Progressive Marketing

Bound by Tradition

2009-11-03T08:17:00.000-08:00

Traditionalists in marketing have poo-pooed social media as a flash in the pan, worthless in the pursuit of awareness and clients. Taken as a tactic, that may very well be true. After all, if you bought radio spots and used the time for messages that were unsupportive of your brand and identity, they would not work to your benefit either.

So, today I was happy to discover on Social Media Today this presentation by Jason Baer that gives good guidance on the integration of social media into marketing strategy, because he recognizes that online social media must be part of the mix of ingredients in cooking up a full marketing plan.

5 Ways to Integrate Social Media in Your Marketing

View more presentations from Jason Baer.

What are you doing this week to integrate online social media into your overall marketing plan?

Lawyer Ratings: What's the Big Deal?

2009-10-12T12:53:00.000-07:00

Perhaps there are other marketing people in the legal space who, like me, wonder as sites and sources that purport to offer rating schemes for lawyers and firms proliferate whether this is much ado about nothing. I mean, isn't this still a relationship business?

Well, of course. That said, there is a fundamental in human nature where we each ask ourselves, after making a judgment, "did I make the right choice?" And there is a concept in compliance studies called "social proof" that addresses this introspection. Simply put, we look around at what others are doing and saying for demonstration that our choice was appropriate.

Testimonials remain one of the most persuasive types of marketing. As "word of mouth", they produce and maintain the "referral" channel. As the voice of a "satisfied user", the Wall Street Journal reports today they are becoming more important in consumer culture for marketing, so important that many product and service companies are building systems to facilitate, collect and reflect the view of users as a marketing program, in and of itself. Even bad reviews can accellerate sales.

In the law industry, just one system is currently deep and wide: the Martindale Hubbell Peer Review Ratings system. Around for over 70 years, it reflects the accumulated reputational capital of individual attorneys by assessment of their experience and integrity from other similar lawyers. Even this system suffers from the rapid growth of the ranks of lawyers over the last 30 years, as it depends on the individual personal awareness of the lawyers for rankings, and with so many more lawyers, it is both hard to know and hard to get known. Martindale recognizes the limitation and is working on the system. They are adding the "consumer" voice to rankings, as well, especially on their lawyers.com site, where a variety of schemes are being considered for displaying and explaining numerical rank. (At Martindale's invitation, I was able to see a few of these choices briefly last week. Fascinating. And law firm ratings are coming...)

I've already whined about the poor communication that I experienced as MH converts their letter grades to a points system. Still, the change does reflect the recognition that users of legal services want and respond to more meaningful information on the opinion of experienced customers regarding the skills, honesty and accessibility of lawyers.

Research reported years ago in the Harvard Business Review confirms that one significant predictor of buying behavior is the willingness of a buyer to recommend a product or service to an acquaintance. To understand more, you should buy and absorb reprints of "Loyalty Rules! How Today’s Leaders Build Lasting Relationships," Harvard Business School Press, 2001, and "The Loyalty Effect", Harvard Business School Press, 1996 and the HBR-On Point called "Recalculating the Loyalty/Profitability Equation" (product 1421). This notion has become so entrenched that I often receive surveys from places where I shop or use services that consist of that one simple question about how likely I am to recommend the product or service to a friend.

While I am not of the belief that you can boil lifetime value of a customer down into this single query, it does infer that reputational strength and customer experience combine in a way that is economically powerful. What are you doing to support, improve and monetize your customers' experience and voice?

There is a Point to Martindale

2009-09-23T07:12:00.000-07:00

Amid the brohaha that surrounds the utility and cost of the Martindale Hubbell Legal Directory, the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Martindale.com, Lawyers.com and so on, I think a number of us have missed the point, so to speak.

There's no denying that LexisNexis has its hands full integrating the various sectors of the Martindale service array into a seamless promotional package. There are functionality and pricing issues, billing snafus, communications stumbles, vision impairment and foot-in-the-mouth disease rampant. Each contributes to the marginalization of Martindale Hubbell benefits because frustration in dealing with the problems makes the entire system suspect.

In the realm of indisputable, however, the first evidence of Martindale's continuing value is from our own Web sites. Our firm's logs consistently rank Martindale.com pages as one of the top three (depending on the month) source of visitors to our pages, after search engines. This is better than our own online blogs, ads and inbound-links, which represent significant expense in time and money for most firms.

The second is research by Altman Weil and Brand Research showing more than 8 out of 10 corporate counsel and 9 out of 10 law firm lawyers refer to Martindale to confirm reputation and skills (this from the early 2000's, but remember how hard it is to change entrenched behavior). At the very least, this leaves a residue of awareness that makes Martindale a permanent inclusion among every lawyer's evoked set of reference sources.

Views of our Martindale pages is my third measure of value, and the firm where I work has almost a thousand a month with about a 10% click through to the Web site (see metric #1). Here the firm's Martindale strategy of multiple content pages (not only attorney profiles, but dozens of practice and office profiles, and regular submission of articles) gives us a wide array of content options for someone looking for information on our skills and personnel. These pages index well in the search world, as well.

Needless to say, I consider the exit from Martindale inevitable for many firms due to reasons I've identified before. Even so, on my firm's behalf, that simply reduces the competition for attention and notice, and provides even more value to the promotional products our firm purchases from Martindale.

