Television Advertising for Business Law Firms

Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.

' Mark Twain

Advertising has been a consistent and critical component of Minneapolis-based Leonard, Street and Deinard's marketing plan for years. Currently a 180-attorney firm, in 1998 Leonard, Street and Deinard was one of the first business law firms in the Twin Cities to introduce a print advertising campaign, which ran primarily in local business and legal publications.

While our campaign was cutting-edge at the time, by 2003 the print advertising marketplace was cluttered. According to Greenfield/Belser, 30% of law firms said they advertised in 1991. By 2000, that number had climbed to 85%. The Minneapolis -St. Paul marketplace was no exception. We conducted an advertising audit and found that every one of the top 10 firms in the city was advertising in print media. Two of the larger firms had migrated to the business section in the daily newspaper, and one local firm had initiated a major advertising campaign at the airport.

As we looked to 2004, we knew we had to do something to break through the clutter. At the same time, we wanted to maximize the impact of our advertising communications while minimizing costs.

Breaking Through the Clutter

In the fall of 2003, we sat down with our advertising agency, Minneapolis-based The Reynolds Group, to review our historical advertising approaches and develop a strategy for 2004. We identified our target audience as business executives, including public corporate executives, owners of closely-held businesses, in-house counsel and business and community leaders. Our advertising agency translated this target audience into a demographic profile that fit within media buy parameters, using age (35 to 64 years of age) and income ($150,000 or more in household income).

We established two primary goals for our advertising campaign. The first was name awareness, which had two components. We wanted business leaders in the Twin Cities to recognize our name (ie, avoid the “Leonard who” scenario), and we wanted them to know that we are a business law firm (ie, not a plaintiff's firm, or an accounting or architecture firm). Secondly, we wanted business leaders to understand how we differed from other law firms. Our positioning statement ' “Uncommon Wisdom-Common Sense” ' was key to our differentiation goal. It tells business professionals we are smart lawyers (“uncommon wisdom”) who offer practical business advice (“common sense”). We tested the validity of our positioning statement with our Client Advisory Council during our biannual meeting in January. They embraced our positioning, saying it concisely communicates their experience in working with us.

In addition to the overall program goals, we also established specific objectives for our 2004 advertising program. We told our advertising agency we wanted to maximize our reach/impact without significantly increasing our advertising budget. We wanted to break through the clutter in the legal advertising marketplace. Finally, we wanted to be leaders, not followers. We didn't want to venture into advertising media where other law firms had been first (eg, kiosks at the airport). Our theory was that no one remembers the name of the second person that flew solo across the Atlantic.

An Ambitious Approach

Our advertising agency returned with an ambitious plan. They recommended that we no longer advertise in business and legal publications, instead concentrating our media buy in two new areas: a print media buy in the local business daily newspaper, and a television ad campaign. To say we were taken aback by the second recommendation is an understatement. We questioned and expressed our concerns. Our agency explained that the print/TV media buy they recommended would increase our target audience by 500% ' from 900,000 to nearly 5 million ' without increasing our media budget. In addition, they felt strongly that we would significantly expand the impact of our media buy by being the first business law firm in our market to advertise on TV. They also recommended buying time from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. on the cable news networks, and during the morning and evening news programs on the local television station whose demographics most closely aligned with our goals.

We cautiously expressed interest in the campaign, but first asked to see concepts for the TV ads. We were very pleased with the creative, which presented animated versions of our print advertisements in 15-second spots. Each ad leverages famous historical figures to offer a contrast between uncommon wisdom and common sense. The first ad features footage of the Wright Brothers famous first flight, with a voiceover that states “Uncommon Wisdom,” and then cuts to an image of a person in a parachute and the words “Common Sense.” The second advertisement contrasts Einstein with a comb. (The final ads can be viewed at www.leonard.com).

