The Branding Bandwagon is Losing Its Wheels

A recent article in a legal publication stated, “there's a growing realization that money spent on branding campaigns hasn't paid off,” referring in particular to the branding efforts of some large law firms. If this is true, what should your firm do about it? Should your firm jump on or off the “branding bandwagon”? How did branding become so prevalent?

First of all, let's understand the context of the situation. In the late 1990s, several of the larger law firms in the U.S. embarked upon “branding” campaigns. One of those, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, spent a total of $6.2 million on a television advertising campaign that was criticized for failing to make a discernible impact on profitability. Brobeck is, of course, now defunct. Other national firms had followed the advice of their marketing directors and outside consultants, implementing extensive (and very expensive!) branding campaigns, and subsequently found that the devotion of financial and human resources was over-weighted. Many of these firms have now begun to allocate more money to marketing programs that generate near-term work, going away from extensive image-building activities.

Why Firms Jumped ON the Bandwagon

So, why then have so many firms jumped on the “branding bandwagon” over the last 5 years? There are several answers to this question, including:

1. Branding can actually be a very useful marketing tool. Branding can be beneficial for many firms when done at the appropriate time, in the appropriate manner, with the appropriate allocations of resources, and the appropriate strategy and expectations. But branding is NOT “the” answer for ALL firms in ALL situations, as has been the push by many in the legal marketing community.

2. Branding has a certain appeal to attorneys. With extensive branding, your firm's name is in the limelight, the firm feels good about itself, and branding seems more tangible than some other forms of marketing.

3. Marketing personnel who choose it don't necessarily have good strategy behind the decision. Many internal personnel (directors, coordinators and assistants) are not professional marketing managers. They lack a formal education in marketing, causing them to make multiple strategic mistakes. Legal marketing is still far behind other industries in marketing sophistication and professional marketing management.

4. Blame the consultant! Many marketing consultants who serve national law firms have pushed branding heavily. For some consultants, this is an incredible get-rich-quick scheme. Even small-to-midsize law firms can easily spend tens of thousands of dollars on this marketing tool.

5. Associations have pushed branding. Legal marketing groups, often lead by some of these same consultants, have also been huge proponents of marketing.

6. Personnel backgrounds. Many internal marketing personnel have an advertising background. People tend to do what they know, so these personnel have embraced branding, especially its advertising aspects.

7. Ad and PR agencies love it. Outside agencies can make substantial revenues off of law firms from advertising and public relations. Since branding can utilize extensive advertising and PR, these agencies are more than happy to comply.

8. Legal media has pushed branding. National legal publications, many of which of course require advertising to stay alive, have heavily supported the “branding bandwagon” in articles and sponsorship of speeches and seminars.

9. The economy allowed lavish spending. With a bustling economy, justification of marketing efforts was not as stringent.

10. Poor business management. Law firm management, due to a lack of professional business management education, often looks for the latest/greatest idea in marketing. Branding has definitely been promoted as such.

11. Branding has become a fad. Many law firms are very much “market-followers”, meaning they tend to copy with a prominent firm is doing. This is easier and does not require sophisticated business strategy. With all the above forces pushing branding, it has seemed like the natural thing to do. Law firms have been persuaded that “everyone else is branding, why aren't you?”

Why are Firms Jumping OFF the Bandwagon?

1. Time has been the cure. Sometimes it takes a while before law firm management is able to read behind the hype of fad marketing programs.

2. Unfulfilled expectations. Branding has been hyped so much within the legal community that lawyers have finally sat back and said “We spent a fortune on this ' what has it actually done for us?”

3. Poor economy. With significant profitability hits over the last two years, many law firms have been forced to scale back on expenses that are subjective and have lacked results.

4. Focus has shifted to income generation. Branding can be an important element in building awareness and differentiation. The problem has been that it has been over-funded by many firms in comparison to other activities that are not so image-oriented. Some law firms are now shifting resources to marketing activities that generate near-term revenue.

5. Brobeck. Whether the attacks on Brobeck's branding campaign are warranted or not, the failure of the firm has brought great awareness to wasteful marketing expenditures.

6. Fad marketers are switching to a new fad. Consultants who market “fad products” are very cognizant of changes in the perceived value of their products. Watch as these consultants start to push away from branding and on to the next fad. In fact, don't be surprised if they start to promote products that are “near-term income generators”, since they understand that this is the new focus of some firms.

7. Lawyers are seeing the value of a comprehensive marketing strategy. The branding fad has seen a myopic focus on just a few marketing tools. A good consultant focuses on the targeted market and considers all marketing tools available before choosing a course of action. Lawyers appreciate this sound business approach, especially in a difficult economy.

8. The “market-follower” approach has received heavy criticism for its failures. Instead, lawyers are beginning to realize that a well-conceived marketing strategy is crucial.

As mentioned, branding is definitely a useful marketing tool. In fact, we have used this tool for our clients since the founding of our firm in 1991, far before it was “discovered” as a fad by some legal industry marketers.

However, branding is just not a tool that should be highly invested-in by all firms in all situations at all times; that is the problem of the recent “branding bandwagon” fad. An extensive level of branding, when compared with other marketing options, is definitely inappropriate for some firms. Many marketing professionals are pointing out the fallacy of the branding fad marketing scheme, and you should expect to see more articles of this sort from other legal industry publications in the near future.

