PR's Return On Investment

Introduction: A Unique Advantage

What can we make of the fact that the top 25 firms ranked by revenue in the AmLaw 200 have increased their overall presence in the media by around 18%, while firms ranked in the next two quarters (numbers 26 through 75) increased by barely 1%?

Below the third quarter, the differences are even starker. Overall, the firms that were ranked 76 to 200 actually engendered fewer media appearances – by upwards of 5% in some instances – in 2002 than in 2001.

The easy response is that the larger the firm, the more lawyers and practice groups there are for reporters to call on as sources and commentators; coast-to-coast and abroad. The law of nature is that the rich get richer. It applies to media profile as well.

In fact, such a predictable interpretation is too glib by half. It ignores the fact that to accelerate rather than just to maintain their advantage over other quarters, the top 25 have consciously leveraged their size advantage. They haven't been content to wait for reporters to call. They've gotten the attention of the media with ongoing formal publicity strategies designed to reinforce existing reputations and build new ones.

These formidable law firms fall into two categories. On the one hand, a very small and elite category is comprised of those that were first to market. In Skadden's case, for example, an M&A practice was perceived to have actually helped invent the legal infrastructure of an entire economy then driven by hostile takeovers. Having been first, Skadden continues to be perceived by journalists, as well as by legal service purchasers, as owning that particular market. It remains the top-of-the-list media source.

On the other hand, firms like Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, or Jones Day, came somewhat later to the M&A game, so they redoubled their marketing efforts in order to communicate dynamism and a sense of excitement about what they were adding to the market. Think about McDonald's for a minute. It didn't invent the hamburger. It wasn't even the first fast-food burger chain, not by a long shot. So it advertised a whole lot more than the competition. It was considerably more active on the PR front and integrated PR with their business development plans. McDonald's became more involved with the community, to the point where most of the world has become its community.

But, if size is a differentiating factor in the media market today (and our research indicates that it is), it needn't be. It's important to understand that other, smaller firms can, with comparable aggressiveness, at least hold their own as media sources. By so doing, they reap the marketing benefits that widespread media exposure and marketing can produce. Our research is replete with important examples of law firms that have done just that.

The UK legal market provides a fascinating contrast. The five so-called Magic Circle firms (Linklaters, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Allen & Overy, Slaughter and May and Clifford Chance) are perceived as first-to-market, with Asian or pan-European practices that dwarf the more tentative growth efforts of U.S. or other UK law firms abroad. In some cases, they have invested unprecedented resources in PR machines to disseminate their global brands.

Yet, while the data in this report does show greater media volume for the Magic Circle, there are glaring exceptions. Nor is the drop-off between the Magic Circle and other large UK firms as conspicuous as the drop-off between the AmLaw 25 and the other quartile rankings for the U.S.

In fact, the data shows two UK firms actually exceeding some Magic Circle firms in total coverage. And, it includes other firms that do not trail the Magic Circle decisively. These firms apparently understand that, in terms of media and marketing, aggressive activity can at least bridge the gap between themselves and go-to names like Linklaters and Allen & Overy – and that there is indeed a Return on Investment (ROI) in terms of media activity.

The purpose of the research included in this study, along with the accompanying analysis, is to understand such ROI as a competitive tool, profession-wide as well as in local markets.

ROI: A Double-Edged Sword

ROI is a tricky and dangerous benchmark for evaluating any marketing or public relations initiative. Too often, marketing novices expect decisive correlations between the money invested in a marketing initiative and specific new business development benefits.

As such, we need to qualify our usage of the term “ROI.” There is no one-to-one correlation between how much a law firm spends on media and how much new business it gets in return. That is not how marketing works. Marketing may on occasion directly generate new business, but the realistic purpose is broader. Marketing – and PR is a prime case in point – creates marketplace awareness. It creates a sense of familiarity in the minds of buyers, especially important for legal services because it supports the seller's reputation for excellence on matters where anything less can be disastrous. The purpose of PR is, in other words, to position you as a safe sell, not because you look like everyone else, but precisely because you don't.