Achieving Attorney Buy-In

We established a small group of key influencers to work directly with the advertising agency on the strategy. The group included our managing partner, marketing partner, chief operating officer, practice development coordinator and myself. Once we had agreed on the campaign, we presented our proposal to the firm's Business Development Committee, a core group of 10 attorneys who meet once a month to provide feedback on marketing initiatives. While they debated the pros and cons of the approach, ultimately they agreed it was the right strategy and supported the campaign. While the Business Development Committee has responsibility for approving marketing strategy and budget, attorney buy-in still remains a key element in the success of any marketing program. Our challenge was how to present our message to the attorneys ' without asking for permission.

We found the right opportunity at the Annual Meeting, a once-a-year session that all attorneys attend to hear about the state of the firm.

Our Marketing Partner and I presented a brief PowerPoint presentation outlining the objectives for the advertising program, providing an overview of historical efforts, offering samples of ads from other firms, and presenting our strategy for 2004. While the announcement of a TV campaign for a business law firm drew a few gasps from the audience, no one raised a question. After the meeting we conducted our own “straw poll” of a few attorneys, trying to focus our attention on those most likely to be skeptical. Universally they all understood what we were trying to accomplish. As one attorney commented: “While I'm not sure how I feel about television advertising, this is the first time anyone's ever taken the time to explain why we advertise. And I get it.” We considered the lack of a full-fledged revolt a major accomplishment.

Extending Our Reach

The campaign launched on March 1. While advertising was the primary focus of our work, our launch plan included strategies to extend the reach of our campaign through non-advertising tactics. For example, we determined that public relations would be a valuable tool to communicate the new campaign to our target audience. We worked with our PR consultant to craft key messages and focused our efforts on the two local business dailies and the local business weekly. The outcome of this focused approach exceeded our expectations. One week after the campaign launched, the marketing reporter at the Star Tribune, our local daily newspaper, wrote a feature article that appeared in the Monday business section, the most widely read paper of the week. The article, which featured still images from the TV ads and a prominent screen capture of our logo, was read by many clients and prospects who called attorneys to say they had seen it. In addition, the article was picked up by Law.com's daily newswire as well as in Hildebrandt Headlines, a weekly e-newsletter. We learned of this national publicity when one attorney returned from a trip to California to say the lawyers on the other side commented on our ads!

In addition to the public relations efforts, we also developed an internal communications campaign to encourage attorneys to personally notify their clients of the campaign via e-mail. We drafted a sample e-mail and sent it out to all attorneys. We realized, however, that many attorneys may be quick to hit “delete” when viewing an all attorney e-mail, so we took our show on the road. I attended lunch meetings of every department and practice group, spending 15 minutes previewing the ads, reviewing the strategy and encouraging attorneys to send e-mails to their clients. Our efforts worked. Numerous attorneys sent e-mails to clients about the campaign, and forwarded responses to me for tracking. To date, we've received comments via e-mail or phone from at least 50 clients (that we can document). We suspect attorneys have received personal feedback from many other clients and attorneys that has gone unreported. Universally, the feedback has been very positive. Comments included: “Great advertising campaign!”, “I thought the ads were really sharp and I got a chuckle.”, “Eye-catching, yet classy.”, and “I really think it is a strong and creative message. Excellent job!”

Analyzing Results

We established several measures for evaluating results, including both quantitative and qualitative measures. In terms of quantitative evaluations, we hired a market research firm to evaluate pre- and post-campaign name awareness; this survey is underway. We have also compiled the written and verbal responses we've received from the campaign. Qualitatively, we are assessing the feedback of the attorneys, ad hoc feedback we receive verbally about the campaign, and general “buzz” in the marketplace.

While the final results are not yet in, the campaign has far exceeded our expectations. We believe it has achieved our goals of increasing our name awareness and maximizing impact while minimizing costs. More importantly, many of our attorneys support the campaign and are sharing it with clients. We started the campaign as an initial effort to dip our silk stocking into the television advertising waters. Next year, we may be ready to wade in.

Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.

' Mark Twain

Advertising has been a consistent and critical component of Minneapolis-based Leonard, Street and Deinard's marketing plan for years. Currently a 180-attorney firm, in 1998 Leonard, Street and Deinard was one of the first business law firms in the Twin Cities to introduce a print advertising campaign, which ran primarily in local business and legal publications.

While our campaign was cutting-edge at the time, by 2003 the print advertising marketplace was cluttered. According to Greenfield/Belser, 30% of law firms said they advertised in 1991. By 2000, that number had climbed to 85%. The Minneapolis -St. Paul marketplace was no exception. We conducted an advertising audit and found that every one of the top 10 firms in the city was advertising in print media. Two of the larger firms had migrated to the business section in the daily newspaper, and one local firm had initiated a major advertising campaign at the airport.

As we looked to 2004, we knew we had to do something to break through the clutter. At the same time, we wanted to maximize the impact of our advertising communications while minimizing costs.

Breaking Through the Clutter

In the fall of 2003, we sat down with our advertising agency, Minneapolis-based The Reynolds Group, to review our historical advertising approaches and develop a strategy for 2004. We identified our target audience as business executives, including public corporate executives, owners of closely-held businesses, in-house counsel and business and community leaders. Our advertising agency translated this target audience into a demographic profile that fit within media buy parameters, using age (35 to 64 years of age) and income ($150,000 or more in household income).

We established two primary goals for our advertising campaign. The first was name awareness, which had two components. We wanted business leaders in the Twin Cities to recognize our name (ie, avoid the “Leonard who” scenario), and we wanted them to know that we are a business law firm (ie, not a plaintiff's firm, or an accounting or architecture firm). Secondly, we wanted business leaders to understand how we differed from other law firms. Our positioning statement ' “Uncommon Wisdom-Common Sense” ' was key to our differentiation goal. It tells business professionals we are smart lawyers (“uncommon wisdom”) who offer practical business advice (“common sense”). We tested the validity of our positioning statement with our Client Advisory Council during our biannual meeting in January. They embraced our positioning, saying it concisely communicates their experience in working with us.

In addition to the overall program goals, we also established specific objectives for our 2004 advertising program. We told our advertising agency we wanted to maximize our reach/impact without significantly increasing our advertising budget. We wanted to break through the clutter in the legal advertising marketplace. Finally, we wanted to be leaders, not followers. We didn't want to venture into advertising media where other law firms had been first (eg, kiosks at the airport). Our theory was that no one remembers the name of the second person that flew solo across the Atlantic.

An Ambitious Approach

Our advertising agency returned with an ambitious plan. They recommended that we no longer advertise in business and legal publications, instead concentrating our media buy in two new areas: a print media buy in the local business daily newspaper, and a television ad campaign. To say we were taken aback by the second recommendation is an understatement. We questioned and expressed our concerns. Our agency explained that the print/TV media buy they recommended would increase our target audience by 500% ' from 900,000 to nearly 5 million ' without increasing our media budget. In addition, they felt strongly that we would significantly expand the impact of our media buy by being the first business law firm in our market to advertise on TV. They also recommended buying time from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. on the cable news networks, and during the morning and evening news programs on the local television station whose demographics most closely aligned with our goals.

We cautiously expressed interest in the campaign, but first asked to see concepts for the TV ads. We were very pleased with the creative, which presented animated versions of our print advertisements in 15-second spots. Each ad leverages famous historical figures to offer a contrast between uncommon wisdom and common sense. The first ad features footage of the Wright Brothers famous first flight, with a voiceover that states “Uncommon Wisdom,” and then cuts to an image of a person in a parachute and the words “Common Sense.” The second advertisement contrasts Einstein with a comb. (The final ads can be viewed at www.leonard.com).