As to the future of our own Martindale participation, I expect we will judge that based on the factors above, but we also must consider the partnerships and features that benefit our social media strategy: LinkedIn and Connected.

I think the jury's still out on Connected and will be until it exits BETA and has some time to become robust. Even so, it already leads LegalOnRamp in participant numbers (over 17,000 yesterday) and anecdotes about successful business development within the Connected network are starting to circulate.

Don't you see my point? Martindale still has one.

Is This Planning?

2009-09-16T08:25:00.000-07:00

Aha! So, I posted to the Martindale.com Connected network at my Progressive Marketing blog there, and pointed out the same stuff as below. Got a comment back from "Ezza" with the Martindale team that the Ratings department had in fact reached out to marketing people. Sorry, not me...

Today, the above letter comes, with a date the same as the blog post heralding the change. and this after I've been deluged with questions from the 40+ attorneys at the firm who got E-MAIL last Friday. Does somebody at Martindale not realize that email is faster than USPS? Might want to factor that into the next plan. Before the egg-on-your-face thing. This is "marketing", people.

Ratings Slump for Lawyers

2009-09-14T11:29:00.000-07:00

Last week, Martindale Hubbell revised their Peer Review Ratings system in a massive overhaul that includes eliminating the first (lowest) category of rating (CV) and adds numerical averaging to the other two (BV and AV), plus displaying details of the ratings by peers (although not by name). This was covered in their blog.

We found out at our firm Friday when ratings messages began arriving in the inboxes of attorneys at the firm:

Subject: Important message regarding the Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ changed methodology
Please add the domain @email.lexisnexismail.com to your address book.
**********************************************************************
Changes to the Martindale-Hubbell(R) Peer Review Ratings(TM) methodology provide greater depth, making ratings more valuable and understandable for all buyers of legal services
Dear [attorney],
We have facilitated the Martindale-Hubbell(R) Peer Review Ratings(TM) for more than a century to enable buyers and referrers of legal services to benefit from candid and objective lawyer peer-to-peer feedback. As the needs of those evaluating legal services evolve, the demand for comprehensive lawyer ratings is increasing.
Based on extensive research and feedback from the legal community, and to provide greater depth and specificity, we have changed the methodology by which Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings are determined, and there are some important changes of which you should be aware.
-----
About the changed methodology
Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings continue to reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the Bar and the Judiciary and attest to a lawyer's professional ethics and legal ability.
The General Ethical Standards Rating still denotes adherence to professional standards of conduct and ethics, reliability, diligence and other criteria relevant to the discharge of professional responsibilities.
For lawyers rated with the changed methodology, Legal Ability Ratings will now indicate professional ability within a specific area of practice. Legal Ability Ratings will be based on performance in five key areas, rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest). These key areas are Legal Knowledge, Analytical Capabilities, Judgment, Communication Ability and Legal Experience.
A combination of the Very High General Ethical Standards Rating and a Legal Ability Rating determines the Peer Review Rating, which includes an average numeric rating, a rating term and may include a certification mark:
AV(R) Preeminent(TM) (4.5 - 5.0)
BV(R) Distinguished(TM) (3.0 - 4.4)
Rated (1.0 - 2.9)
The changed Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings methodology also allows reviewers to provide additional feedback on the lawyer under review, contributing qualitative depth and personality to the rating.
To showcase a lawyer's sphere of influence with his/her peers, we also now aggregate and display reviewers' basic demographics, including general position and geographic location.
-----
What do the changes mean for my Peer Review Rating?
Effective the week of September 7, 2009, lawyers rated AV under the existing Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings methodology will be converted to AV Preeminent 5.0, the highest numeric rating within the changed AV rating category.
-----
Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings--Existing >> XX(R) Peer Review Rated
Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings--Changed >> XX(R)
Preeminent(TM) 5.0 out of 5 Peer Review Rated
-----
Request to be re-reviewed
A lawyer's converted rating will remain in effect until we complete a re-review of the lawyer using the changed methodology, to be scheduled by random selection within the next 10 years. However, we encourage you to request an expedited re-review so that you can take advantage of the benefits of the changed methodology--including area of practice specificity and peer feedback--as soon as possible.
-----
Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings are a comprehensive and trusted source
Participating in the Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings program provides a comprehensive and reliable indicator of your expertise, through a trusted source that helps reinforce and validate what your firm's lawyers say about themselves. Leverage sound Martindale-Hubbell(R) methodology to promote your ratings, and ensure your firm and its lawyers are highly visible, as buyers of legal services increasingly rely on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings.
In order to expedite your re-review, please contact your firm administrator for the LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell Client Service Center (CSC). Your administrator can assist with nominating references to participate in Peer Review. For more detailed information on the changed ratings methodology, visit http://email.lexisnexismail.com/cgi-bin8/DM/y/el610IqVbp0LQj0z4ea0Ed
Sincerely,
Carlton Dyce
Vice President, Peer Review Ratings and Client Review Services
**********************************************************************

Now, I don't know Mr. Dyce, he may be a fine fellow, but changing your ratings, then going public, then notifying rated attorneys, then advising the lawyer to contact their firm ratings administrator, without a word to the firm ratings administrator seems, well, exactly a**-backwards, if you ask me. The net effect is to make the folks in marketing who are supportive of the Martindale Ratings process appear completely uninformed because...they are. To the uninformed, it may appear this is Martindale's attempt to make their system more relevent and "granular" in detail, to retain their own importance versus Avvo and other ratings sites.

