Branding: Enhancing Successful Legal Marketing

The efficacy of branding law firms has been a topic of considerable debate. At root, the discussion lays bare an interesting and fundamental question ' are law firms really something greater than the sum of their parts? On one level, any organization that isn't completely dysfunctional adds something to the individuals of which it is comprised. Getting from that simple human statement to branding, however, requires buy-in to another, related concept.

Branding requires institutional consistency ' that is, consistency of markets, of messages, of service, of aptitudes, etc. Few firms, if any, manifest that level of sameness. Law firms are not made of margarine; they're made of people. But branding implicitly conveys sameness, consistency; the lawyers who work inside a firm's walls are often aware of the contradiction ' their clients and prospects are also aware of it.

There is no doubt that branding elevates over time the overall name recognition of a firm, but unless it works in tandem with building a network and providing superior service, it's a static concept that won't address the fundamental business goals of a firm: to be engaged in the most challenging matters and to stabilize and develop the revenue stream.

Point One
Branding isn't the essence of a successful legal marketing campaign; it's only an enhancement.

The use of the term branding in legal marketing circles has diluted the concept to the point that it means, generally speaking, just about anything. Traditionally, branding is merely the perception in the marketplace of a product. It is both an identifier and a differentiator of a product, and because it is an abstraction held in the minds of consumers, it is mutable ' hard to build and quick to crumble. When most people speak of branding within the legal community, they typically include all activities that build reputation and name awareness. It seems pointless to split hairs over the term's usage, but it makes a great deal of sense that, if you have a hard time defining a concept, you'll have an equally hard time using it.

When I think of brands, I think of toothpaste, soda, plastic wrap and an assortment of other consumer products. I think of people buying “stuff” ' stuff they might not need bought in a fairly unexamined manner. It's not that brands are disconnected from the products that wear them ' and it is true, some brands owe their success to high quality, consistency, etc. ' but brands also play on emotions that have little relevance to the product per se. For example, there is a Swedish manufacturer of vodka whose product owes its success to clever branding, playing on notions of hipness and the values central to a leisure culture. I've yet to meet a general counsel who hires an outside firm because of the emotions that branding creates.

To a certain extent, branding is antithetical to the way legal services are bought and sold. Branding requires an institutional approach to marketing, but legal services are not sold institutionally. The concept of branding was borrowed from traditional consumer-product marketing; perhaps we should have borrowed another concept ' distribution. What good is hard-earned brand recognition if your product can't be found on the shelves? Likewise, without partners who are adroit marketers, that fancy, five-figure, full-spread advertisement does absolutely nothing to move your bottom line.

No one has convinced me that branding can create what one might call “purchase behavior” in legal marketing. There is always an anecdotal story in which a lawyer, while speaking of his or her firm's advertising, says, “that was a good ad – it sold some business.” But what they're really saying is that a prospect got in touch with the attorney after reading an advertisement. Closing the sale is, of course, quite another thing. And even then, the firm that waits for prospects to call because it has placed ads in a legal or professional publications or because it has rewritten its mission statement won't have its doors open very long.

I would be less than honest if I didn't qualify the foregoing comments. It's not that branding is nugatory. To the contrary, all of those activities that we ascribe to branding ' vision statements, logo development, advertising, taglines, media relations, marketing collateral – play an important role in building an awareness of the firm within the marketplace. But like any good idea, branding isn't very important until it's utilized for a specific purpose. Branding alone won't improve a firm's ability to market itself ' after all, the wheel has no punch without the car.

Point Two
Branding doesn't enhance sales presentations; it only has value before and after.

To borrow again from the notion of distribution, the point at which legal services are on the shelf for purchase is the sales presentation, and just as in-store placement is key to selling consumer products, the ability to conduct a sales presentation effectively is what separates good marketers from also-rans. If you ask successful marketers, most will tell you that branding, at this very sophisticated level of buying, has little value. Successful sales meetings revolve around gaining the trust of the prospect ' trust in the ability to understand their issues, in the ability to devise solutions, and in the ability to deliver results in a timely and efficient manner. A lawyer's ability to score well on each of these points requires a great many things, but among these, an attractive logotype, color palette, and advertising campaign are not included.