Achieving Attorney Buy-In

We established a small group of key influencers to work directly with the advertising agency on the strategy. The group included our managing partner, marketing partner, chief operating officer, practice development coordinator and myself. Once we had agreed on the campaign, we presented our proposal to the firm's Business Development Committee, a core group of 10 attorneys who meet once a month to provide feedback on marketing initiatives. While they debated the pros and cons of the approach, ultimately they agreed it was the right strategy and supported the campaign. While the Business Development Committee has responsibility for approving marketing strategy and budget, attorney buy-in still remains a key element in the success of any marketing program. Our challenge was how to present our message to the attorneys ' without asking for permission.

We found the right opportunity at the Annual Meeting, a once-a-year session that all attorneys attend to hear about the state of the firm.

Our Marketing Partner and I presented a brief PowerPoint presentation outlining the objectives for the advertising program, providing an overview of historical efforts, offering samples of ads from other firms, and presenting our strategy for 2004. While the announcement of a TV campaign for a business law firm drew a few gasps from the audience, no one raised a question. After the meeting we conducted our own “straw poll” of a few attorneys, trying to focus our attention on those most likely to be skeptical. Universally they all understood what we were trying to accomplish. As one attorney commented: “While I'm not sure how I feel about television advertising, this is the first time anyone's ever taken the time to explain why we advertise. And I get it.” We considered the lack of a full-fledged revolt a major accomplishment.

Extending Our Reach

The campaign launched on March 1. While advertising was the primary focus of our work, our launch plan included strategies to extend the reach of our campaign through non-advertising tactics. For example, we determined that public relations would be a valuable tool to communicate the new campaign to our target audience. We worked with our PR consultant to craft key messages and focused our efforts on the two local business dailies and the local business weekly. The outcome of this focused approach exceeded our expectations. One week after the campaign launched, the marketing reporter at the Star Tribune, our local daily newspaper, wrote a feature article that appeared in the Monday business section, the most widely read paper of the week. The article, which featured still images from the TV ads and a prominent screen capture of our logo, was read by many clients and prospects who called attorneys to say they had seen it. In addition, the article was picked up by Law.com's daily newswire as well as in Hildebrandt Headlines, a weekly e-newsletter. We learned of this national publicity when one attorney returned from a trip to California to say the lawyers on the other side commented on our ads!

In addition to the public relations efforts, we also developed an internal communications campaign to encourage attorneys to personally notify their clients of the campaign via e-mail. We drafted a sample e-mail and sent it out to all attorneys. We realized, however, that many attorneys may be quick to hit “delete” when viewing an all attorney e-mail, so we took our show on the road. I attended lunch meetings of every department and practice group, spending 15 minutes previewing the ads, reviewing the strategy and encouraging attorneys to send e-mails to their clients. Our efforts worked. Numerous attorneys sent e-mails to clients about the campaign, and forwarded responses to me for tracking. To date, we've received comments via e-mail or phone from at least 50 clients (that we can document). We suspect attorneys have received personal feedback from many other clients and attorneys that has gone unreported. Universally, the feedback has been very positive. Comments included: “Great advertising campaign!”, “I thought the ads were really sharp and I got a chuckle.”, “Eye-catching, yet classy.”, and “I really think it is a strong and creative message. Excellent job!”

Analyzing Results

We established several measures for evaluating results, including both quantitative and qualitative measures. In terms of quantitative evaluations, we hired a market research firm to evaluate pre- and post-campaign name awareness; this survey is underway. We have also compiled the written and verbal responses we've received from the campaign. Qualitatively, we are assessing the feedback of the attorneys, ad hoc feedback we receive verbally about the campaign, and general “buzz” in the marketplace.

While the final results are not yet in, the campaign has far exceeded our expectations. We believe it has achieved our goals of increasing our name awareness and maximizing impact while minimizing costs. More importantly, many of our attorneys support the campaign and are sharing it with clients. We started the campaign as an initial effort to dip our silk stocking into the television advertising waters. Next year, we may be ready to wade in.