A recent article in a legal publication stated, “there's a growing realization that money spent on branding campaigns hasn't paid off,” referring in particular to the branding efforts of some large law firms. If this is true, what should your firm do about it? Should your firm jump on or off the “branding bandwagon”? How did branding become so prevalent?

First of all, let's understand the context of the situation. In the late 1990s, several of the larger law firms in the U.S. embarked upon “branding” campaigns. One of those, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, spent a total of $6.2 million on a television advertising campaign that was criticized for failing to make a discernible impact on profitability. Brobeck is, of course, now defunct. Other national firms had followed the advice of their marketing directors and outside consultants, implementing extensive (and very expensive!) branding campaigns, and subsequently found that the devotion of financial and human resources was over-weighted. Many of these firms have now begun to allocate more money to marketing programs that generate near-term work, going away from extensive image-building activities.

Why Firms Jumped ON the Bandwagon

So, why then have so many firms jumped on the “branding bandwagon” over the last 5 years? There are several answers to this question, including:

1. Branding can actually be a very useful marketing tool. Branding can be beneficial for many firms when done at the appropriate time, in the appropriate manner, with the appropriate allocations of resources, and the appropriate strategy and expectations. But branding is NOT “the” answer for ALL firms in ALL situations, as has been the push by many in the legal marketing community.

2. Branding has a certain appeal to attorneys. With extensive branding, your firm's name is in the limelight, the firm feels good about itself, and branding seems more tangible than some other forms of marketing.

3. Marketing personnel who choose it don't necessarily have good strategy behind the decision. Many internal personnel (directors, coordinators and assistants) are not professional marketing managers. They lack a formal education in marketing, causing them to make multiple strategic mistakes. Legal marketing is still far behind other industries in marketing sophistication and professional marketing management.

4. Blame the consultant! Many marketing consultants who serve national law firms have pushed branding heavily. For some consultants, this is an incredible get-rich-quick scheme. Even small-to-midsize law firms can easily spend tens of thousands of dollars on this marketing tool.

5. Associations have pushed branding. Legal marketing groups, often lead by some of these same consultants, have also been huge proponents of marketing.

6. Personnel backgrounds. Many internal marketing personnel have an advertising background. People tend to do what they know, so these personnel have embraced branding, especially its advertising aspects.

7. Ad and PR agencies love it. Outside agencies can make substantial revenues off of law firms from advertising and public relations. Since branding can utilize extensive advertising and PR, these agencies are more than happy to comply.

8. Legal media has pushed branding. National legal publications, many of which of course require advertising to stay alive, have heavily supported the “branding bandwagon” in articles and sponsorship of speeches and seminars.

9. The economy allowed lavish spending. With a bustling economy, justification of marketing efforts was not as stringent.

10. Poor business management. Law firm management, due to a lack of professional business management education, often looks for the latest/greatest idea in marketing. Branding has definitely been promoted as such.

11. Branding has become a fad. Many law firms are very much “market-followers”, meaning they tend to copy with a prominent firm is doing. This is easier and does not require sophisticated business strategy. With all the above forces pushing branding, it has seemed like the natural thing to do. Law firms have been persuaded that “everyone else is branding, why aren't you?”

Why are Firms Jumping OFF the Bandwagon?

1. Time has been the cure. Sometimes it takes a while before law firm management is able to read behind the hype of fad marketing programs.

2. Unfulfilled expectations. Branding has been hyped so much within the legal community that lawyers have finally sat back and said “We spent a fortune on this ' what has it actually done for us?”

3. Poor economy. With significant profitability hits over the last two years, many law firms have been forced to scale back on expenses that are subjective and have lacked results.

4. Focus has shifted to income generation. Branding can be an important element in building awareness and differentiation. The problem has been that it has been over-funded by many firms in comparison to other activities that are not so image-oriented. Some law firms are now shifting resources to marketing activities that generate near-term revenue.

5. Brobeck. Whether the attacks on Brobeck's branding campaign are warranted or not, the failure of the firm has brought great awareness to wasteful marketing expenditures.

6. Fad marketers are switching to a new fad. Consultants who market “fad products” are very cognizant of changes in the perceived value of their products. Watch as these consultants start to push away from branding and on to the next fad. In fact, don't be surprised if they start to promote products that are “near-term income generators”, since they understand that this is the new focus of some firms.

7. Lawyers are seeing the value of a comprehensive marketing strategy. The branding fad has seen a myopic focus on just a few marketing tools. A good consultant focuses on the targeted market and considers all marketing tools available before choosing a course of action. Lawyers appreciate this sound business approach, especially in a difficult economy.

8. The “market-follower” approach has received heavy criticism for its failures. Instead, lawyers are beginning to realize that a well-conceived marketing strategy is crucial.

As mentioned, branding is definitely a useful marketing tool. In fact, we have used this tool for our clients since the founding of our firm in 1991, far before it was “discovered” as a fad by some legal industry marketers.

However, branding is just not a tool that should be highly invested-in by all firms in all situations at all times; that is the problem of the recent “branding bandwagon” fad. An extensive level of branding, when compared with other marketing options, is definitely inappropriate for some firms. Many marketing professionals are pointing out the fallacy of the branding fad marketing scheme, and you should expect to see more articles of this sort from other legal industry publications in the near future.