Op Ed

To begin, we have the selection of the actual person leading the marketing efforts. Time after time, in firm after firm, the individual selected as CMO has been exactly the wrong person for the job. Many of these individuals had been chosen based on a resume of other law firm experience. Did anyone ever stop to check to see if these candidates were successful in their prior position? The resounding answer is 'no.' The reason: Because law firms thought that candidates with resumes replete with other law firm positions obviously made them marketing geniuses. Wrong again. On the other side of the spectrum is the choice of individuals from outside the world of law firms. These are the candidates who have never worked in a horizontal management structure and are completely baffled as they walk into a room of 20 or more owners. Disastrous results followed because with no political savvy (a prerequisite for working in a law firm), these individuals were clueless as to how to work within the structure. The other part of the problem is gravitas. I have been preaching about this forever. Without the ability to have a 'seat at the table,' make your case, stick to it and go head to head with management, a CMO is doomed to fail.

Problem Number Two: There are certain questions that a candidate prior to securing the position must ask. It involves doing one's own due diligence and asking those questions. Will I have autonomy to do a needs assessment and when the results are produced, and when I do create the plan and develop the strategy, will I be provided with the resources and buy-in from management to implement that plan? Without the answer being 'yes' on the part of management, the success ratio ' zero!

Next problem: Many firms chose the wrong approach to implement the marketing plan ' marketing by committee. Again, what do attorneys know about marketing ' not very much. Therefore, why would a CMO be forced to sit in a room filled with attorneys giving their opinions on how to market the firm? Clearly, at the get-go, the CMO is in a no-win situation because, after all, the committee members own the place and it was their money that was being pumped into the marketing program. If a committee has to rubber-stamp each marketing activity, the overall program once again is doomed to fail. Marketing by consensus is just not the way to go.

Mini-problem that could become a major problem: To whom will the CMO report? If the answer is the COO, 'Houston we have a problem.' Typically and philosophically, the COO is empowered to save the firm money, while the CMO prepares a budget and yes, spends the money. Last I checked, oil and water do not mix. What's worse? The marketing partner who has no power, doesn't sit on the management committee and is basically being given something to do.

Another problem: The 'great expectations' scenario. Once the CMO is selected, there is the perception that the return on investment has to occur within a predetermined time frame. And thus, when management puts forth the question: 'Where do you see us in a year?' the CMO feels compelled to rattle off what could be accomplished and what the result would be ' again with disaster written all over it. Everyone I have talked with agrees that the conversation regarding ROI can only be addressed in the context of measurable programs, e.g., client surveys, certain practice group activities and the mining of existing client relationships. Going after new business, ad campaigns and every other activity attributable to marketing cannot and should not be given a time frame for success. It is just unrealistic and tends to be a catalyst to career suicide.

Still another problem: the 'empire-building' scenario. It goes something like this. The CMO believes (incorrectly) that if enough people are hired for the Marketing Department, then obviously more will get done and the CMO will look like the consummate professional ' one who can 'direct' the minions to do whatever he or she decides needs to be done. We all know that this scenario above all others ends badly because as soon as profits start to fall or management takes a hard long look at staffing ' bye, bye marketing department and ultimately bye, bye CMO.

And there are some additional contributing factors. Two stand out. The first is the lack of education for law firm marketing professionals. Over the past 15 years, there have been conferences advertised as being teaching vehicles for budding CMOs. Most of these conferences were taught by budding CMOs, some veteran CMOs and the occasional outsider. The problem: None of the real issues (like the ones stated above) were addressed. The conferences for the most part are redundant attempts to focus on lightweight topics that have been rehashed over and over again. Give an old program a new title and serve it up as new or 'updated' information ' that's just wrong. Is there anything new under the sun? My dream conferences: A managing partner and CMO conference where real issues are discussed and information is disseminated that helps CMOs do their job right and keep it! And my other dream conference is one where CMOs from Corporate America and law firms come together in roundtable format to share information. Will I ever see these conferences? I hope so.

Now don't send me nasty e-mails, but I want to take issue with LMA. I have a real problem with this group. Disclaimer: I do not have a membership in this group. I did have one in the organization's formative years and in fact I spoke at one of the first national conferences held in Nashville and also spoke at the local chapter here in New York. I dropped my membership because as time went on, I found the organization to be lacking the type of educational give and take that an organization is supposed to provide its members. I will tell you that early on in my career, I chose membership in the ABA's Law Practice Management Section. To this day, I know I made the right choice. And one more thing, it is really a shame that for some time now at the national level, the top CMOs are nowhere to be found on LMA's Board. Why is that?

So there you have it in a nutshell. Let me say that while I think there are real problems in law firm marketing, I think these problems are not insurmountable. The good news is that there are some fabulous CMOs working in our AmLaw 100 and Second Hundred firms. Many of these individuals are veterans of law firm marketing and have, over the years, established marketing programs that have contributed in a positive way to the success of their firms. What I am concerned about is that if the problems described above are not addressed, law firm marketing will remain in its present state and will not grow into the profession it should be. While I am optimistic that some things can change, I am also a realist: Change is difficult for law firms and marketing is still, after all these years, the 'new kid on the block.'

' Elizabeth Anne 'Betiayn' Tursi, Editor-in-Chief

For close to 20 years, I have been one of the supporting voices for law firm marketing, hoping against hope that the profession would come to be accepted and that over time, law firm marketing would come into its own and garner the respect it so richly deserved. Simply stated: For the most part it has not and things are starting to look even gloomier.

