PR's Return On Investment

Last year's first Annual Law Firm Media Performance Report broke new ground with data that examined, on a market-by-market basis, the relative aggressiveness with which U.S. and global firms utilize media coverage as a component of their marketing strategies.

In the 2004 report nearing completion, we:

• Revisit law firm media activity by assessing 2003 media volume for firms in select markets in order to revisit old trends and discover new ones;
• Analyze media data to determine best practices in crisis situations, focusing on the example of Vinson & Elkins in its Enron involvement; and
• Look at the impact of media in a particularly challenging marketing task, namely, the promotion of a New York practice by firms based elsewhere.

The greater depth of focus for this year's study obviously required an analytic approach beyond simply computing media appearances. For such expertise, we relied on our partnership with CARMA International, the worldwide leader in media research.

Major Market Media

The media-dominant law firms in 2002 remained so through 2003. Among them, Jones Day best typifies the strategy of exploiting global size with aggressive media campaigns focused on multiple offices. While some megafirms claim to value their far-flung offices as equal members of the total organization, Jones Day demonstrates such commitment with media initiatives to promote Pittsburgh and Columbus, Ohio as well as Cleveland, New York, and London.

The 2004 Law Firm Media Performance Report computes comparative media volumes for firms in the following markets: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco/Palo Alto, Washington DC, Atlanta, Houston/Dallas, and Boston.

In New York, for example, a significantly bifurcated trend apparent last year was equally pronounced this year. Most local firms posted stubbornly low media placement totals. By contrast, the dominant firms ' Skadden Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Weil, Gotshal & Manges; and Proskauer Rose ' are the ones known for very strong specialty practices: M&A, bankruptcy, and high-end employment/labor, respectively.

While these firms are powerfully diversified, those core specialties remain powerful media calling cards. Combining girth with perceived specialization is a demonstrable recipe for media dominance.

Importantly, the data shows how smaller firms can keep pace by also differentiating themselves via niche specializations. In Washington, DC, for example, Wiley, Rein & Fielding tallied conspicuously high media totals because the firm is a go-to source in one area, telecommunications, and one area only.

The 2004 research also underscores regional market trends and provides data on how law firms are using (and failing to use) media to target specific client industries.

Firm in Crisis

When we speak of “ROI” as an index of media activity, we are not merely talking about publicity geared toward supporting business development. We are also talking about an investment that, if it includes shrewd media management and the accumulation of good relationships with the press, can pay off in spades when a firm gets into trouble.

No law firm is more associated with Enron than Vinson & Elkins. No law firm has been more associated with wrongdoing in that matter. The firm was also implicated in another energy industry deal gone bad, a convoluted affair involving Dynegy Inc. called “Project Alpha.”

The following media analysis, which is based entirely on publicly available information, is intended to underscore the best practices of media relations and to analyze patterns and effects. We take no position whatsoever on the substantive aspects of any related litigation, dispute, or controversy.

CARMA analysis focused on 89 V&E/Enron articles, applying a favorability scale from zero to 100, with zero the most unfavorable coverage and 100 the most favorable. The average score for Vinson & Elkins was a moderately unfavorable 43 rating, quite an accomplishment under the circumstances. (See chart, below).

[IMGCAP(1)]

The highest volume of stories appeared in November and December 2003, driven by coverage of Neal Batson's final report, which examined the role played by Enron's lawyers in Enron's fall. Batson, the court-appointed Enron examiner, was responsible for directly communicating many of the most damaging negative messages. In particular, he stated that V&E knew or should have known of Enron's allegedly ongoing fraudulent conduct.

The Houston Chronicle published the largest volume of stories (11 stories, 47 rating) and tied with Legal Times as the least unfavorable outlet, due in large part to the firm's spokespeople appearing in over half of the Chronicle articles. By contrast, articles in the New York Law Journal – the most hostile outlet with a solidly unfavorable rating of 38 – did not include any V&E spokespeople. As the accompanying chart shows, V&E's leading spokesperson Harry Reasoner was particularly effective at improving the favorability rating of the articles in which he was quoted.

The lessons in this research are very simple and utterly crucial.

First, when Vinson & Elkins chose to go on the record, things got better. To be sure, there were no puff pieces or dramatic public exonerations, but degrees of negativity are always important, especially when there is litigation pending.

Second, choose your spokesperson well. Harry Reasoner was perfect for the job, combining down-home charm with accessibility and powerful professional bona fides.

