I was just thinking about disappointment. When you expect something and what you get doesn’t measure up. Something I saw on the web just wasn’t as “magical” when I saw it in reality.

Which, of course, made me think of marketing…especially online.

Underpromise and Overdeliver is the marketing mantra applied to everything, over and over again.

But can you underpromise your image?

When you’re on the web, any company can look like a million bucks. A guy in a basement can call himself a hosting company and have a business site that looks even more professional than a real, reliable company.

You find a web site that looks really professional, but when you actually make contact, you realize that the image and the reality are incongruent.

But does that mean your company web site should match your office? If yours is a 10 attorey firm with an Office-Space style, no-frills layout, should your web site be highly stylized with artistic imagery and lots of flash? Or should it reflect your, ahem, sense of minimalism?

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying it should or it shouldn’t. I’m just wondering whether a lot of web sites are just setting clients up for disappointment.

And as always, let me defend the blog here. Since a blog is more about the ideas and the commentary, business bloggers are actually demonstrating their knowledge and expertise. In blogs, the content is the focus, whereas in many corporate sites, the image is the key.

Popularity: 2% [?]

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: 2% [?]

I’ve got to restrain myself a little bit here because I’m working on something for this topic behind the scenes right now, and I’m not quite ready to share yet.

With that said, Kevin O’Keefe at Real Lawyers Have Blogs has a post entitled “Blond Attorney Gets New Clients at Myspace.”

Here’s the moral of the story:

Bankruptcy attorney Anicia Ogonosky started a myspace page called legallyblondepa. Her thought: people in their 20s often come out of college heavily in debt, and that’s a great market for her. And, since people in their 20s are using myspace, it made sense to promote her practice there.

Well, according to the post, she was right. Five days after the page went up, 10 people had filled out her online bankruptcy consultation form.

The moral of the story: Promote yourself where the work is.

Popularity: 5% [?]

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: 2% [?]

When starting any kind of marketing project, it is often tempting to dive right in to the minute details. I’ve been guilty of this myself, and I think it is a sign of being excited and eager.

I remember one client that wanted a blog. They went through all the possible benefits their firm could reap from having a good blog. But they thought of one problem: if the blog took off and became very successful, who would have to answer the phones when reporters called to interview their attorneys? And if droves of perspective clients contacted the firm because of the blog, who would take on the new clients?

I thought of it as trying to find space to fit all their unicorns.

To be clear, I don’t want to make it sound like the client was overreacting and wasting time. In fact hearing questions like this is nearly always a good sign. It’s a sign that they truly believe in the project, and that they want to make sure the right processes are in place to allow it to succeed. All good things.

But there are other times when dwelling on what could possibly, remotely, maybe, potentially happen can hold you back from the project at hand. It’s good to know where you’re going to put the unicorns, but it is more important to figure out how you’re going to find them in the first place.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Many years ago in a far off land, there was a small village called Nocontextia. It was a fairly happy place, much like our own world today.

Nocontextia had a complex set of laws to govern the behavior of its citizens. And although life was usually peaceful and serene, there were times when people sought the advice of someone that knew the ins and outs of the laws.

In Nocontextia there were two people who citizens visited when looking for legal advice. One was the Guru, the other was The Servant.

The Guru lived on the top of a hill overlooking the village. He was well known as the expert on all things legal in Nocontextia. If somone had a very complicated, difficult legal problem, they would seek the Guru.

Since the Guru never left his hillside mansion, people had to climb the hill, a two-day walk, to get there. And once they arrived, some villagers had to wait for hours just to speak with the Guru’s assistant. If the Guru decided to take the case, he would often demand a very high price for his advice and representation.

Because the Guru only took on a very limited number of cases, villagers felt honored when the Guru decided theirs was a worthy case. The high price the Guru commanded was hardly a concern; the client was just elated to be deemed sufficient.

Back in town, the Servant worked in a small office next to a butcher shop. Also a practicioner of law, the Servant’s practice was much different than the Guru’s. People went to the Servant when they felt they already knew enough about their case, but just needed someone to do the work. Rather than being known as a creative expert, the Servant was seen as the person to go to when you needed legal work done.

The Servant was always happy to go out of his way to satisfy a client, and he took on any client that would come to his office. He took pride in always delivering excellent client service.

Though very different, the client and the Guru were both bound by the same set of laws. Their main difference: perception.

In today’s legal marketing, I often see the same split in perception/projection. There are Gurus and Servants.

The Gurus are attorneys and firms that are known by name and reputation. They often charge high rates, and clients come to them. They are at an atvantage in that they can pick and choose who to represent.

The Servants are the attorneys and firms that focus only on client service. These firms take the opposite approach in that they go looking for clients. They convince clients that they are competent and will focus on the needs and wants of the client. In this case, the client is the expert, they attorney is just doing the legal work.

I’m drawing no value judgement here; I’m not saying one is better than the other. Sure, everyone would love to be a Guru, but one does not become a Guru by just charging a lot of money and living atop a hill. But Gurus would do well to take on some of the Servant’s commitment to service.

These are two extremes on what is a continuum of legal service approaches. Where do you fit in?

Popularity: 4% [?]