A number of our attorneys gripe "One downside of this change is that folks like me, with a new rating under the new methodology, will have an actual avg score, while folks ranked under the old system will have an automatic top score until they are re-rated in the next 10 years! (Why would anyone want to have an expedited re-review when the default is the highest rating?)" It's hard for this process to appear fair at the point of revision, but over time, will it be more accurate? meaningful? Your guess is as good as mine.

Pity the Law School Graduate? Bah, humbug.

2009-08-27T05:10:00.000-07:00

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog asked a question of its readers yesterday using Julia Figurelli as an example concerning job hunting strategies for recent graduates now that intake through large law firms has shrunk to a trickle. These are interesting questions.

The Journal blog takes as its starting point the New York Times article covering the job market decline. My good friend Heather Milligan has covered this situation in previous Legal Water Cooler posts here and here. Heather has compassion and empathy among her many gifts. Me? Not so much in this situation.

Despite law schools attempting to seize upon the profligate materialism in the Gen X, Gen Y and Gen Z, despite the frequent hiring excesses of law firms desperate to grow per-partner-profits, despite every sign that economies cycle from low growth to high growth, these graduates as well as the classes following them are publicly bemoaning their "unfair" fates and "desperate" straits as if they were completely surprised at this turn of events. Exactly what world were they living in?

I find these young men and women who I encounter in my work to be uniformly smart, driven and peculiarly detached from reality. There is no one spot to point the finger of blame for this. Is it the feeling of entitlement that causes them to expect to land these well-paying jobs? Is it the parents exhorting them to ever higher levels of achievement? Is it the law firm recruiters spreading widely the fables of success and remuneration in order to attract the best performing students to interviews? Is it the law school admissions offices (and the financial industry that lends the money) with visions of clear paths to employment and self-actualization?

I think these factors created a system that, similar to the housing industry, mortgaged escalating earnings against an unsustainable employment market. These days, it looks to me as if there are a lot of looming foreclosures and many graduates and to-be-graduates are going to have to walk away from their planned futures. How does it look to you?

Does Martindale Have A Point Anymore?

2009-08-10T05:55:00.000-07:00

One of the original marketing tactics for U.S. lawyers, once the spread of business operations "went national" in the mid-1800's, was James Martindale's directory, a printed listing of bank, real estate office and lawyer names, addresses and biographies, that went to businesses such as lawyers, bankers, wholesale merchants, manufacturers and real estate agents. Recognizing the expansion driven by the growing rail system that put business operations in new geographies across the country, Martindale was also aware that there would be a need for "reliable" services across state lines, where a pastiche of local land, legal and business practices would require a knowledgeable practitioner in each jurisdiction.

For 100 years, Martindale, which eventually absorbed its competitor Hubbell Legal Directory in the '30s during the economic contraction, made the market in legal information exchange. And, as a printed vehicle, it uniformly based its charges on the number of lines required for each lawyer's and law firm's advertisement in the form of a listing. A century of growth fueled by the increasing number of lawyers and businesses who needed them made Martindale Hubbell the dominant force in legal marketing. Its directories were the gold standard and its ratings, rendered by lawyers' peers, were coveted like the Holy Grail.

Neither the advent of radio nor broadcast television disturbed this closed system. Remember, until 1979, lawyers were effectively prevented from advertising in most other media by local Bar rules. After the Bates v. Arizona State Bar Supreme Court decision, broader media could be considered, but their mass audience and large costs created too much waste for most law firms to employ these in a practical way to become better known, especially on the national scale that the printed directory represented. Printed ads in business publications were about the only vehicle that made sense, and in the early days of legal advertising, these were universally ignored, excepting the infrequent newspaper "tombstone" announcing a lawyer's arrival or a particular legal event.

The first challenge to Martindale-Hubbell's dynasty was the advent of cable television. With these narrow-cast local networks open to advertisers for smaller investments, inexpensive and targeted ads and sponsorships made sense, even for smaller law firms. As business programming became better developed, the niche audiences were ripe for exposure to law firm names and ads.

Just 15 years after Bates, the commercialization of the Internet became a reality. While it took about the same amount of time afterwards for law firms to capitalize on this, early adopters in the mid-90's foreshadowed the dissolution of the Martindale advantage. Once available only for the line-by-line expense of the directory, the attention of businesses and other lawyers across the globe was now available for the price of a PC, Internet connection and Web site host.

Martindale was not swift to recognize this C-change. "Head in the sand" might be a better description of their approach. In fact, it was not until about the year 2002 that a viable version of Martindale.com occupied the Internet. Seven years later, LexisNexis now owns the vehicle, and new products roll into the market almost regularly. Still, each one seems reactive, rather than proactive, and Martindale's strategists seem bent on waiting for new ideas to coalesce into trends before following them.

Recent figures I've seen suggest that about one out of three of the AmLaw 200 have now left Martindale. The larger the firm, the more likely it is to have reconsidered advertising with the directory. Some are at a minimum participation, keeping only a firm listing and, occasionally, supporting Peer Rated attorneys by keeping their names in play.

Perhaps it makes little sense for a national or international firm with a large census, broad geographic distribution and solid reputation to use Martindale. Those firms are much more interested in internal referrals that in outside help. Their office locations and large body of professionals create more opportunities than Martindale can, ever, by virtue of their personal relationships.