Not all law firms have a Harry Reasoner on hand. It is important, though, to realize that most intelligent managers can be trained to deliver their messages effectively and credibly, and to wrest significant concessions from the press.

Most important, Reasoner brought years of good media relationships to bear in ameliorating the Enron crisis. These relationships do not require unusual personal magnetism but they do require a track record for accessibility, honesty, and consideration. They provide a fund of good will to draw on and are therefore worth developing years before a crisis develops.

Vinson & Elkins enjoyed a measurable “return-on-investment” as a result of just such a longstanding commitment.

Marketing the New York Office

What does it take to be a part of this formidable local landscape? Intuitive wisdom suggests that media is a potent weapon if only because a strong media initiative should underscore the bench strength of a New York office ' offering, if nothing else, a reminder that a national firm's presence in Manhattan is actually larger than many better-known indigenous operations.

Just as important, the expertise of individual practitioners should be a decisive selling point. After all, if clients in New York need counsel in nanotechnology, or an experienced sick building litigator, it's the expertise, not the location of the home office, that should prove decisive.

As much as any city, San Francisco is home to major law firms with strong offices in New York.

We looked at three: Morrison & Foerster; Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe; and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. CARMA International researched 141 articles mentioning the New York offices for the period Jan. 1, 2002 through Aug. 25, 2004.

Morrison & Foerster was mentioned most often with 47% of the coverage in the research sample, despite the fact that it is 130 lawyers in New York compared to Orrick's 200. Orrick garnered the next highest volume of coverage with 57 stories. Heller, with 80 lawyers, had 29 stories.

Nearly half the Morrison coverage included commentary by New York lawyers on issues of law or pending cases and thereby conveyed knowledge and expertise. But Orrick received the greatest volume of discussion of the New York office itself, including history, practice areas, and strategy. A particularly positive article in both Legal Times and the New York Law Journal on May 28, 2002 singled out Orrick as the atypical San Francisco firm that has “long had a major New York footprint.”

Orrick also benefited from an article in The Bond Buyer on August 12, 2004 discussing the New York office's 20th anniversary. The story cited a letter from Governor George Pataki characterizing the firm's tenure in New York as a “testament to the quality of service and the abilities of your fine team of legal professionals.” Orrick's ranking as “number one among bond counsel nationwide” was stressed and Baxter was quoted as saying that “[by] making it in New York, we have proven that Orrick can make it anywhere.”

Heller's most favorable and substantive coverage was an article entitled “Making It in the Big Apple” that ran in The Recorder on Aug. 8, 2004. The story provides history on how Heller established its New York office and notes that the litigation practice is its strongest in New York, accounting for two-thirds of the local office business.

The coverage includes mention of prominent clients but the article notes that Heller has not yet developed “name recognition” to match the longer-established New York firms and for that reason has a hard time competing for top talent.

The most in-depth discussion of Morrison's New York office was a story in the New York Law Journal that ran on Oct. 9, 2003. It was entitled “MoFo Repositions Its New York Office” and discussed how, with partner defections and the dot-com bust, the firm has had to change its focus in New York to more traditional areas

Relative to their size, all three firms have done credible jobs in the media on behalf of their New York offices. For Morrison & Foerster, that has meant a spurt in press interview opportunities. In this situation, the imprimatur in such opportunities is particularly important. After all, the journalists could have called any one of a number of top New York firms, but they chose instead to call a firm that happens to be based in San Francisco.

It's particularly impressive that there were articles about all three offices as business and professional entities. Generally speaking, the media is not interested in talking about law firm strategies per se. Even the legal trade press has literally thousands of firms to choose from when it decides it wants to profile a firm. Why should they choose yours?

The answer in this instance is that the very problem confronting these firms is itself an unusually newsworthy legal press angle. How major U.S. law firms grapple with the adversity of the New York market is, simply, worth writing about.

For Morrison and Heller, the results were mixed. They were able to focus press attention on their New York offices but that meant acknowledging strategic retrenchment in Morrison's case and recruitment adversity in Heller's. Yet, to garner such focused press features, the negatives are usually risks worth running. In the great fray that is New York, ambivalent ink is better than no ink at all.

The media focus on these three firms in New York suggests a final lesson. Once you win such coverage, leverage it. Develop interest in the firm at other publications with diverse readerships. Post it on the website. Send it to clients. Even the best features in the world are only one-shot deals. To build institutional reputation anywhere, and certainly in New York, the effort has to be protracted.

