Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Sales Speak:Stop 'Selling Stuff '
Although this dynamic is changing, external business development activity at most law firms remain the sole responsibility of the firm's lawyers. The vast majority of firms, with a few exceptions, do not have experienced sales professionals on staff and deployed into the marketplace. As such, the lawyers continue to be relied upon to be the “sales force.” Given that lawyers are not sales professionals and only spend a small amount of their time focused on business development, and given that they already have a full-time job, it's important to keep the business development approach as simple as possible. Some ideas related to keeping it simple follow:
- Use as little “marketing jargon” as possible when communicating with lawyers.
- Reference real-life examples of successes and lessons learned from failure whenever possible.
- Focus the vast majority of the business development effort on existing clients.
- Be externally focused, but not to the exclusion of having an internal marketing strategy.
- Take an industry, client-centric, approach to the market.
- Understand your client's business.
- Don't “pitch” ( see the article titled “Pitch Meetings: To Present or Not to Present, That Is the Question,” in Marketing the Law Firm , June 2014; available at http://bit.ly/14GnsJb).
- Stop “selling” stuff.
Talking the Talk?
A common theme that I've heard over the years, both as a chief marketing officer and in my current role as consultant, is that marketing professionals use a lot of marketing “jargon” as a natural part of their interaction with the lawyers. The more that you can reference real-life examples of success and lessons learned as you coach the lawyers, the more responsive they will be.
Using marketing terminology as you provide guidance to the lawyers only serves to confuse and, in many cases, frustrate them, minimizing their inclination to be “return customers” and removing any chances that they'll “tell their friends” about what a repository of meaningful knowledge the marketing department is. So, limit your use of the marketing buzzwords to the lawyers who are only the most advanced business developers and with your marketing and business development professionals.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?