Even mid-sized firms now question the value of an extensive Martindale presence. A group that includes our firm has been having spirited discussions for almost three years over the value, or non-value, of Martindale to the marketing function. This is the final threat to Martindale's effectiveness and survival. Will they be able to address it? Are there still good reasons for firms to use Martindale, and to what extent?

Thanks for Sharing!

2009-07-17T11:33:00.000-07:00

My friend, Heather Milligan, posts at the Legal Water Coooler today an incredible collection of bookmarks, blogs and links to tools and experts that should help direct law firms in need of resources.

She names her collaborators for the lists, so I won't re-state those, but I am grateful for the collective work that went into the post. In fact, I believe it is a perfect example of one of online social media's key attributes: investing one's knowledge in the improvement of knowledge for the benefit of everyone.

None of us will have to go to a seminar to collect this list among the handouts, though, God knows, there are plenty of them around. (Jayne Navarre tweeted today her own frustration at the volume of these notices through her Inbox @jaynenavarre.) We won't have to do the research ourselves over two or three hours that wouldn't fit comfortably in a busy, busy month. We won't have to wait for the article in our professional journal.

No, one of our connections (even if you don't have the delightful pleasure of knowing Heather personally, her blog's ubiquitous and well-respected) has done the work and solicited the contributions of knowledge from other experts, and it's now out here on the Web so we can all reap the benefits.

Thanks for sharing!

Marketing and Trust

2009-07-01T08:19:00.000-07:00

Today, the ABA Journal reported the recently conducted annual Altman Weil study among Chief Legal Officers has turned up a lack of belief among corporate counsel about the sincerity of talk about transformation in the legal industry. And, the way I read it, this isn't just the typical cynicism that accompanies thoughts about lawyers.

The study is not perfect, mind you, as it has a respondent bias: the responses totalled about 15% of the total surveys sent and respondents were not quotaed or otherwise synchronized with a particular representative or target respondent distribution. However, it is clear that there is among the responders significant doubt as to the willingness and ability of law firms and their lawyer owners to make any profound changes in their business model or service mechanics.

Given the major effort that the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) has put into its Value Challenge, it's a curiosity that no law firm has had the wisdom and courage to proclaim its unqualified support. About the best I've seen, personally, is Womble Carlyle's statement of support, which -- while not a complete endorsement - does attempt to address some of the expressed objectives of the ACC.

The Altman news release quotes their spokesman as calling the study findings "a dramatic vote of no confidence" in the commitment of law firms to change. In fact, while 62% of respondents rated the pressure on law firms to change at 5 or above on a 10 point scale, fully 75% rated law firm's seriousness about change at 4 or less on the same scale.

I fear that Altman Weil's study suggests there is little hope that we will lift the veil of negativity and doubt from the relationship of general counsel and their outside lawyers. If we can't convince our clients that we hear what they want and are ready to conduct business according to their specifications, how happy will they ever be with our services? How willing a buyer?

Lawyers May Love This Little Black Book

2009-06-15T06:59:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite business development books for years has been Jim Hassett's Legal Business Development. This simple and direct outline of a marketing process for lawyers is going to have some company on the bookshelf from now on.

I've just finished Paula Black's latest "The Little Black Book: A Lawyer's Guide to Creating a Marketing Habit in 21 Days." Paula has a couple of "Little Black Books" already in print and has gotten wide notice and some kudos for her earlier work. The new one is the ultimate quick read, perfect for busy lawyers who have plenty of reasons to say their lives are too packed to develop a marketing habit.

Spanning the stated 21 days are Paula's 21 steps into a regular personal marketing habit. Each day, starting with the first Monday of the first week of the period, has a single word to start the day, couple of sentences to direct the lawyer's thinking about the step, an action to take that specific day and a tip that anticipates the need for a couple of words that will increase the effectiveness of the action.

There's no magic knowledge here, just pragmatic direction and advice that breaks down resistance to developing the marketing habit by enabling the lawyer to make incremental yet speedy progress and keeps the workload manageable. Paula's contribution is to recognize that each day must build upon the previous steps and yet be an complete element unto itself.

I think this might just work for both lawyers who cannot get started because the work of personal marketing seems too overwhelming in the whole and lawyers who claim there is just not time to attend to the mechanics. Paula's book gives them both something to do (but not too much to do) in an attractive and readable format. For the next 48 hours, she's giving away almost 40 gifts with each book order, so check it out at her Web site.

Should Marketing Be Expected Of Young Attorneys?

2009-06-11T10:55:00.000-07:00

For all of those among the law firm ranks who think that marketing needs to be the province of the experienced and that it takes more than just excellent legal work to win the attention of potential clients, I recommend this post yesterday by Carolyn Elefant at the Legal Blog Watch.

Even we, the long of tooth and true believers of bizdev, can be impressed by the genuine rewards being reaped from good works done well. No matter how much you might discuss the nature of the issue, the timing and character of the representation, the results speak for themselves.

Do any of us have any doubt about this young lawyer's bright future as a rainmaker?

One Blog Says Blogs Can't Be Trusted

2009-06-04T07:02:00.000-07:00

I ran across a very interesting piece at Forrester Research last week, thanks to an article by Josh Bernoff in the American Marketing Association's Marketing News of May 15. He reported on research that found blogs were the least trusted source of information among consumers.