If one were to place client relationships on a marketing timeline, there would be three stages: the introduction, the sales meeting and the service stage. Branding can help a lawyer during the first and third stages, but as noted above, legal services are actually sold during that all-important second stage.

During the introduction phase, branding can reinforce a positive impression made, for example, during a conference, seminar, or any type of networking event. If a firm has a good reputation or has raised its name recognition through branding, so much the better. If a lawyer can refer prospects to specialized firm Web sites or leave with them a targeted marketing piece, again, it can't help but reinforce the one-on-one networking.

Also, during the service stage, branding can reinforce the positive impression that a client has of a firm. This assumes, of course, that the work done on behalf of the client is satisfactory and that the relationship is in good stead. Successful branding will serve as a constant reminder to the client of the value of the relationship. This buyer justification can then benefit the firm by making the client more amenable to cross-selling, as well as strengthening the firm's referral network.

The caveat here is that none of this occurs without very active, responsive, and satisfactory client-relationship management. And there's the rub with branding. Sometimes, I get the sense that branding campaigns are used as a surrogate throughout the marketing timeline for real human contact and interaction, but clearly the human component is essential – branding, again, is just an enhancement.

Point Three
Branding isn't restricted to firm-wide messages; it's best applied to individual practices.

In a perfect world, a firm's marketing professionals would be able to use all the tools available in the business development arena. In the real world, resources ' both financial and human ' are limited. The dominant reality in large and medium-sized firms is that individuals and groups of individuals move at different speeds and with different results in their marketing activities. Since branding is only an enhancement, it makes perfect sense for a firm to use branding to enhance those groups that have the energy and expertise to take advantage of it.

Particularly in large law firms with dozens of practice areas, a general firm-wide branding campaign tends to allocate too few resources where they are needed and too many resources where they are wasted. What good does it do a litigator to have a brochure with one block of text on page 5 touting litigation? Likewise, what does it benefit the telecom lawyer in Singapore to have resources spent on a general advertisement campaign in the U.S. media?

Allocating resources to branding is tough and should begin with identifying those individuals and groups of individuals already successfully engaged in marketing. Sometimes, internal firm politics can make this a practical impossibility; sometimes, it's just not possible to divide resources among practice groups in a productive way. But given how fragmented and specialized the marketplace is for legal services, I wonder if firms can really afford not to craft messages in a very specialized way.

When confronted with specific issues related to marketing budgets, there are some rules of thumb that can help maximize the effectiveness of a firm's marketing program:

Individual Marketing Plans. Craft highly individual plans for those lawyers interested in being more effective marketers. Ideally the plans identify prospects by examining the lawyer's current book of business and other opportunities within the firm's network. The plans also look to target activities that put lawyers into direct contact with prospects through professional networking events.

Empower Individuals First. Always be mindful of a project's “end-usage.” If a choice has to be made between giving individual marketers better tools for one-on-one situations or developing general, firm-wide communications, choose the project that helps the “man on the ground.” The general brand-building projects, although important, should not take precedence over the stated needs of the firm's most active and productive marketers.

Start Small. For those firms engaged in full-scale marketing for the first time, or for those disenchanted with previous efforts, don't launch new attempts with grand designs. Start small by focusing on individuals or small groups who have shown some moxie and develop materials that aid their efforts. Over time, as the firm's marketing IQ improves, expand your efforts to include the whole firm.

As firms evolve in their understanding of the complexities of marketing, so must their appreciation for the nuances in conceiving and implementing branding strategies. By striking the right balance between investing marketing resources in the essence of legal marketing ' the lawyers ' and the enhancements to legal marketing, such as branding, firms will see powerful returns.

