Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
After graduating from law school, I was fortunate to spend the early part of my marketing career in Silicon Valley working for technology companies that ranged in size from 30,000 employees to those with just a couple dozen brave souls. That was during a time when people thought a new kid on the block named Google was crazy to compete with Yahoo!, Apple looked like it was on its last leg and we had to type “http://” whenever we ventured out into the mysterious World Wide Web.
And, while being in the heart of the technology sector during that exciting time certainly had its share of challenges and frustrations, there were elements of the corporate culture and characteristics of the passionate employees that helped shape my perspective on the critical role marketing could (and should) play in driving tangible and bottom-line business results. Further, I am confident that those shaping influences, when applied to law firms, can help us legal marketers realize even greater returns for our internal and external clients.
Hall of Fame basketball player and coach John Wooden said: “Don't mistake activity for achievement.” His words highlight the difference between work and honest to goodness getting stuff done. Phrased differently, just because you are busy does not mean you are accomplishing anything.
Far too often, legal marketers use metrics that show activity, not results, and even fewer connect the results to bottom-line metrics that matter to firm leadership. In addition, marketers frequently frame discussions in terms of costs. This approach simply perpetuates the perception that marketing is a cost center. From my experience in successful technology environments, every effort should be made to use return on investment justifications for every marketing endeavor, to forecast short- and long-term results, and to demonstrate marketing's impact on hard metrics such as revenue and growth. By talking about marketing in the same financial language as that used by firm leadership, CMOs may establish and elevate the marketing function as a key revenue driver alongside other mainstay business development activities.
For some time, there appears to have been two ruling paradigms in business: the inside-out approach and the outside-in approach. The inside-out approach is guided by the belief that the inner strengths and capabilities of an organization will make the organization prevail. The outside-in approach, the one embraced by most successful technology companies, is instead guided by the belief that client value creation, orientation, and experience are the keys to success.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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 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.
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?