Guess I should sign off now. But, wait, there's more.

One out of six consumers say they trust company blogs. These same people are generally more trusting of all media. Making them what? Gullible? Prescient?

One should really read Berhoff's Groundswell blog for the full story, but the Reader's Digest version (did I just date myself?) is that blogs that are entirely company information-oriented to a self-serving level (the reasons our dishwasher pellets simply work better and are environmentally pure) provoke a cynical mistrust in most consumers. Maybe that's to be expected.

Berhoff does report that there are very good ways to make a blog more trustworthy:

Cover customer problems.
Reach and incite comments from fans.
Explore core community issues...the community of readers and consumers.
Tout your celebrity (that's why I blog!).
Showcase your employees (as authors and heros).
Expand your content and channel, if you're a medium.
Have a voice in the conversation that's already about you and your interests.

Why do you blog? What blogs do you trust?

Firms Require Guides To Conduct Online

2009-05-19T18:07:00.000-07:00

Bob Ambrogi at Legal Blog Watch calls our attention to a vital piece of legal marketing practice today, that of the need for law firms to take charge of their own online social destiny and protect their fragile reputations by giving thorough guidance to their lawyers and staff about using social utilities. His post last week Rules of Conduct for Social Networking steps off from a set of guidelines given out at the Wall Street Journal about social media.

Just today, I introduced Swati Agrawal of Firmseek at the Legal Marketing Association Virginias Chapter, and she hit this subject, too, in connection with a talk on law firm marketing technology in times when firms are cutting back budgets and leaning even more heavily on demonstrated ROI. Along with suggestions to make more of what firms already have in place and work their own networks for knowledge was her endorsement of free tools such as Facebook and Twitter. Her caution: don't do anything without first deciding what you want to get out of it and how it should be employed, and beware the user with a bone to pick. She had a few interesting real-life tales to make her points. (Hat tip to Swati, who taught me the term "social utility" today.)

It remains to be seen whether there is a positive business development path through these new areas, but there is most certainly a negative one: the loss of a law firm's good name through the misuse of the media by its own people, or those it offends. I have noted the potential loss of control of a firm's reputation pointed out in this telling post on Kara Smith's blog.

The first significant area of liability to address is state Bars. Our own firm's code of participation is largely informed by the Rules active in the states where we practice and I recommend that for every firm. If only that were sufficient.

The Bar may govern the behavior and ethics of a lawyer, but firms also will find their positive reputation depends on the good and ethical online behavior of their staff and that is not a Bar concern except to the extent it may affect client representation. That's why our code also suggests appropriate use for these new media by non-attorneys, too.

As a third leg to stabilize this social networking platform, we have retained a firm of online social networking specialists (http://crt-tanaka.com/ and @crttanaka) to help chart our course. Still, the reason to build this platform is singular: once upon a time, firms used to control their message, but the online social media world is a conversation and participation may give you influence, but you will never have complete control.

Yet, what does a firm possess of value to clients but reputation? This is akin to the business accounting concept of goodwill. Even Bars believe that lawyers have clients, firms do not. The Rules are built to govern the behavior of lawyers, not firms. The collection of lawyers that is a law firm possess only the record of representation that inur to these lawyers. Clients hire firms with highly successful records. This reputation is now widely dependent on the online world. Today, a post from Legal Blog Watch points out the growing influence of the online world on winning business. And who hasn't Googled their firm name and discovered data they didn't expect?

How many of our law firms are leaving their online reputation up for grabs?

Social Life Now at the Bar

2009-05-06T13:14:00.001-07:00

Online social life, that is. Bar rules, that is. Both in Philadelphia and in Connecticut, opinion and advice have surfaced dealing with the use of online social networks in the legal industry. Hat tips to my two favorite daily reads: Legal Blog Watch from incisive media (that's the way THEY spell it) and ABA Journal Daily Newsletter.

From the former, I learn that A Connecticut Law Blog author Ryan McKeen had received a confusing missive from his state Bar when he asked for guidance on Web 2.0 communications. As he points out, the lack of foresight by the Bar has left the user adrift in Rules designed for paper, phone and fax. I fear this is the norm.

But there is hope. In today's ABA newsletter, I learn that in Philadelphia, as reported by Doug Cornelius on Social Media Today , the local Bar Association has ventured the advice that "friending" someone on Facebook through a third party meets the "misleading" standard that govern attorney communications. I'm so glad someone asked.

We've been discussing online social media with a passion for weeks. No stranger to these pages, Twitter, blogs, Facebook and LinkedIn have enraptured attorney audiences in our offices and out of town. I was glad to meet Wendy Nemitz of Ingenuity Marketing, Kristen Campbell of Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, Steve Baird of Winthrop & Weinstine and DuetsBlog, Larry James, Jr., of Dickenson, Mackaman, Tyles & Hagan and Mark Krueger of Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance for a spirited discussion in Minneapolis last weekend.

Stay tuned as Bars tune in to this new world.

Confusing Times for Law Firm Advisors?

2009-04-30T05:51:00.000-07:00

The stress and financial turmoil roiling through law firms must make marketing very difficult for established consultancies such as Altman Weil and Hildebrandt. Let me give you one personal example.