A direct connection between media and buyer confidence is at the heart of ROI as we're using the term here. Unlike the practice of law, which is about affirming precedent, effective media is about transcending it. How can we use the media to say something different? To get noticed? To be thought of by buyers? Most importantly, this study discloses a simple strategy. While some firms will often find that focused and circumscribed media campaigns achieve defined goals, many others have enjoyed the benefits of high volume. The more media you get, the more you achieve.

You achieve, not just the frequent attention of buyers and laterals, but ' by virtue of the constant third-party imprimatur provided by the media ' a crucial positioning for total professional reliability. That positioning is, in turn, the jumping-off point for lawyers, or any other kind of professional, to then sell their services.

When, therefore, we talk about ROI in the context of PR efforts by major law firms, we're talking about gauging name recognition among buyers and other lawyers. We are talking about openings in particular markets – in specific industries such as energy, technology, or pharmaceuticals – and communicating with great regularity in the trade publications read by potential buyers about the issues they care about. We're talking about gauging the extent to which firms are continuously reminding those audiences that they are palpable and dynamic forces in the professional services. We're talking about gauging buzz.

How can you do that, short of formal, empirical market research?

Our modest effort is to assess ROI by, simply enough, counting media appearances. How many times has your firm been mentioned in the media compared to other firms? (We are only looking at the print media. TV and radio are certainly very important parts of any total media profile, but current state of the art does not permit the tracking of meaningful electronic media appearances. Once that technology is available, we will add that data to future reports.)

It's the comparisons, of course, that are dispositive. Raw numbers by themselves tell us little. On the other hand, 1,000 press appearances by a large firm in New York compared to 100 press appearances by an equally large firm in New York tells us quite a bit about the competitive advantages that can accrue from aggressively investing in media, and the risks run when the investments are minimal.

We have researched media appearances in 2002 by the AmLaw 200 (as published in mid-2003, the latest data available as of this writing), with comparative 2001 performances. We have included 25 law firms in London and 14 leading Canadian firms.

We then looked generally at the specific media where specific firms were appearing, and the subject matter they were addressing.

The findings were collated in the following ways:

• Media appearances by AmLaw 200 quarter ranking (Charts 1 and 2). This data allows firms to compare their own media numbers to those in their own size tier as well as to those that are ranked in different size tiers. It's this data that yields the remarkable picture, cited above, of how the AmLaw 25 have accelerated their lead over all other firm rankings.
• Media appearances by geographic markets (Chart 3). This data sheds light on regional trends and the effect of marketplace “cultures” on how local law firms respond, or don't respond, to marketing/media opportunities.
• Media appearances by select firms in specific geographic areas. This data allows AmLaw 200 firms to compare their own media prominence to other AmLaw 200 firms in their immediate markets.
• Media appearances for prominent intellectual property boutiques. This data allows for a sampling of media strategies at a key practice group level.
• Media appearances by the top 25 UK and top 14 Canadian law firms. This data broadens the perspective of the study to allow for essential cross-border comparisons.

By “media appearances,” or “hits,” we mean any mention of the firm, either as the subject of an article, or when lawyers are quoted on substantive issues with firm affiliation cited in the article. We used Lexis-Nexis for our main search engine, but we also ran all firms through Factiva, which picks up Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones wire appearances not available on Lexis-Nexis.

There are important caveats to our research.

First, it's imperfect. Even the most assiduous methodology won't pick up every placement. At the same time, the methodology gathers placements that are irrelevant to any assessment of ROI (eg, a partner's daughter just got married and made the Society Page). Presumably, both the omissions and the trivialities balance out for most firms. The essential level of activity for one firm versus another, or for one type of firm versus another, remains proportionate. Again, it's the comparisons that really matter, not the absolute numbers.

