In Search of Perfect Client Service

I had an opportunity to participate in a panel led by Gerry Riskin at Hildebrandt's 2008 Marketing Partner Forum.  As always, it was an outstanding event, perhaps the best in many years.  Congratulations to Tom Billington and his Hildebrandt colleagues for putting together such an outstanding and thought-provoking program.

I have had several requests to the slides I used as part of the Riskin program.  So here they are.

The idea of the Riskin session was to pretend that the panel was the management committee of a mid-sized law firm.  Dan DiPietro of Citibank was our banker and provided a somber (nee, depressing) view of 2008.  Sara Kraeski of Davis Graham & Stubbs spoke about the marketing challenges in times of extreme jeopardy.  Wendy Bernero of McKee Nelson spoke about the challenges and opportunities posed by the Clementi reforms in the UK, and I spoke about the technology challenges and opportunities firms face at the moment.  Gerry served as the Managing Partner pushing for specific strategy recommendations.  It was a fun session to participate in.

I've received a number of kind comments from people who attended, which I greatly appreciate.  I hope those who attended found the session as interesting as those kind enough to comment.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Somewhere I ran across this article by Tom Peters in Fast Company magazine.  Interesting read, especially since it was published n 1997.  Take a look.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

From Seth Godin: 

Most marketing (and most business) is usually like this:

Do this and get that.

Figure out what you want, figure out what you need to do to get it, and go do it.

From there, Seth shares some thought about his Dad and the good things he did for people.  His Dad benefited from the positive side of the "what goes around comes around" maxim.  Read the full post here.  The punchline:

It's been a consistent approach, and it sure seems to work. Consistent as in all the time, not just when it's convenient. It works for a factory in Buffalo but it also seems to work for others... for successful marketers all over the world. Now, more than ever, it's easier to give even when it seems like you're not going to get. The happy irony is that this turns out to be a very effective marketing approach, even though that's not the point.

Exactly.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

A number of us have been having a discussion about branding, summarized here and here.  Against that backdrop, I started reading Lovemarks, by Kevin Roberts.  Roberts is the "Worldwide CEO" of Saatchi & Saatchi.  He is the originator of the concept of "lovemarks," described on the Saatchi web site as:

Lovemarks are brands that inspire loyalty beyond reason. People love them because of what they are, not because of what they do. Their appeal is emotional. Companies may own brands. But Lovemarks are owned by the people who love them.

An example of a brand that inspires loyalty beyond reason--Harley Davidson.  Tom Peters uses a slide showing what percentage of owners of a product would tattoo the product brand onto their body.  For Harley, its almost 19%.  This is an example of a strong brand.

Since my friend Dan Hull began this discussion and continued it further, noting that "most of us already have a distinctive and valuable 'look'," I have to ask Dan how many people he thinks have the Hull McGuire logo tattooed on their bodies?  No fair counting yourself. 

"That's H-U-L-L-M-C-G-U-I-R-E." (Thankfully, Dan has shown himself to have a great sense of humor.)

Seriously, does anyone love their law firm and its brand enough to have the name of the firm permanently inked onto their body?  If we ever find that person,  or rather that law firm, then we can hear from somebody who knows about branding for law firms.  Until then, I think I'm going to cast my lot with the people from the "real world" who are able to inspire others to ink their bodies with a brand.

| 1 Comments | Permalink |

The February 2006 issue of The American Lawyer contains a terrific article by Charles Green --"Selling by Doing."  Green is the author of Trust-Based Selling and the article comes from his book.   Green recounts the story told by a General Counsel of a Fortune 50 company:

      We needed to hire outside counsel; we looked at a dozen firms, narrowed it to three, and invited them for 90 minute presentations. 

       The first two were very good; they had solid expertise and industry knowledge and they had done their homework.

       Then came firm three.  They said, 'We have 90 minutes with you .  We can either do a standard capabilities presentation--which we're very happy to do--or we can try something different.  We suggest that we get started on the job, right now--as if you had already given us the contract--and begin the job, right here, right now.  After 85 minutes, we'll stop and you'll have firsthand experience of exactly how it feels to work with us.'