This week, I will attend a meeting where we'll hear from Ward Bower of A-W on "Opportunities for Mid-Sized Firms in the Current Economy." Many of my friends at places like the Legal Water Cooler, Law Firm CI and folks I've seen speaking recently have been referring to the compression in legal budgets among corporations as a chance for mid-sized and boutique firms (read: less costly) to make some inroads in a market that has been dominated by large "safe bets" among the AmLaw 100.

I listened avidly at the Legal Marketing Association Conference the first of this month to Tom Clay of the same firm detail their recent "Legal Transformation Study" that used scenario planning to posit the possible fields of play in 2020, about a decade away. When the researchers asked a wide group of law firm managers and partners which of the four scenarios were most likely to be reality in 2020, there was almost an even divide among them. By this we see clearly there is no agreement among law firms on the likelihood of a particular end point for the legal industry.

So, we'll hear Mr. Bower opine on the kinds of opportunities firms like the one I work at might salivate over and, frankly, need to keep growing.

Then, in my email yesterday, comes a missive from Pam Woldow, a "Ramper" at LegalOnRamp.com, and a consultant at...Altman Weil. In this lengthy opinion, largely designed, it seems, to show the benefits of LegalOnRamp.com membership and participation, Ms. Woldow says:

"Dear General Counsel or Chief Legal Officer:
If you feel like you are in a classic double bind these days, you are not alone. I have spoken with dozens of GCs in the last few months, and Altman Weil has surveyed hundreds more, many of whom report themselves on the horns of a risky dilemma.
They say they are inclined to join the cost-saving trend to move "down market" (their term) to midsized and boutique firms that have lower costs bases, but are afraid the move will put them in hot water, no matter what the cost savings."

Later, after a long description of the process by which a corporate general counsel might put the squeeze on its current BigLaw vendors and use LegalOnRamp.com as the big stick to "help firm XYZ convert to your religion", she continues:

"The bottom line in law is that quality is quality. Cost is not quality. Risk-reduction is not quality. In every instance the highest quality firm will be the lowest cost, but that means you have to think about quality in terms of outcomes, not inputs - or even likelihood of substandard performance by outside counsel. Once you start focusing on true quality to the client - that's you and your company - you'll see a variety of ways to reduce costs. You'll also find that lots of firms, including, ultimately, your incumbent service providers, will be willing to play ball according to the new rules of the legal game."

Oh, oh, oh. I wonder how these consultants reconcile their various messages. Which opportunities do the corporate clients hear, the large providers get told about and which are left to the mid-size and boutiques? Are they talking among themselves about this? At Altman Weil, the evidence is that they are not. This double-speak may eventually trip them up and a fall could be disastrous in this economy.

Would you hire a consultant from a company that pitches your possible clients and competitors on a way to prevent your success?

Tweets Out Amazon

2009-04-13T16:36:00.000-07:00

OMG! Twitter bitch-slapped Amazon over the weekend and it will leave a bruise. Check out http://tinyurl.com/ddhpghl. Demonstrating once again, Twitter is the word-of-mouth of the online world.

I can't comment on the rumored anti-gay/bi attitude that may lay beneath the delisting of certain books with specific content (or at least specific content categories) on Amazon. It reminds me of the disputes that some school libraries have experienced in years past about the inclusion of seditious titles like "Catcher in the Rye" and "Lady Chatterly's Lover." Still, the sequence of explanations sound a bit disingenuous, or at least suggest that Amazon has lost control of a portion of its catalog indexing.

Still, the fact that the Twitter hashtag has mounted an effective attack on a policy at the world's largest bookseller gets my attention. Where now, Twitterville? Politics?

Hat tip to NPR's Monkey See blog for the news.

What's the LMA Buzz? Social life!

2009-04-09T06:39:00.000-07:00

I've been away at the Legal Marketing Association Annual Conference held at the Gaylord Resort in National Harbor, Maryland. It was great to see so many friends! Here are my top lines today:

Shout out to Nancy Myrland (http://twitter.com/nancynyrland) for organizing a Tweetup and giving out the cool lapel pins. It was sweet to tweet face-to-face and that's something I'd like to continue doing.

Thompson Reuters and incisive media were collecting videos of participants, and I've posted four below of some of my favorite opinion leaders. Give 'em a hand!

Jennifer Manton on LMA's Most Powerful Attribute

Heather Milligan on Opportunities in Law Firm Marketing

Jayne Navarre on Online Social Media

Lance Godard on Business Development from Twitter

Finally, social media was really rocking, with a couple of powerful presentations (and one slightly underwhelming one from LexisNexis Counsel-to-Counsel - can you say "missed the boat?"). My fave was Jay Berkowitz. More on that next time.

What's your recent social life highlight?

This one's for me.

2009-03-24T18:17:00.000-07:00

This post is for me and my family. On March 8, my youngest sister, Marian, died at the age of 50 in her sleep. Suddenly, there are only two siblings in the family. Suddenly, life seems much more precarious and fleeting. The "hit by a truck" event has sapped my drive and left me confused and sad...so sad, whew!

(photo L to R: Marian, Rosamond, Russell Lawson) Marian Averill Lawson was the third woman to bear the name. The others were also premature deaths. Her paternal grandmother was taken by cancer at the age of 48. Her aunt succumbed to pneumonia at the age of 49.

Marian had a great gift to be completely in the now. Whether she was sunning on the porch of the family beach house (she's in the bikini) , dancing in the crowd at one of her beloved Grateful Dead concerts or infuriating a member of her family with her reckless disregard of the consequences of her behavior, she was 150% right here. You could have her rapt attention while she sat with you and the moment the door closed behind her, it was as if you were a million miles away.