Last year's first Annual Law Firm Media Performance Report broke new ground with data that examined, on a market-by-market basis, the relative aggressiveness with which U.S. and global firms utilize media coverage as a component of their marketing strategies.

In the 2004 report nearing completion, we:

• Revisit law firm media activity by assessing 2003 media volume for firms in select markets in order to revisit old trends and discover new ones;
• Analyze media data to determine best practices in crisis situations, focusing on the example of Vinson & Elkins in its Enron involvement; and
• Look at the impact of media in a particularly challenging marketing task, namely, the promotion of a New York practice by firms based elsewhere.

The greater depth of focus for this year's study obviously required an analytic approach beyond simply computing media appearances. For such expertise, we relied on our partnership with CARMA International, the worldwide leader in media research.

Major Market Media

The media-dominant law firms in 2002 remained so through 2003. Among them, Jones Day best typifies the strategy of exploiting global size with aggressive media campaigns focused on multiple offices. While some megafirms claim to value their far-flung offices as equal members of the total organization, Jones Day demonstrates such commitment with media initiatives to promote Pittsburgh and Columbus, Ohio as well as Cleveland, New York, and London.

The 2004 Law Firm Media Performance Report computes comparative media volumes for firms in the following markets: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco/Palo Alto, Washington DC, Atlanta, Houston/Dallas, and Boston.

In New York, for example, a significantly bifurcated trend apparent last year was equally pronounced this year. Most local firms posted stubbornly low media placement totals. By contrast, the dominant firms ' Skadden Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Weil, Gotshal & Manges; and Proskauer Rose ' are the ones known for very strong specialty practices: M&A, bankruptcy, and high-end employment/labor, respectively.

While these firms are powerfully diversified, those core specialties remain powerful media calling cards. Combining girth with perceived specialization is a demonstrable recipe for media dominance.

Importantly, the data shows how smaller firms can keep pace by also differentiating themselves via niche specializations. In Washington, DC, for example, Wiley, Rein & Fielding tallied conspicuously high media totals because the firm is a go-to source in one area, telecommunications, and one area only.

The 2004 research also underscores regional market trends and provides data on how law firms are using (and failing to use) media to target specific client industries.

Firm in Crisis

When we speak of “ROI” as an index of media activity, we are not merely talking about publicity geared toward supporting business development. We are also talking about an investment that, if it includes shrewd media management and the accumulation of good relationships with the press, can pay off in spades when a firm gets into trouble.

No law firm is more associated with Enron than Vinson & Elkins. No law firm has been more associated with wrongdoing in that matter. The firm was also implicated in another energy industry deal gone bad, a convoluted affair involving Dynegy Inc. called “Project Alpha.”

The following media analysis, which is based entirely on publicly available information, is intended to underscore the best practices of media relations and to analyze patterns and effects. We take no position whatsoever on the substantive aspects of any related litigation, dispute, or controversy.

CARMA analysis focused on 89 V&E/Enron articles, applying a favorability scale from zero to 100, with zero the most unfavorable coverage and 100 the most favorable. The average score for Vinson & Elkins was a moderately unfavorable 43 rating, quite an accomplishment under the circumstances. (See chart, below).

[IMGCAP(1)]

The highest volume of stories appeared in November and December 2003, driven by coverage of Neal Batson's final report, which examined the role played by Enron's lawyers in Enron's fall. Batson, the court-appointed Enron examiner, was responsible for directly communicating many of the most damaging negative messages. In particular, he stated that V&E knew or should have known of Enron's allegedly ongoing fraudulent conduct.

The Houston Chronicle published the largest volume of stories (11 stories, 47 rating) and tied with Legal Times as the least unfavorable outlet, due in large part to the firm's spokespeople appearing in over half of the Chronicle articles. By contrast, articles in the New York Law Journal – the most hostile outlet with a solidly unfavorable rating of 38 – did not include any V&E spokespeople. As the accompanying chart shows, V&E's leading spokesperson Harry Reasoner was particularly effective at improving the favorability rating of the articles in which he was quoted.

The lessons in this research are very simple and utterly crucial.

First, when Vinson & Elkins chose to go on the record, things got better. To be sure, there were no puff pieces or dramatic public exonerations, but degrees of negativity are always important, especially when there is litigation pending.

Second, choose your spokesperson well. Harry Reasoner was perfect for the job, combining down-home charm with accessibility and powerful professional bona fides.