What's your reaction to this approach?   Here's what the GC thought:

        Well, we did their little exercise.  It was quickly clear they were competent.  But as we worked with them, we also got to know them better; instead of giving answers to questions, we had a dialogue.  And for our part, instead of giving stock responses, we began to open up too.  We felt what it was like to work with them.  They came to listen and to work, and to show their smarts in real time, on our issues, not to report on theirs.  You just felt you could trust them.

Here's how Green characterized it:  "A common mistake of the salesperson is to continue behaving as if they are in the screening process when it comes time to work the selection process.  They keep marketing the firm when they should be selling the salesman."

By the way, the author's use of this article to show what's in his book led me to buy it.  Good marketing Charles!

| 1 Comments | Permalink |

As I have said many times to many people, Aric Press, the Editor in Chief of The American Lawyer, is very smart and one of the most informed observers of the profession.  One reason he is so often "on the money" is his uncanny ability to look at what we do--or don't do--through the eyes of our clients, the ones that matter most.  In the February issue of The American Lawyer, Aric takes up the topic of law firm marketing.  His insights, as always are on the money and crisply written (certainly better than I could, so let me quote liberally):

"When it comes to marketing, there often seems to be a disconnect between what sort of talent law firms hire, and the level at which the talent is permitted to perform.  To make an exaggerated analogy, it's as though you bought a Maserati and then drove it only to the local grocery store."

"I am struck by this now during the start of the season of what I've come to think of as one-bounce marketing.  This is the time of year when I receive your creamy professional announcements, your perfect-bound annual reports, your lovingly balanced diversity publications, and all sorts of other handsome folderol.  Please keep sending them; I applaud even bad marketing, because everyone has to start somewhere.  But some of these efforts redefine ephemeral.  To be really effective, marketing needs to be part of a larger strategic initiative, one that employs all of the tools that your expensive CMO presumably has available if only you'd unleash her.  Otherwise you're making an investment on which there is no return.  (Why 'one-bounce marketing'?  Because this material hops nicely from my desk into the recycling bucket.)"

Ouch!  I love the way he waited so long to explain one-bounce marketing.  But now think about what you do and whether your marketing efforts suffer similar fate on the desks of your clients.

| 2 Comments | Permalink |

Okay Dan, I will take the bait.

Dan Hull hates logos.  So he told us here.  That invited comment from a number of people, including me. Dan was back at it again here, pointing out a solid post from Nathan Burke, a "web designer, marketer and consultant" who writes lawfirmblogging.  Nathan's point is that if you have no competition, then a logo doesn't matter.  Consider this from Nathan:

Instead, logos are just another way to be recognized. Only after a prospect has learned about your firm (and others) would a logo help. It is something that sticks in the back of their mind, associating something visual with a level of service.

Though we might not want to admit it, design is important in our purchasing decisions. While we don't buy a product or service because we really love a logo, we may surely decide not to buy if we perceive a company to be unprofessional.

I couldn't agree more.

One comment that I often make about politics is that the partisan desire to separate issues into distinct boxes ignores the fundamental reality that life is a series overlapping and intersecting circles--a 3-D mosaic instead of the one dimensional view articulated by most politicians in an effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator amongst us.  We need to avoid the same pitfall in discussions like this, as Nathan's post reminds us.  Logos alone count for nothing.  Great client service alone counts for nothing.  Like so many other areas, presenting yourself to a client, the client's choice of you as its lawyer, and the many related issues are part of a 3-D mosaic.  And all parts are important. 

| 1 Comments | Permalink |

Dan Hull recently posted that "Law Firm Logos are Goofy, Useless, a Waste of Time and Money."  And then he promised to let us know what he really thinks about logos.  Seriously, Dan drew on a post from Tom Kane who writes the Legal Marketing Blog.  Tom's post on logos drew on a post by Bruce Allen of Marketing Catalyst.  Tom, in turn, drew on the thoughts of Dave Opton at Six-Figure Learnings  And so on.  All have informed my thinking about logos in specific and branding more generally.

I also have spent considerable time reading and thinking about Michelle Golden's insights on branding (Golden Practices).