She didn't buy a gift for any birthday, rarely visited a godchild and never sent a holiday card or letter, to my knowledge. Yet, in 1981, when on December 23 my wife and I had lost our first child and couldn't bear the holiday, it was Marian who showed up at our house on Christmas Eve with a scraggly fir tree stuck on the top of her 1968 powder blue Mustang.

Yes, Marian loved profusely and without prejudice. She invented funny and unique love names for her family: Squee, Mayne, Pigboob. She would tell stories about her adventures in a hilarious shorthand she invented on the fly. She disposed of a minor fortune on lavish gifts for friends and lovers, endless and incomplete home improvements, hundreds of bootleg concert tapes from the Dead tours. She did time. She befriended and suffered at the hands of dangerous criminals and a series of bad (and perhaps fraudulent) money-making schemes among her acquaintences.

She could disappear for months or years. When you next heard from her, it was as if you had just talked the day before about music or Jesus or recovery. She pursued sobriety and even caught it a couple of times. She walked with the Lord. She passed over to the other side with precious little left of her plentiful gifts: some clothes her family bought for her in the last six months, a few worn pieces of furniture, a barely running old Volvo and an elderly Labrador named Monkey.

Why did you leave, sister mine? When will we see you again?

Marian Averill Lawson - 4/24/58 - 3/8/09

Courting Twitterville

2009-03-05T08:43:00.000-08:00

Just last week, Legal Blog Watch summed up a number of court appearances where there has been reporting that Twitter has enabled, showing that the mircoblog is making a real run at real-time legal news gathering. I think it remins to be seen if there are followers for these tweets, but God love these residents of Twitterville for trying.

Even more interesting to me was the list of law schools who have claimed their space on Twitter, which suggests that the penetration of the 140 character message is deeper still in our student population. That would be completely understandable, as it resembles instant messaging in a way that these techno-law clerks-in-training would understand instinctively. Hat tip to the Social Media Law Student for watching this development.

Kara Smith's blog is also big on Twitter, but she has a cautionary tale in her archives of how an identity can be usurped or tarnished through the same online social conversations. One final thought: if you have your name already reserved in these online social media, using the channels to communicate is the only sure way protect your brand. Silence speaks of your firm's indifference, which has its own reputational effect.

Are You and Your Firm Ready?

2009-02-24T06:52:00.000-08:00

Earlier in February, John Keefe spoke on how to assess whether your firm is ready to get involved in social media. The clip I had below was deleted from www.vimeo.com on February 24, but was entitled How To Get Your Organisation Social Media Ready by Jon Keefe, KMP from In Black And White Seminars on Vimeo.

And, for an even deeper look at what social media comprises, read Ron Jones's Social Media Marketing 101 Part 1 and Social Media Marketing 101 Part 2 on Search Engine Watch.

Ready yet?

A Slap in the Facebook.

2009-02-19T16:04:00.001-08:00

Ah, back in the day, corporations ruled their own destiny and customers took what they got sold...was that ever really true? Well, I grew up in the 50's and 60's, and it sure felt to me like I had choices. Large consumer businesses and political structures alike seemed to bend and buckle with market pressures. In later decades, the voice of the consumer became even louder and more desirable in marketing programs, even if companies never really developed an effective process for responding to the very voice they encouraged.

And yet, some of our newest enterprises and internet services seem ignorant of the force of markets. Take Facebook. Like all good online sites, it has lengthy "Terms of Service." Just last week, it changed these terms, as so many enterprises will from time to time. Only, Facebook's change included a notation that they would own the content of Facebook pages (essentially small personal Web sites) and be able to do anything with that material they wanted forever, even if you had terminated your membership (which is free).

The Consumerist ratted them out this week. The user world rebelled. The Electronic Privacy Information Center threatened to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. Users formed Facebook groups to oppose the changes. Facebook backed down.

Let's acknowledge what users were already getting free from Facebook: a social networking site with many useful features by which they could expose their personal lives, connect with people they know, get to know new people and discuss and opine on subjects from the sublime to the ridiculous. Let's admit the lack of wisdom of the Facebook management attempting to clarify their terms without asking for the valuable input of the voice of the user.

A decade ago, The Cluetrain Manifesto prophesied this turn of events, when it set forth its 95 theses. Facebook, the community of users with an open intranet by which to have conversations with one another, decided that the new terms were unacceptable, and Facebook the enterprise itself had already provided the mechanism for an uprising. To preserve itself, Facebook had to both allow and respond to the conversation.

I don't see how any other reaction could have been possible. I don't see how Facebook management could have thought any other eventuality would proceed from the change...unless they had not read one of the best selling books of 2000. I'll bet the Palo Alto Public Library has a couple of copies they can check out. I recommend it.

Tweet-Chasing Attorneys?

2009-02-18T07:02:00.000-08:00

Tom Foster's blog on internet lawyer marketing reports on an exchange through Twitter over an auto accident recently. One of the drivers involved asked through Twitter about posting photos of the damage online and an attorney responded with a direct message asking if the driver needed legal representation. Sounds like an ethics violation to me.

Carolyn Elefant covered the report on Law Blog Watch and opined that the technology does not overturn the attorney's responsibilities to the Bar rules. Good point.