Second, media appearances are for 2002, the latest AmLaw figures available as of this writing. In certain cases, there is the possibility that there may have been significant changes in the last 9 months. However, we don't anticipate that that many firms have dynamically reversed gears in such a relatively brief period. Moreover, this study is the first of its kind and we will be updating it with each new AmLaw 200 edition.

Third, not all media is desirable, and 1000 appearances for a firm may include malpractice suits, partner defections, etc. We did not analyze the specific placements for each firm as it would have required a Herculean effort to separate the good press from the bad press ' a dubious chore, at best, which would not appreciably change our results, but would require many subjective calls on our part as to what is and what is not desirable coverage.

That said, the accompanying analysis does look at specific instances in each geographic market, not only to capture the dominant legal media trends in those markets, but also to ferret out the more conspicuously anomalous conditions that may be affecting the numbers. For example, in our discussion of Texas, one must explicitly underscore the disproportionate number of placements for Vinson & Elkins due to its involvement with Enron.

Despite the inescapable limitations of any research measuring media prominence, the data we unearthed does confirm many of the conclusions ' about law firm media initiatives in general as well as about specific legal markets ' that we have reached as a result of our own global legal media practice, and that are supported by the perceptions of other profession-watchers. Most importantly, the data also suggests a few action points along with cautionary notes for marketers toiling in their regional, national, and global arenas.

Media Appearances by AmLaw 200 Rankings

Chart 1: “Average Media Placements of AmLaw 200 By Quarter Rankings,” shows media volume for each group of 25 law firms ranked by size.

[IMGCAP(1)]

As noted in our introduction, the most conspicuous data from Chart 1 shows a big drop in media placement volume from the first 25 to the second group of 25 law firms, and then successively precipitate declines in media placement volumes for the third- and fourth-quarter rankings. The first-quarter firms have the advantage of truly global practices. They're not just big firms; they're also localized in many major media markets throughout the world.

Here is a salient truism: Firms positioned as leaders receive more attention simply by being leaders. They can respond to more media opportunities with less proactive effort simply because more journalists are watching them. As such, media interest and unsolicited media calls happen naturally for them.

Some of these firms thus generate high-volume placements without necessarily being proactive. On the other hand, the firms that exploit their global size advantages by also being aggressive reap dramatic benefits as a result. Jones Day, with some 1750 placements in 2002, is the best case in point. That firm has launched PR initiatives everywhere ' not just in London and New York, but in Pittsburgh and Columbus, OH, as well.

First-quarter firms scored an average of around 1400 placements; the second quarter, just over 800; and, beginning with the fourth-quarter ranking, we see a glaring decrease to fewer than 400 placements per firm in most instances.

There is a jump-up in the final quarter driven by a few anomalous firms such as Chapman and Cutler and Palmer & Dodge. These firms underscore an additional caveat, which is that the nature of a particular legal practice will generate a disproportionate number of indifferent media appearances. In particular, there are many bond practices that get included in trade publication listings of all bond issues with which they're involved in any capacity. In the accompanying analysis, we point out where such anomalies inflate the total media number.

The biggest law firms in the world have well-documented business development advantages based on size, scope, and a sense of security among buyers eager for the assurance of global legal resources. Yet our research begs a question: Do these bigger firms necessarily have a similar advantage with media?

Chart 1 would certainly suggest that they do. As we've said, reporters gravitate to familiar names, but the top 25 firms are not necessarily more media-genic than the next 25, or the 25 after that. Reporters don't care about platform. They care about specific expertise.

Here is the opportunity. The smaller firms might never totally catch up simply because the bigger firms have so many more lawyers talking to the press in so many different places. But there is every potential for smaller firms to at least close the coverage gap. If a reporter covering an industry matter for a trade paper wants to quote a lawyer, depth of experience in the particular industry will count for a lot more than the size of his or her law firm. To stand out, to compete with all other law firms, simply do more of this kind of media on an ongoing basis.