The efficacy of branding law firms has been a topic of considerable debate. At root, the discussion lays bare an interesting and fundamental question ' are law firms really something greater than the sum of their parts? On one level, any organization that isn't completely dysfunctional adds something to the individuals of which it is comprised. Getting from that simple human statement to branding, however, requires buy-in to another, related concept.

Branding requires institutional consistency ' that is, consistency of markets, of messages, of service, of aptitudes, etc. Few firms, if any, manifest that level of sameness. Law firms are not made of margarine; they're made of people. But branding implicitly conveys sameness, consistency; the lawyers who work inside a firm's walls are often aware of the contradiction ' their clients and prospects are also aware of it.

There is no doubt that branding elevates over time the overall name recognition of a firm, but unless it works in tandem with building a network and providing superior service, it's a static concept that won't address the fundamental business goals of a firm: to be engaged in the most challenging matters and to stabilize and develop the revenue stream.

Point One
Branding isn't the essence of a successful legal marketing campaign; it's only an enhancement.

The use of the term branding in legal marketing circles has diluted the concept to the point that it means, generally speaking, just about anything. Traditionally, branding is merely the perception in the marketplace of a product. It is both an identifier and a differentiator of a product, and because it is an abstraction held in the minds of consumers, it is mutable ' hard to build and quick to crumble. When most people speak of branding within the legal community, they typically include all activities that build reputation and name awareness. It seems pointless to split hairs over the term's usage, but it makes a great deal of sense that, if you have a hard time defining a concept, you'll have an equally hard time using it.

When I think of brands, I think of toothpaste, soda, plastic wrap and an assortment of other consumer products. I think of people buying “stuff” ' stuff they might not need bought in a fairly unexamined manner. It's not that brands are disconnected from the products that wear them ' and it is true, some brands owe their success to high quality, consistency, etc. ' but brands also play on emotions that have little relevance to the product per se. For example, there is a Swedish manufacturer of vodka whose product owes its success to clever branding, playing on notions of hipness and the values central to a leisure culture. I've yet to meet a general counsel who hires an outside firm because of the emotions that branding creates.

To a certain extent, branding is antithetical to the way legal services are bought and sold. Branding requires an institutional approach to marketing, but legal services are not sold institutionally. The concept of branding was borrowed from traditional consumer-product marketing; perhaps we should have borrowed another concept ' distribution. What good is hard-earned brand recognition if your product can't be found on the shelves? Likewise, without partners who are adroit marketers, that fancy, five-figure, full-spread advertisement does absolutely nothing to move your bottom line.

No one has convinced me that branding can create what one might call “purchase behavior” in legal marketing. There is always an anecdotal story in which a lawyer, while speaking of his or her firm's advertising, says, “that was a good ad – it sold some business.” But what they're really saying is that a prospect got in touch with the attorney after reading an advertisement. Closing the sale is, of course, quite another thing. And even then, the firm that waits for prospects to call because it has placed ads in a legal or professional publications or because it has rewritten its mission statement won't have its doors open very long.

I would be less than honest if I didn't qualify the foregoing comments. It's not that branding is nugatory. To the contrary, all of those activities that we ascribe to branding ' vision statements, logo development, advertising, taglines, media relations, marketing collateral – play an important role in building an awareness of the firm within the marketplace. But like any good idea, branding isn't very important until it's utilized for a specific purpose. Branding alone won't improve a firm's ability to market itself ' after all, the wheel has no punch without the car.

Point Two
Branding doesn't enhance sales presentations; it only has value before and after.

To borrow again from the notion of distribution, the point at which legal services are on the shelf for purchase is the sales presentation, and just as in-store placement is key to selling consumer products, the ability to conduct a sales presentation effectively is what separates good marketers from also-rans. If you ask successful marketers, most will tell you that branding, at this very sophisticated level of buying, has little value. Successful sales meetings revolve around gaining the trust of the prospect ' trust in the ability to understand their issues, in the ability to devise solutions, and in the ability to deliver results in a timely and efficient manner. A lawyer's ability to score well on each of these points requires a great many things, but among these, an attractive logotype, color palette, and advertising campaign are not included.

