be useful to legal marketing?

Mr. Allen: Social networking is THE cats pajamas for me (of which blogging is an offspring). Anything that shows us the unvarnished truth close and fast is exactly what legal marketing needs now! Law firms have lived in a surreal, artificially created space as the result of decades of self-isolation. In old-school marketing we would send the prom dress and tuxedo to the dance. Social networking will put bodies back in those clothes.

Discussion boards, blogs, user groups, and hopefully soon, a law firm/legal client instant messaging network.

LawFirmBlogging: Do you have any advice for a firm (or a marketer) about to rebrand?

Mr. Allen: Get two mentors just for the rebrand! One inside the firm that can be a real champion with leverage inside the firm, and one on the outside that has done several rebrands (does not have to be from the legal industry). A personal support network is essential if you want to keep your sanity and make progress.

LawFirmBlogging: After going through the rebranding process for your firm, what, if anything would you have done differently?

Mr. Allen: I would not change anything in the process. There were moments along the way when things happened or did not happen as I would wish them, but the process encourages things to happen; It encourages blemishes to appear, opinions to be heard, and the right path to reveal itself.

The one weakness I would like time to improve is placing faith in front of practicality when it comes to dealing with vendors. As soon as they start underperforming I need to be more practical about dealing with it and not just hope for better results down the road.

LawFirmBlogging: One thing that I really enjoy about your blog is that you aren’t afraid to say what you feel. In one post you wrote:

“I LOVE being a witness to change. It’s my role. That is what I do. Absolutely I would like to make more for doing less; Or, make more for doing more. It does not matter. I make what I make because I wanted to work for this firm at this time. I could’ve done better, and I could’ve done worse (with regard to income). There are partners at my firm making a lot of money working not as hard as me… But that is not the point at all.

The point is; I have my deal, they have theirs. I’m not an attorney and I entered an industry at a time of change. Really BIG change. As a marketer I’m doing pretty darn good. I’m going to do better than my father; Better than my brothers and sister; I am going to be a catalyst in the right place at the right time.

If money was my only reason working in the legal industry than I can get myself off to a law school, work hard to do really well, get hired by a fast moving firm and hope for the years ahead (this is not a discussion about what motivates attorneys but commentary on the non-attorney legal marketers who grouse about their lot in life).

Instead I am going to keep doing exactly what I do because I am having the time of my life, making a difference, and creating something in a place it has not been created before. How many people get to do THAT!”

I loved that.

Mr. Allen: I meet so many people that are afraid to own their feelings out loud. Maybe I do that too on certain subjects, but I also believe that nothing stalls a conversation faster than wondering what the other person is thinking.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Suzanne Falter’s Painless Self Promotion Blog has a series of articles on why blogs are better than web sites.

Throughout the article, Ms. Falter argues that:

Blogs are, quite simply, the next wave. So if you’re thinking about setting up a site, stop in your tracks and turn towards blogs instead.

I’ve been seeing a lot of this lately. And I disagree and agree at the same time. Sure, I think blogs are great. I love them. But I don’t think blogs are in opposition to “web sites.” Instead, I see a blog as part of a web site. Sometimes web sites are just blogs, but blogs are never web sites.

Whoa! I’ve really confused myself there. Nice!

My point is this:
Ms. Falter is arguing against static html pages that can’t be updated often, and I agree with her there. I think that dynamic sites with a content management system in the background are the way to go. And a blog can definitely be a part of that site.

This is the way I think of it.

A web site is a house. It contains individual rooms, hallways, the basement, etc.:

This is the blog:

So, the blog is part of the web site.

So I’m getting into semantics here I know. My idea is this: You don’t need to choose between a blog and a web site. You can have it all!

The best solution:
A site that has all its content stored in a CMS, allowing you to change any content you want, whenever you want. That way you have the flexibility of a web site and a blog inside.

edit:After further review, I think Ms. Falter is right……it seems that her work focuses more on the individual than on businesses, so I now understand what she’s talking about.

Popularity: 7% [?]

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: 2% [?]

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: 3% [?]