What happens, though, is that law firms don't look up. They look sideways. They get a sense of what similarly sized firms are doing in terms of marketing and, if their media exposure seems on par, they are satisfied to then do nothing more. Yet, were they to actually compete for media attention with big-name law firms twice or ten times their size, they'd likely get at least enough of that coverage to send a dynamic message about themselves ' not just to the external marketplace, but to their own lawyers as well.

When lawyers read enough about their own firms, or see their partners quoted on enough key issues, they begin to believe the message themselves.

The essence of PR is the continuous effort of a “reach-and-repetition” campaign. To a journalist, that translates, “What have you done for me lately?”

Chart 2: “Average Media Placements and RPL Per AmLaw Quarter Rankings,” eloquently supports the findings of Chart 1 and the dominance of the higher-revenue firms. It shows the relationship between media volume and revenue- per-lawyer, underscoring a strong correlation between the two.

[IMGCAP(2)]

On the one hand, the congruence in data should not be surprising, since both rankings are direct reflections on revenue totals ' total firm revenue in the first instance, and revenue-per-lawyer (RPL) in the second. On the other hand, RPL has become increasingly important in the last couple of years as a performance yardstick, and for good reason. Huge revenue in and of itself has less value if there are too many lawyers feeding at the trough. RPL discloses the vital relationship between important overhead and income. Profitability will often go down as RPL does.

Chart 2 shows a major gap between the top and bottom RPL averages, with over $200,000 separating the first and eighth quarters. Meanwhile, the differential in media volume is likewise significant, with the first quarter garnering 1100 more media appearances than the eighth.

Total Law Firm Media Appearances per Geographic Market

Chart 3: “Average Media Placements of AmLaw 200 by City,” discloses an extremely important fact: There were not, as might have been expected, glaring differences for law firms in total media volume in 2002 between the major markets and others. The extent to which New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles do not eclipse the rest of the country is striking.

[IMGCAP(3)]

Indeed, Pittsburgh/Philadelphia equaled New York, despite the proximity of New York firms to the New York media. In this chart, we combine Dallas and Houston; even so, it's remarkable that the Texas market should have led the pack, with over 100 more average media placements than New York and Chicago. Since many New York-based firms are global, they should also be getting a disproportionate share of global and national press. Yet that is not apparently the case.

Three conclusions are suggested.

First, global firms based in other cities are competing effectively with New York-based firms for global media. The examples of Cleveland's Jones Day (1,728 total media placements) and Philadelphia-based Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (1,092 total media placements) support that conclusion.

Second, New York firms, with their proverbial hold on the capital markets and inherited reputations for blue-chip practice, are often complacent about seeking media coverage.

Third ' very good news for expansive firms – the New York media market is wide open. There is plenty of room at the media table for law firms opening branches there or trying to expand their local practices, as well as for indigenous New York firms that need to capture more press attention if they are to be considered major players in the Big Apple.

The New York numbers are extraordinary for two reasons. On the one hand, as noted, many global New York firms are not exploiting their size advantages (at least those below the top 25 quarter). On the other hand, the smaller New York firms in the AmLaw 200 are not seizing the opportunity to move into the space left vacant by the bigger firms. In fact, half the firms domiciled in Manhattan scored less than 300 media appearances each!

Complacency cannot solely account for that; the New York market is too competitive for firms in the four, fifth or sixth quarters to afford complacency. A more precise reason is, possibly, a kind of parochialism that affects the professional sectors in the Big Apple. After they've exhausted their possibilities with the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, local lawyers, with notable exceptions, fail to grasp the rewards of a media profile achieved via, say, industry or financial trades that happen to be published in St. Louis or Atlanta.

We should point out, finally, that the cities included on this graph are ones that healthily exceed the national average.

To obtain a PDF of the complete report and order additional copies, go to [email protected].

(c) October 2003. Reprint permission is not granted without the express permission of the authors.