If one were to place client relationships on a marketing timeline, there would be three stages: the introduction, the sales meeting and the service stage. Branding can help a lawyer during the first and third stages, but as noted above, legal services are actually sold during that all-important second stage.

During the introduction phase, branding can reinforce a positive impression made, for example, during a conference, seminar, or any type of networking event. If a firm has a good reputation or has raised its name recognition through branding, so much the better. If a lawyer can refer prospects to specialized firm Web sites or leave with them a targeted marketing piece, again, it can't help but reinforce the one-on-one networking.

Also, during the service stage, branding can reinforce the positive impression that a client has of a firm. This assumes, of course, that the work done on behalf of the client is satisfactory and that the relationship is in good stead. Successful branding will serve as a constant reminder to the client of the value of the relationship. This buyer justification can then benefit the firm by making the client more amenable to cross-selling, as well as strengthening the firm's referral network.

The caveat here is that none of this occurs without very active, responsive, and satisfactory client-relationship management. And there's the rub with branding. Sometimes, I get the sense that branding campaigns are used as a surrogate throughout the marketing timeline for real human contact and interaction, but clearly the human component is essential – branding, again, is just an enhancement.

Point Three
Branding isn't restricted to firm-wide messages; it's best applied to individual practices.

In a perfect world, a firm's marketing professionals would be able to use all the tools available in the business development arena. In the real world, resources ' both financial and human ' are limited. The dominant reality in large and medium-sized firms is that individuals and groups of individuals move at different speeds and with different results in their marketing activities. Since branding is only an enhancement, it makes perfect sense for a firm to use branding to enhance those groups that have the energy and expertise to take advantage of it.

Particularly in large law firms with dozens of practice areas, a general firm-wide branding campaign tends to allocate too few resources where they are needed and too many resources where they are wasted. What good does it do a litigator to have a brochure with one block of text on page 5 touting litigation? Likewise, what does it benefit the telecom lawyer in Singapore to have resources spent on a general advertisement campaign in the U.S. media?

Allocating resources to branding is tough and should begin with identifying those individuals and groups of individuals already successfully engaged in marketing. Sometimes, internal firm politics can make this a practical impossibility; sometimes, it's just not possible to divide resources among practice groups in a productive way. But given how fragmented and specialized the marketplace is for legal services, I wonder if firms can really afford not to craft messages in a very specialized way.

When confronted with specific issues related to marketing budgets, there are some rules of thumb that can help maximize the effectiveness of a firm's marketing program:

Individual Marketing Plans. Craft highly individual plans for those lawyers interested in being more effective marketers. Ideally the plans identify prospects by examining the lawyer's current book of business and other opportunities within the firm's network. The plans also look to target activities that put lawyers into direct contact with prospects through professional networking events.

Empower Individuals First. Always be mindful of a project's “end-usage.” If a choice has to be made between giving individual marketers better tools for one-on-one situations or developing general, firm-wide communications, choose the project that helps the “man on the ground.” The general brand-building projects, although important, should not take precedence over the stated needs of the firm's most active and productive marketers.

Start Small. For those firms engaged in full-scale marketing for the first time, or for those disenchanted with previous efforts, don't launch new attempts with grand designs. Start small by focusing on individuals or small groups who have shown some moxie and develop materials that aid their efforts. Over time, as the firm's marketing IQ improves, expand your efforts to include the whole firm.

As firms evolve in their understanding of the complexities of marketing, so must their appreciation for the nuances in conceiving and implementing branding strategies. By striking the right balance between investing marketing resources in the essence of legal marketing ' the lawyers ' and the enhancements to legal marketing, such as branding, firms will see powerful returns.