Not all law firms have a Harry Reasoner on hand. It is important, though, to realize that most intelligent managers can be trained to deliver their messages effectively and credibly, and to wrest significant concessions from the press.

Most important, Reasoner brought years of good media relationships to bear in ameliorating the Enron crisis. These relationships do not require unusual personal magnetism but they do require a track record for accessibility, honesty, and consideration. They provide a fund of good will to draw on and are therefore worth developing years before a crisis develops.

Vinson & Elkins enjoyed a measurable “return-on-investment” as a result of just such a longstanding commitment.

Marketing the New York Office

What does it take to be a part of this formidable local landscape? Intuitive wisdom suggests that media is a potent weapon if only because a strong media initiative should underscore the bench strength of a New York office ' offering, if nothing else, a reminder that a national firm's presence in Manhattan is actually larger than many better-known indigenous operations.

Just as important, the expertise of individual practitioners should be a decisive selling point. After all, if clients in New York need counsel in nanotechnology, or an experienced sick building litigator, it's the expertise, not the location of the home office, that should prove decisive.

As much as any city, San Francisco is home to major law firms with strong offices in New York.

We looked at three: Morrison & Foerster; Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe; and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. CARMA International researched 141 articles mentioning the New York offices for the period Jan. 1, 2002 through Aug. 25, 2004.

Morrison & Foerster was mentioned most often with 47% of the coverage in the research sample, despite the fact that it is 130 lawyers in New York compared to Orrick's 200. Orrick garnered the next highest volume of coverage with 57 stories. Heller, with 80 lawyers, had 29 stories.

Nearly half the Morrison coverage included commentary by New York lawyers on issues of law or pending cases and thereby conveyed knowledge and expertise. But Orrick received the greatest volume of discussion of the New York office itself, including history, practice areas, and strategy. A particularly positive article in both Legal Times and the New York Law Journal on May 28, 2002 singled out Orrick as the atypical San Francisco firm that has “long had a major New York footprint.”

Orrick also benefited from an article in The Bond Buyer on August 12, 2004 discussing the New York office's 20th anniversary. The story cited a letter from Governor George Pataki characterizing the firm's tenure in New York as a “testament to the quality of service and the abilities of your fine team of legal professionals.” Orrick's ranking as “number one among bond counsel nationwide” was stressed and Baxter was quoted as saying that “[by] making it in New York, we have proven that Orrick can make it anywhere.”

Heller's most favorable and substantive coverage was an article entitled “Making It in the Big Apple” that ran in The Recorder on Aug. 8, 2004. The story provides history on how Heller established its New York office and notes that the litigation practice is its strongest in New York, accounting for two-thirds of the local office business.

The coverage includes mention of prominent clients but the article notes that Heller has not yet developed “name recognition” to match the longer-established New York firms and for that reason has a hard time competing for top talent.

The most in-depth discussion of Morrison's New York office was a story in the New York Law Journal that ran on Oct. 9, 2003. It was entitled “MoFo Repositions Its New York Office” and discussed how, with partner defections and the dot-com bust, the firm has had to change its focus in New York to more traditional areas

Relative to their size, all three firms have done credible jobs in the media on behalf of their New York offices. For Morrison & Foerster, that has meant a spurt in press interview opportunities. In this situation, the imprimatur in such opportunities is particularly important. After all, the journalists could have called any one of a number of top New York firms, but they chose instead to call a firm that happens to be based in San Francisco.

It's particularly impressive that there were articles about all three offices as business and professional entities. Generally speaking, the media is not interested in talking about law firm strategies per se. Even the legal trade press has literally thousands of firms to choose from when it decides it wants to profile a firm. Why should they choose yours?

The answer in this instance is that the very problem confronting these firms is itself an unusually newsworthy legal press angle. How major U.S. law firms grapple with the adversity of the New York market is, simply, worth writing about.

For Morrison and Heller, the results were mixed. They were able to focus press attention on their New York offices but that meant acknowledging strategic retrenchment in Morrison's case and recruitment adversity in Heller's. Yet, to garner such focused press features, the negatives are usually risks worth running. In the great fray that is New York, ambivalent ink is better than no ink at all.

The media focus on these three firms in New York suggests a final lesson. Once you win such coverage, leverage it. Develop interest in the firm at other publications with diverse readerships. Post it on the website. Send it to clients. Even the best features in the world are only one-shot deals. To build institutional reputation anywhere, and certainly in New York, the effort has to be protracted.