Introduction: A Unique Advantage

What can we make of the fact that the top 25 firms ranked by revenue in the AmLaw 200 have increased their overall presence in the media by around 18%, while firms ranked in the next two quarters (numbers 26 through 75) increased by barely 1%?

Below the third quarter, the differences are even starker. Overall, the firms that were ranked 76 to 200 actually engendered fewer media appearances – by upwards of 5% in some instances – in 2002 than in 2001.

The easy response is that the larger the firm, the more lawyers and practice groups there are for reporters to call on as sources and commentators; coast-to-coast and abroad. The law of nature is that the rich get richer. It applies to media profile as well.

In fact, such a predictable interpretation is too glib by half. It ignores the fact that to accelerate rather than just to maintain their advantage over other quarters, the top 25 have consciously leveraged their size advantage. They haven't been content to wait for reporters to call. They've gotten the attention of the media with ongoing formal publicity strategies designed to reinforce existing reputations and build new ones.

These formidable law firms fall into two categories. On the one hand, a very small and elite category is comprised of those that were first to market. In Skadden's case, for example, an M&A practice was perceived to have actually helped invent the legal infrastructure of an entire economy then driven by hostile takeovers. Having been first, Skadden continues to be perceived by journalists, as well as by legal service purchasers, as owning that particular market. It remains the top-of-the-list media source.

On the other hand, firms like Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, or Jones Day, came somewhat later to the M&A game, so they redoubled their marketing efforts in order to communicate dynamism and a sense of excitement about what they were adding to the market. Think about McDonald's for a minute. It didn't invent the hamburger. It wasn't even the first fast-food burger chain, not by a long shot. So it advertised a whole lot more than the competition. It was considerably more active on the PR front and integrated PR with their business development plans. McDonald's became more involved with the community, to the point where most of the world has become its community.

But, if size is a differentiating factor in the media market today (and our research indicates that it is), it needn't be. It's important to understand that other, smaller firms can, with comparable aggressiveness, at least hold their own as media sources. By so doing, they reap the marketing benefits that widespread media exposure and marketing can produce. Our research is replete with important examples of law firms that have done just that.

The UK legal market provides a fascinating contrast. The five so-called Magic Circle firms (Linklaters, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Allen & Overy, Slaughter and May and Clifford Chance) are perceived as first-to-market, with Asian or pan-European practices that dwarf the more tentative growth efforts of U.S. or other UK law firms abroad. In some cases, they have invested unprecedented resources in PR machines to disseminate their global brands.

Yet, while the data in this report does show greater media volume for the Magic Circle, there are glaring exceptions. Nor is the drop-off between the Magic Circle and other large UK firms as conspicuous as the drop-off between the AmLaw 25 and the other quartile rankings for the U.S.

In fact, the data shows two UK firms actually exceeding some Magic Circle firms in total coverage. And, it includes other firms that do not trail the Magic Circle decisively. These firms apparently understand that, in terms of media and marketing, aggressive activity can at least bridge the gap between themselves and go-to names like Linklaters and Allen & Overy – and that there is indeed a Return on Investment (ROI) in terms of media activity.

The purpose of the research included in this study, along with the accompanying analysis, is to understand such ROI as a competitive tool, profession-wide as well as in local markets.

ROI: A Double-Edged Sword

ROI is a tricky and dangerous benchmark for evaluating any marketing or public relations initiative. Too often, marketing novices expect decisive correlations between the money invested in a marketing initiative and specific new business development benefits.

As such, we need to qualify our usage of the term “ROI.” There is no one-to-one correlation between how much a law firm spends on media and how much new business it gets in return. That is not how marketing works. Marketing may on occasion directly generate new business, but the realistic purpose is broader. Marketing – and PR is a prime case in point – creates marketplace awareness. It creates a sense of familiarity in the minds of buyers, especially important for legal services because it supports the seller's reputation for excellence on matters where anything less can be disastrous. The purpose of PR is, in other words, to position you as a safe sell, not because you look like everyone else, but precisely because you don't.