Yes, there are firms that have embraced marketing and as a result of targeted marketing programs, these firms have prospered. Many of these firms appear on the annual MLF 50. But for every firm on that list there are countless others that have been unsuccessful in putting forth the premise that marketing works. I have watched the revolving door of marketing professionals and have taken note of many firms that have no marketing programs at all. You've got to wonder. What's up with law firm marketing and after a somewhat good run, is it in the throes of going the way of TQM ' remember that?

Where did it all go wrong? My contention is that there are several factors at work that have contributed to the current state of law firm marketing. I know I am not going to make any friends here, but this is after all an Op Ed, so here goes.

To begin, we have the selection of the actual person leading the marketing efforts. Time after time, in firm after firm, the individual selected as CMO has been exactly the wrong person for the job. Many of these individuals had been chosen based on a resume of other law firm experience. Did anyone ever stop to check to see if these candidates were successful in their prior position? The resounding answer is 'no.' The reason: Because law firms thought that candidates with resumes replete with other law firm positions obviously made them marketing geniuses. Wrong again. On the other side of the spectrum is the choice of individuals from outside the world of law firms. These are the candidates who have never worked in a horizontal management structure and are completely baffled as they walk into a room of 20 or more owners. Disastrous results followed because with no political savvy (a prerequisite for working in a law firm), these individuals were clueless as to how to work within the structure. The other part of the problem is gravitas. I have been preaching about this forever. Without the ability to have a 'seat at the table,' make your case, stick to it and go head to head with management, a CMO is doomed to fail.

Problem Number Two: There are certain questions that a candidate prior to securing the position must ask. It involves doing one's own due diligence and asking those questions. Will I have autonomy to do a needs assessment and when the results are produced, and when I do create the plan and develop the strategy, will I be provided with the resources and buy-in from management to implement that plan? Without the answer being 'yes' on the part of management, the success ratio ' zero!

Next problem: Many firms chose the wrong approach to implement the marketing plan ' marketing by committee. Again, what do attorneys know about marketing ' not very much. Therefore, why would a CMO be forced to sit in a room filled with attorneys giving their opinions on how to market the firm? Clearly, at the get-go, the CMO is in a no-win situation because, after all, the committee members own the place and it was their money that was being pumped into the marketing program. If a committee has to rubber-stamp each marketing activity, the overall program once again is doomed to fail. Marketing by consensus is just not the way to go.

Mini-problem that could become a major problem: To whom will the CMO report? If the answer is the COO, 'Houston we have a problem.' Typically and philosophically, the COO is empowered to save the firm money, while the CMO prepares a budget and yes, spends the money. Last I checked, oil and water do not mix. What's worse? The marketing partner who has no power, doesn't sit on the management committee and is basically being given something to do.

Another problem: The 'great expectations' scenario. Once the CMO is selected, there is the perception that the return on investment has to occur within a predetermined time frame. And thus, when management puts forth the question: 'Where do you see us in a year?' the CMO feels compelled to rattle off what could be accomplished and what the result would be ' again with disaster written all over it. Everyone I have talked with agrees that the conversation regarding ROI can only be addressed in the context of measurable programs, e.g., client surveys, certain practice group activities and the mining of existing client relationships. Going after new business, ad campaigns and every other activity attributable to marketing cannot and should not be given a time frame for success. It is just unrealistic and tends to be a catalyst to career suicide.

Still another problem: the 'empire-building' scenario. It goes something like this. The CMO believes (incorrectly) that if enough people are hired for the Marketing Department, then obviously more will get done and the CMO will look like the consummate professional ' one who can 'direct' the minions to do whatever he or she decides needs to be done. We all know that this scenario above all others ends badly because as soon as profits start to fall or management takes a hard long look at staffing ' bye, bye marketing department and ultimately bye, bye CMO.

And there are some additional contributing factors. Two stand out. The first is the lack of education for law firm marketing professionals. Over the past 15 years, there have been conferences advertised as being teaching vehicles for budding CMOs. Most of these conferences were taught by budding CMOs, some veteran CMOs and the occasional outsider. The problem: None of the real issues (like the ones stated above) were addressed. The conferences for the most part are redundant attempts to focus on lightweight topics that have been rehashed over and over again. Give an old program a new title and serve it up as new or 'updated' information ' that's just wrong. Is there anything new under the sun? My dream conferences: A managing partner and CMO conference where real issues are discussed and information is disseminated that helps CMOs do their job right and keep it! And my other dream conference is one where CMOs from Corporate America and law firms come together in roundtable format to share information. Will I ever see these conferences? I hope so.

Now don't send me nasty e-mails, but I want to take issue with LMA. I have a real problem with this group. Disclaimer: I do not have a membership in this group. I did have one in the organization's formative years and in fact I spoke at one of the first national conferences held in Nashville and also spoke at the local chapter here in New York. I dropped my membership because as time went on, I found the organization to be lacking the type of educational give and take that an organization is supposed to provide its members. I will tell you that early on in my career, I chose membership in the ABA's Law Practice Management Section. To this day, I know I made the right choice. And one more thing, it is really a shame that for some time now at the national level, the top CMOs are nowhere to be found on LMA's Board. Why is that?

So there you have it in a nutshell. Let me say that while I think there are real problems in law firm marketing, I think these problems are not insurmountable. The good news is that there are some fabulous CMOs working in our AmLaw 100 and Second Hundred firms. Many of these individuals are veterans of law firm marketing and have, over the years, established marketing programs that have contributed in a positive way to the success of their firms. What I am concerned about is that if the problems described above are not addressed, law firm marketing will remain in its present state and will not grow into the profession it should be. While I am optimistic that some things can change, I am also a realist: Change is difficult for law firms and marketing is still, after all these years, the 'new kid on the block.'

' Elizabeth Anne 'Betiayn' Tursi, Editor-in-Chief