I think I am ready to share my current thinking.  Logos by themselves probably mean very little.  That said, however, logos in the context of a meaningful branding program probably means a great deal.  A recent post by Dan Hull passed along the comments of a third year law student:

He asked a third-year law student in the audience if, based on websites, brochures and materials sent to law student recruits, she could differentiate between the many firms with which she was interviewing. She paused for a long time before answering. Finally, she responded as nicely as she could. "Frankly, based on the materials, all of you seem to be the exactly the same."

Based on comments like this and the relative ineffectiveness of law firm branding, it would be tempting to conclude that branding doesn't work.  But as you know, I believe that the world of business is a better source for answers to these "business of law" questions.  Unquestionably, the answer is that bad branding doesn't work.  Equally true is that good branding is a central factor in the success of the well-branded business.

What makes for good branding?  Well,  this post has gone on too long.  But the "what does it take question" will provide food for a number of future posts.

| 2 Comments | Permalink |

Larry Bodine summarized Dr. Larry Richard's presentation at the 2006 Marketing Partner Forum here.  Dr. Richard is the head of Hildebrandt's  Leadership & Organization Development Practice Group, which helps law firms and legal departments on people issues.  Since the early 1980's, he has pioneered the application of psychology and other behavioral sciences to the improvement of leadership and management practices in the legal profession. Based on studies of numerous personality traits in lawyers as well as the general population, Dr. Richard has concluded that only 20% of lawyers are natural rainmakers.  As Larry Bodines summarizes, " an additional 55% of lawyers can learn to be rainmakers.  'They will make efforts to do marketing; so your goal should be to reduce their discomforts,' [Richard] said.  The remaining 25% are hopeless at marketing and should be ignored.  'The trick is to figure out who they are and not to waste time on them,' [Richard] said."

Dan Hull picked up on Larry Bodine's post here.  Dan takes issue with Dr. Richard's conclusions, writing:

My own sense (not a Hildebrandt study, of course) is that less than 20% of us--10% at most--can really put it together to be rainmakers. But I think that the remaining 90% can be taught to be marketing-oriented in very effective ways for both repeat and new business. Each lawyer can help and no lawyer should be given a pass. The discipline of getting everyone in the firm to be part of your marketing culture and making it stick is the hard part. Very few professional firms I know of have a client-focused or marketing culture. Even when they want it, they won't do "the work".

 

I was at Dr. Richard's presentation, and I have heard him present his data previously.  I also have had a chance to speak with him about it.  I agree with Dan's sentiment about "the remaining 90%" but have to say, respectfully of course, that I believe that he and Dr. Richard are speaking about slightly different things.  I suspect that when Dan refers to teaching lawyers to be "marketing-oriented", I suspect he is speaking about activities that go beyond what Larry Richard considers to be marketing.   For example, see this post from Marketing Catalyst discussing the difference between sales and marketing.  Dan's comments strike me as a discussion of marketing while Larry Richards appears more focused on sales.   Moreover, while I agree with Dan that no lawyer should be given a pass in creating a "client-focused" culture, there is a difference between having a client-focused culture and marketing that culture to prospects.

I encourage Dan and everyone else to find a chance to listen to Larry Richard speak.  He presents a huge volume of data in a very humorous way, but at the same time in a way that is compelling.  I, for one, find the data persuasive. 

| 1 Comments | Permalink |

I spoke on smaller firms staying competitive in a changing environment.  My powerpoint is attached.

Marketing Partner Forum--Lamb Speech Slides

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

My firm is celebrating its 25th Anniversary.  We want to thank our clients for their support and do so in a special way.  What have others done that worked well?  Suggestions?  Inside counsel-please weigh in with you thoughts.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Labor Day passes.  I return to the office after traveling and being on trial for the better part of a month, and I return to a Law Practice article (September 2005) on holiday cards.  Six full pages on holiday cards.  I run hot and cold on cards and gifts.  Many clients cannot accept gifts, and most receive so many cards that no card stands out. I've favored contributions on behalf of our clients, and then felt that contributions didn't really communicate appreciation.  This year, the Hurricane Katrina disaster makes cards seem even more trite than normal.  But I do want my clients to know that I appreciate them.   So here I sit, yelling HELP!!  Is there a right answer on this one?