A direct connection between media and buyer confidence is at the heart of ROI as we're using the term here. Unlike the practice of law, which is about affirming precedent, effective media is about transcending it. How can we use the media to say something different? To get noticed? To be thought of by buyers? Most importantly, this study discloses a simple strategy. While some firms will often find that focused and circumscribed media campaigns achieve defined goals, many others have enjoyed the benefits of high volume. The more media you get, the more you achieve.

You achieve, not just the frequent attention of buyers and laterals, but ' by virtue of the constant third-party imprimatur provided by the media ' a crucial positioning for total professional reliability. That positioning is, in turn, the jumping-off point for lawyers, or any other kind of professional, to then sell their services.

When, therefore, we talk about ROI in the context of PR efforts by major law firms, we're talking about gauging name recognition among buyers and other lawyers. We are talking about openings in particular markets – in specific industries such as energy, technology, or pharmaceuticals – and communicating with great regularity in the trade publications read by potential buyers about the issues they care about. We're talking about gauging the extent to which firms are continuously reminding those audiences that they are palpable and dynamic forces in the professional services. We're talking about gauging buzz.

How can you do that, short of formal, empirical market research?

Our modest effort is to assess ROI by, simply enough, counting media appearances. How many times has your firm been mentioned in the media compared to other firms? (We are only looking at the print media. TV and radio are certainly very important parts of any total media profile, but current state of the art does not permit the tracking of meaningful electronic media appearances. Once that technology is available, we will add that data to future reports.)

It's the comparisons, of course, that are dispositive. Raw numbers by themselves tell us little. On the other hand, 1,000 press appearances by a large firm in New York compared to 100 press appearances by an equally large firm in New York tells us quite a bit about the competitive advantages that can accrue from aggressively investing in media, and the risks run when the investments are minimal.

We have researched media appearances in 2002 by the AmLaw 200 (as published in mid-2003, the latest data available as of this writing), with comparative 2001 performances. We have included 25 law firms in London and 14 leading Canadian firms.

We then looked generally at the specific media where specific firms were appearing, and the subject matter they were addressing.

The findings were collated in the following ways:

• Media appearances by AmLaw 200 quarter ranking (Charts 1 and 2). This data allows firms to compare their own media numbers to those in their own size tier as well as to those that are ranked in different size tiers. It's this data that yields the remarkable picture, cited above, of how the AmLaw 25 have accelerated their lead over all other firm rankings.
• Media appearances by geographic markets (Chart 3). This data sheds light on regional trends and the effect of marketplace “cultures” on how local law firms respond, or don't respond, to marketing/media opportunities.
• Media appearances by select firms in specific geographic areas. This data allows AmLaw 200 firms to compare their own media prominence to other AmLaw 200 firms in their immediate markets.
• Media appearances for prominent intellectual property boutiques. This data allows for a sampling of media strategies at a key practice group level.
• Media appearances by the top 25 UK and top 14 Canadian law firms. This data broadens the perspective of the study to allow for essential cross-border comparisons.

By “media appearances,” or “hits,” we mean any mention of the firm, either as the subject of an article, or when lawyers are quoted on substantive issues with firm affiliation cited in the article. We used Lexis-Nexis for our main search engine, but we also ran all firms through Factiva, which picks up Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones wire appearances not available on Lexis-Nexis.

There are important caveats to our research.

First, it's imperfect. Even the most assiduous methodology won't pick up every placement. At the same time, the methodology gathers placements that are irrelevant to any assessment of ROI (eg, a partner's daughter just got married and made the Society Page). Presumably, both the omissions and the trivialities balance out for most firms. The essential level of activity for one firm versus another, or for one type of firm versus another, remains proportionate. Again, it's the comparisons that really matter, not the absolute numbers.

