« January 15, 2006 - January 21, 2006 | Main | January 29, 2006 - February 04, 2006 »
January 28, 2006
Logos, Branding and What's in Your Name?
Julie McGuire and I are still waiting to hear from Bill Clinton in answer to Friday's ad to make WJC of counsel to Hull McGuire PC so he can help with both lawyering and branding--an idea which, by the way, we take seriously. Life's short, WJC's talented, branding is hard and, well, why not? In the meantime, while he's deciding what to do, we noticed an interesting post from Larry Bodine at Professional Marketing Blog called "For Law Firms, Names Are the Brand" based on an article printed in the Raleigh-based Triangle Business Journal reprinted on MSN.
Larry's post follows up quite a few good recent posts on the subject of logos by experts and authors in and out of lawyering and law firm marketing: Dave Opton of ExecuNet, Bruce Allen of Marketing Catalyst , Tom Kane, Patrick Lamb, Tom Collins, me (in the non-expert category) and Michelle Golden on branding generally. Okay, now we are getting somewhere. Shorter names are branding, according to the article Larry Bodine cites. That makes sense, and firms have been doing that. But let's get back to logos. Exactly what additional value beyond a professional firm's unadorned name--e.g., Jones Day, Freshfields, Clifford Chance, Butler Rubin, Hull McGuire--do you get in a "Coca-Cola" or "Nike"-like designed and copyright-able logo using the name? Does that help brand a firm?
Posted by JD Hull at 10:34 PM | Comments (0)
January 27, 2006
Wanted: Natural Born Marketer From Hope, Arkansas.
First, I noticed this blurb in Peter Lattman's new Wall Street Journal Law Blog about Bill Clinton's possible return to the profession. I like Bill Clinton. Face it--even a lot of Republicans like Bill Clinton. The guy's smart, knowledgeable, charming and connects with people. Second, earlier this week Larry Bodine and others reported on Dr. Larry Richard's assertions in a speech to the Marketing Partners Forum in Florida that only 1 out of 5 lawyers are natural born marketers. That troubled my partner Julie McGuire, allegedly a Republican, and me. So here's our new ad:
WANTED: Of counsel for growing Pittsburgh-based boutique business law firm. Must have at least 8 years of highest level federal Exec. Branch experience, world-wide connections, Yale Law degree, one year at Oxford, own money and people skills. Crowd-pleaser. Must be able to sell anything to anyone. And be originally from Hope, Arkansas. State government experience preferred but not required. Same for participation in Renaissance weekends, and fund-raising. United Nations experience also a big plus. You don't need to re-locate. Happy to set up the office for you. Wherever you want. Harlem or Chappaqua, New York are okay. Or DC. You decide. You can work out of your house. Whatever. NOTE: No previous private law practice experience necessary. Not a problem--no problem at all. Excellent benefits package.
Posted by JD Hull at 09:32 PM | Comments (0)
January 26, 2006
Polling The Real Jury-Part 4: Just Who Should Conduct Client Satisfaction Interviews, Anyway?
No puns intended--but I'm going to stay neutral in this. But would anyone care to join the fray in the multi-blog discussion of just who should conduct client satisfaction interviews? There's an interesting, important and I think relatively difficult discussion going on between Jim Hassett, Michelle Golden, Patrick Lamb and me. I'm just listening at this point. My instinct for years has been that only 3rd party neutrals should conduct them. Now I am not so sure. Shouldn't a senior member of the firm be present, even at the risk of dampening candor?
At this point, there seems to at least be an agreement that client/customer interviews are critical for any size firm. So roughly put, the issues are: (1) who should conduct the interviews--a 3rd party "neutral" (Michelle), a senior partner (Jim) or a hybrid of sorts (Patrick); and (2) what, if anything, should be the purpose of the interview beyond asking for feedback and improving the service rendered to the customer. This is an important practice management issue if you assume, as I do, that in the future client interviews or polling by professional service firms will be the rule--and not the exception--for firms to be competitive.
Posted by JD Hull at 07:37 PM | Comments (0)
Word-of-Mouth and Internet Top 2 Picks.
The consistently insightful and easy to read Tom Kane has a great post today in his The Legal Marketing Blog on what medias really work for small business (all law firms fit in this category, I think). Word-of-mouth and the Internet may be the top 2. Talk about flattening. Although personally I think that the more lawyers, staff and clients you have, the better position you are in to enjoy WOM power, the numbers Tom has in his post suggest that big advertising budgets may not rule where clients go in the future. Or even where they are going now. Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, which I posted about in mid-December, does an admirable job of explaining the dynamics of word-of-mouth--and WOM's great but fickle power to make or break us. I know, I know: there are hundreds of books out there people say you should read, and we are all mega-busy working and practicing law. But Gladwell's book is compelling to me because it strongly implies that there are ways to create and even control positive "buzz". And it's a great book for anyone who serves business clients. Read it!
Posted by JD Hull at 03:12 PM | Comments (0)
Will We All Be International Lawyers? Are We Already?