There is a tendency to leap into the breech when new technologies are not addressed by the Bar rules, which happens frequently. Many state bars were just catching up with the use of the Web to promote lawyers and their firms when blogs starting appearing, quickly followed by ratings sites like AVVO that invited client testimonials and, lately, Twitter, just to name a few. Just because there is no rule to constrain an attorney's solicitations, doesn't mean the Bar will turn a blind eye to egregious actions. After all, these regulators are lawyers, too.

The appropriate response in many cases may be just short of solicitation, but these fine lines are what make the Bar rules meaningful. "I can answer that question" is a fundamentally different message than "I can represent you when you want to sue". Which one would be a better response in a business development context? Which would your Bar prefer?

Where does the time go?

2009-02-11T05:37:00.000-08:00

OK. I've been MIA. Blame it on the weddings: our daughter (photo) and our niece. And exhaustion. Not a good excuse, but a valid reason. Hi! I'm back.

Of course, these were great occasions for offline social networking. Meanwhile, the legal online space has been exploding with conversations about one of my favorite social networking subjects, Twitter.

Robert J. Ambrogi's article sort of kicked it off for me. Not that Bob's technology shy...he's a big proponent, but his test run on Twitter was undertaken to see if it held possibilities. And he found it did, ergo his piece on law.com.

Then, Carolyn Elefant in the Legal Blog Watch pointed out the slowdown in blog commenting overall. Her take was that it may be tracable to the increase in Twitter activity, both from the increasing user base among lawyers and legal observers and the ease that Twitter provides to have the conversations that used to be confined to blogs, something Scott Greenfield covered in Simple Justice.

Finally, the LegalTech conference last week found itself awash in tweets and Twitter, so much so that the offline conversation turned from ediscovery, the stated topic of the sessions, to online social media. John Bringardner covered it for Legal Blog Watch.

Last summer, Twittter had a user base in the hundreds of thousands. This month, it crossed the six million user line. Clearly, there is a tremendous curiosity about the functionality of the micro-blogging space, and the absence of a cost of entry lets anyone in without regard to quality. The development of companion applications like Tweetdeck keep driving the user base to new functionalities. For the legal world, Kevin O'Keefe's LexTweet is an aggregator of a specific user content stream. The focusing of Twitter content through these application spaces will further the conversations in this medium.

The only worry I have now? Where do we find the time to converse?

A Word to the Wise

2009-01-16T08:22:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, Kara Smith's blog covered a challenge to Holland and Knight's reputation that was active on the internet at Twitter. No need to recap here, because Kara has done the digging and has an explanation of the ambush technique. Hat tip to one of my new Favorites.

Consultant Larry Bodine has also done his share of trash-talking about the Legal Marketing Association. This is simply another way that reputation attacks can be mounted.

The point I'm making is that the internet is a wide-wide channel, an electronic river into which anyone can throw content, whether it has value or simply aims to besmirch a decent reputation. In order to keep the waters around you clean, you have to be vigilant. What are you doing to watch out for your online reputation?

Are You Hearing Voices?

2009-01-06T05:13:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I responded to a post on Heather Milligan's blog, Legal Water Cooler, with a reference to an article in the American Marketing Association's November/December 2008 Marketing Management on utility of Voice of the Customer (VOC) data in American companies. This piece was authored by Randy Brandt of Maritz Research and reflects results of the 2007 Maritz VOC Practices and Challenges Survey. The survey and the article are compelling reads for any marketer.

A key observation in the early part of the article is that "in nearly every industry that has participated in the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) since its inception in 1994, current scores are essentially the same as they were in that baseline year, or else they have declined." Yet, a 2005 Forrester Research survey reported that 96% of senior executive respondents believed it was critical to their business to improve the customer experience. How do we reconcile this desperate interest in the customer's satisfaction with the reality that no improvement has been achieved?

Brandt writes that many research studies show companies that encourage and collect VOC data do not effectively act on the data. His observation, confirmed with the 2007 Maritz study, is that the majority of companies have no defined processes that support implementation. He concludes that 1) companies must have a standard set of categories measured across all customer-company intersections, 2) that these categories should be linked to measures of business results and 3) companies must have a formal process and assigned accountability for acting on the VOC data.

Beyond the parameters of Dr. Brandt's article is a question for all law firms of the value of VOC data. Matt Sherman correctly notes in his response to the Legal Water Cooler post yesterday that the customer experience and its satisfaction are a "partner by partner" effect. I'll add that the one sure way to get the VOC data into action in a law firm is to connect the partner bonus to it. Frankly, my feeling is that most legal firms lack the courage to monitor client satisfaction, although there are an increasing number of consulting firms who have superb processes for this research.

As a profession whose primary intellectual capital is characterized by service based on "proving" assertions, law firms should be clamoring for this data. Relationship partners ought to insist that the client's voice be solicited so that they and the firm can have irrefutable evidence that the relationship is solid and linked primarily to the partner. The lack of courage may be due largely to the law industry's paucity of innovation and reliance on the status quo, at least as far as business operations are concerned. However, by protecting their compensation to partners with lock-step and production systems that depend on completed, billed and paid-for work (hours), they ensure that the client's voice will go unheard until a complaint interferes with the collection process. Which, in my mind, is way too late to save the client relationship.

How closely does your law firm listen to the voice of your clients? Is there action connected to what you hear? How can you increase the volume and frequency of this conversation?