Second, media appearances are for 2002, the latest AmLaw figures available as of this writing. In certain cases, there is the possibility that there may have been significant changes in the last 9 months. However, we don't anticipate that that many firms have dynamically reversed gears in such a relatively brief period. Moreover, this study is the first of its kind and we will be updating it with each new AmLaw 200 edition.

Third, not all media is desirable, and 1000 appearances for a firm may include malpractice suits, partner defections, etc. We did not analyze the specific placements for each firm as it would have required a Herculean effort to separate the good press from the bad press ' a dubious chore, at best, which would not appreciably change our results, but would require many subjective calls on our part as to what is and what is not desirable coverage.

That said, the accompanying analysis does look at specific instances in each geographic market, not only to capture the dominant legal media trends in those markets, but also to ferret out the more conspicuously anomalous conditions that may be affecting the numbers. For example, in our discussion of Texas, one must explicitly underscore the disproportionate number of placements for Vinson & Elkins due to its involvement with Enron.

Despite the inescapable limitations of any research measuring media prominence, the data we unearthed does confirm many of the conclusions ' about law firm media initiatives in general as well as about specific legal markets ' that we have reached as a result of our own global legal media practice, and that are supported by the perceptions of other profession-watchers. Most importantly, the data also suggests a few action points along with cautionary notes for marketers toiling in their regional, national, and global arenas.

Media Appearances by AmLaw 200 Rankings

Chart 1: “Average Media Placements of AmLaw 200 By Quarter Rankings,” shows media volume for each group of 25 law firms ranked by size.

[IMGCAP(1)]

As noted in our introduction, the most conspicuous data from Chart 1 shows a big drop in media placement volume from the first 25 to the second group of 25 law firms, and then successively precipitate declines in media placement volumes for the third- and fourth-quarter rankings. The first-quarter firms have the advantage of truly global practices. They're not just big firms; they're also localized in many major media markets throughout the world.

Here is a salient truism: Firms positioned as leaders receive more attention simply by being leaders. They can respond to more media opportunities with less proactive effort simply because more journalists are watching them. As such, media interest and unsolicited media calls happen naturally for them.

Some of these firms thus generate high-volume placements without necessarily being proactive. On the other hand, the firms that exploit their global size advantages by also being aggressive reap dramatic benefits as a result. Jones Day, with some 1750 placements in 2002, is the best case in point. That firm has launched PR initiatives everywhere ' not just in London and New York, but in Pittsburgh and Columbus, OH, as well.

First-quarter firms scored an average of around 1400 placements; the second quarter, just over 800; and, beginning with the fourth-quarter ranking, we see a glaring decrease to fewer than 400 placements per firm in most instances.

There is a jump-up in the final quarter driven by a few anomalous firms such as Chapman and Cutler and Palmer & Dodge. These firms underscore an additional caveat, which is that the nature of a particular legal practice will generate a disproportionate number of indifferent media appearances. In particular, there are many bond practices that get included in trade publication listings of all bond issues with which they're involved in any capacity. In the accompanying analysis, we point out where such anomalies inflate the total media number.

The biggest law firms in the world have well-documented business development advantages based on size, scope, and a sense of security among buyers eager for the assurance of global legal resources. Yet our research begs a question: Do these bigger firms necessarily have a similar advantage with media?

Chart 1 would certainly suggest that they do. As we've said, reporters gravitate to familiar names, but the top 25 firms are not necessarily more media-genic than the next 25, or the 25 after that. Reporters don't care about platform. They care about specific expertise.

Here is the opportunity. The smaller firms might never totally catch up simply because the bigger firms have so many more lawyers talking to the press in so many different places. But there is every potential for smaller firms to at least close the coverage gap. If a reporter covering an industry matter for a trade paper wants to quote a lawyer, depth of experience in the particular industry will count for a lot more than the size of his or her law firm. To stand out, to compete with all other law firms, simply do more of this kind of media on an ongoing basis.