One of the things I've been trying to tell you all--like here in a September 30, 2005 post about the International Bar Association's meeting last year in Prague and the International Business Law Consortium my firm joined in 1998--is that law practice is changing. I am still not sure exactly why, how and how fast. But I am sure that the global economy's impact on competition in even the most basic and rudimentary service businesses is no New Age b.s.
Before law school I majored in History (not Economics) and wrote my honors thesis on something like "How the [Japanese] Shishi Got the Chutzpah to Overthrow the Bakafu". And, rather than Paul Samuelson, I read Chaucer, Melville and Hunter Thompson. So with these macro issues, I struggle. I speculate. I get comments and mail from people who imply I'm out of my area--and they are probably right.
So I'll stick to federal courts, the Clean Water Act Title VI appropriations for FY 2007, selling my firm's corporate tax and international practices, and making our clients happy. Besides, Adam Smith, Esq. (New Yorker Bruce MacEwen) discusses it a lot better in this recent post "Where Will Your Firm Be in 2015?" than I can, have thus far or likely ever could.
Posted by JD Hull at 01:11 PM | Comments (0)
January 25, 2006
Polling The Real Jury-Part III--"So Then Michelle Checks In, and She Says..."
No sooner did I finish a post just below about changing my mind on who should conduct client satisfaction interviews that Michelle Golden at Golden Practices, who I greatly respect, tells me, in effect, that I was right the first time. In a well thought-out and highly persuasive comment Michelle says she believes--and by the way I can tell she's clearly not drumming up work on this--you should use a third party neutral and not senior lawyers in your firm if you want the truth about your firm's services (especially if there is a relationship issue). And, she continues, don't ask for a referral because it likely won't go down well. Michelle also has a nice post about it entltled "Satisfaction Survey or Marketing Pitch? Pick One". I like fights, disagreements and disputes of almost any nature--and always have. But I'm dazed, confused and still thinking on this client polling thing. So I'll just wimp out and watch. Anyone else? Rumble, maybe?
Posted by JD Hull at 11:02 PM | Comments (0)
Polling the Real Jury--Hassett Redux.
Jim Hassett at Law Firm Business Development has yet another nice post entitled "How To Review Client Satisfaction--Part 4" on the subject that I call client polling, or client interviews. For a variety of reasons, this is a truly important subject. I had commented after Jim's Part 3 post that I thought only third parties--to ensure more honest, candid results--should do polling. Both Jim and Pat Lamb suggested a senior member of the law firm should be present.
My new thinking is that Jim and Pat are right. Generally, you should have a senior partner, and one not involved in the work, if possible, to do the client polling. Jim's reasons are important here. While I think eliciting the maximum amount of candor is a key goal of the interview, he identifies an even more important, overriding objective. A senior lawyer with your firm has the most incentive to carry out the goals of the interview: protect revenue streams from the client, increase them from that client, and get referrals. These are the goals of a senior lawyer inside your firm. And aside from doing great work for clients, what else is there?
Again, this really is an important topic. Well-done client interviews not only get you the real skinny on how you are doing, but you can ask clients what they really want. I'd love to hear more commentary on this one.
Posted by JD Hull at 10:47 PM | Comments (0)
Tom Collins Has Got a Bunch of Things Right.
Not only does Tom Collins at MorePartnerIncome have by far the best name for any blawg I've seen, earlier this week he may have captured what blogging is all about in a moving post called "Blogs That Improve Law Firm Performance". If you haven't read this entire post, you should. It is more than the title implies. Genuine, humble and thoughtful--made me want to keep doing this. It's right here.
Posted by JD Hull at 09:09 PM | Comments (0)
January 23, 2006
Why Lawyers Can't Sell--And What To Do About It.
Larry Bodine has an interesting post which points out that only about 1 out of 5 lawyers have the innate ability to market and sell. The conclusion is based on testing the lawyer population versus everyone else ("normal" people, I guess). So 20% of us can sell. And the remaining 80%? According to Dr. Larry Richard, a Hildebrandt International director, 55% are "trainable" to be rainmakers and the remaining 25% are "hopeless". A lot of this turns on the fact that many (if not most) lawyers are introverts and careful analytical people. Most of us do not have the people-oriented traits and interpersonal skills associated with selling. In short, the tests suggest, it's a personality thing. The conclusion is not that surprising.
But it is a bit ironic. The same "skill sets" based on logic and prudence that down through the ages have allowed us to do our jobs also have hamstrung us. We have trouble developing into people-oriented managers of living, breathing relationships with real customers. In fact, I'd go further than the tests Dr. Richards cites. My own sense (not a Hildebrandt study, of course) is that less than 20% of us--10% at most--can really put it together to be rainmakers. But I think that the remaining 90% can be taught to be marketing-oriented in very effective ways for both repeat and new business. Each lawyer can help and no lawyer should be given a pass. The discipline of getting everyone in the firm to be part of your marketing culture and making it stick is the hard part. Very few professional firms I know of have a client-focused or marketing culture. Even when they want it, they won't do "the work".
Posted by JD Hull at 08:35 PM | Comments (0)