What happens, though, is that law firms don't look up. They look sideways. They get a sense of what similarly sized firms are doing in terms of marketing and, if their media exposure seems on par, they are satisfied to then do nothing more. Yet, were they to actually compete for media attention with big-name law firms twice or ten times their size, they'd likely get at least enough of that coverage to send a dynamic message about themselves ' not just to the external marketplace, but to their own lawyers as well.

When lawyers read enough about their own firms, or see their partners quoted on enough key issues, they begin to believe the message themselves.

The essence of PR is the continuous effort of a “reach-and-repetition” campaign. To a journalist, that translates, “What have you done for me lately?”

Chart 2: “Average Media Placements and RPL Per AmLaw Quarter Rankings,” eloquently supports the findings of Chart 1 and the dominance of the higher-revenue firms. It shows the relationship between media volume and revenue- per-lawyer, underscoring a strong correlation between the two.

[IMGCAP(2)]

On the one hand, the congruence in data should not be surprising, since both rankings are direct reflections on revenue totals ' total firm revenue in the first instance, and revenue-per-lawyer (RPL) in the second. On the other hand, RPL has become increasingly important in the last couple of years as a performance yardstick, and for good reason. Huge revenue in and of itself has less value if there are too many lawyers feeding at the trough. RPL discloses the vital relationship between important overhead and income. Profitability will often go down as RPL does.

Chart 2 shows a major gap between the top and bottom RPL averages, with over $200,000 separating the first and eighth quarters. Meanwhile, the differential in media volume is likewise significant, with the first quarter garnering 1100 more media appearances than the eighth.

Total Law Firm Media Appearances per Geographic Market

Chart 3: “Average Media Placements of AmLaw 200 by City,” discloses an extremely important fact: There were not, as might have been expected, glaring differences for law firms in total media volume in 2002 between the major markets and others. The extent to which New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles do not eclipse the rest of the country is striking.

[IMGCAP(3)]

Indeed, Pittsburgh/Philadelphia equaled New York, despite the proximity of New York firms to the New York media. In this chart, we combine Dallas and Houston; even so, it's remarkable that the Texas market should have led the pack, with over 100 more average media placements than New York and Chicago. Since many New York-based firms are global, they should also be getting a disproportionate share of global and national press. Yet that is not apparently the case.

Three conclusions are suggested.

First, global firms based in other cities are competing effectively with New York-based firms for global media. The examples of Cleveland's Jones Day (1,728 total media placements) and Philadelphia-based Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (1,092 total media placements) support that conclusion.

Second, New York firms, with their proverbial hold on the capital markets and inherited reputations for blue-chip practice, are often complacent about seeking media coverage.

Third ' very good news for expansive firms – the New York media market is wide open. There is plenty of room at the media table for law firms opening branches there or trying to expand their local practices, as well as for indigenous New York firms that need to capture more press attention if they are to be considered major players in the Big Apple.

The New York numbers are extraordinary for two reasons. On the one hand, as noted, many global New York firms are not exploiting their size advantages (at least those below the top 25 quarter). On the other hand, the smaller New York firms in the AmLaw 200 are not seizing the opportunity to move into the space left vacant by the bigger firms. In fact, half the firms domiciled in Manhattan scored less than 300 media appearances each!

Complacency cannot solely account for that; the New York market is too competitive for firms in the four, fifth or sixth quarters to afford complacency. A more precise reason is, possibly, a kind of parochialism that affects the professional sectors in the Big Apple. After they've exhausted their possibilities with the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, local lawyers, with notable exceptions, fail to grasp the rewards of a media profile achieved via, say, industry or financial trades that happen to be published in St. Louis or Atlanta.

We should point out, finally, that the cities included on this graph are ones that healthily exceed the national average.

To obtain a PDF of the complete report and order additional copies, go to [email protected].

(c) October 2003. Reprint permission is not granted without the express permission of the authors.