| 3 Comments | Permalink |

I read several postings this morning about the continued importance of email marketing.  Compare this post from Larry Bodine with this one from Tom Kane.  In my view both are right in their views, but both ignored the critical common ground of client focus.  Tom is absolutely right that clients are innundated with email drivel from many sources and that the last thing most want is another email marketing piece from a lawyer.  Larry is right about just how effective good email marketing can be.  My contribution to the discussion?  First, make sure anything you send out is substantively valuable.  There is nothing worse (well, maybe a lobotomy) than getting email that says nothing other than "look at me!"  Content counts for a huge percentage of positive reaction.   Second, for current clients, ask whether they are interested in receiving your emails and let them look at one or two to make a judgment.  Asking counts for a lot.  It shows your sensitivity to the volume of email traffic they must navigate and puts the control in their hands, not yours.  For prospects, the same can't happen, at least until you're getting close.  But I promise, if your content is valuable, people will want to read what you have to say.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Michelle Golden, who writes Golden Practices, picked up on a post in Duct Tape Marketing about saying thank you when you lose out after making a pitch for business.  Michelle adds several points to the original post.  Her advice is right on the money.

Manners count.  And most of all, the personal touch counts.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Interesting discussion in Tom Kane's Legal Marketing Blog about making it easy for clients to reach you.  I put my home and cell phone numbers on my business card and I make sure clients know that they should never hesitate to call me at home.  "I want that call" I tell them, because I do.  I don't want them calling somebody else in a moment of crisis.  It's second nature for me to share that informtion.

There are a lot a lawyers I know who absolutely refuse to share this kind of information.  I have only one thing to say to them- "THANKS!"

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

There has been a lot of recent blog buzz on the topic of referrals from current clients.  For example, here.  There's even a blog on referrals.  But while these articles focus on the positive, few mention the risk of negative referrals.  Consider this.

On Saturday, this display screen on my phone turned white.  I could dial and receive calls, but I couldn't access my phone book or any of the other important information stored in my phone.  Today, I went to a CINGULAR WIRELESS store where, I was told, they could not help me.  When I explained the importance of getting a new phone immediately, the person from CINGULAR WIRELESS told me that because I had only recently signed a new contract with CINGULAR WIRELESS, that they, CINGULAR WIRELESS were unable to help me.  I mentioned that I had been a customer for more than a decade, and the clerk from CINGULAR WIRELESS told me that if I was some bub off the street and signed up for service, they would give me the phone.  But because I was a long-time customer, CINGULAR WIRELESS didn't give a damn about me and I would have to pay $317 for the phone.  To be fair, the "not giving a damn" wasn't verbally expressed, but it was an integral part of the overall message.  Frankly, anyone who signs up with CINGULAR WIRELESS after reading this probably has a death wish.

Its unlikely a client would ever recount a story like this about your law firm.  But if its possible that you've been treating your client like CINGULAR WIRELESS treated me, that is, for granted and as unresponsively as is possible, what do you think your client would say about you.  But many lawyers, and in particular in-house lawyers, are adept listeners when they have to be, and if your client says your firm is "all right," you've just lost out on a new client because you've been damned with faint praise.  Here's the lesson: if your client isn't going to gush over you, think twice about whether he or she is a good referral source.

And as your head hits the pillow tonight, have this dream.  You've just received a call on your cell phone from client trying to hire you for the biggest piece of business you've ever had.  He got your name from a current client who loves your service.  And like me, you have a CINGULAR WIRELESS phone on which the display screen has failed.  The prospective client didn't leave his number because he knew your cell phone would pick up his number.  But because you have CINGULAR WIRELESS phone that's malfunctioning, you can't get the number. . . . Have you woken up in a cold sweat yet?

I'm not having that nightmare tonight.  I'm not even going to dream of providing the best possible client service in the whole world the way I do most nights.  Tonight, I'm going to dream that the CEO of CINGULAR WIRELESS stumbles across my blog tomorrow. 

And then finds out his display screen has failed. 

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Michelle Golden, President of Golden Marketing, recently made a post to her blog, Golden Practices, about what A-Level clients like and don't like about their CPAs.  Read the entire post here.  I was drawn to a couple of the comments the CEOs made:

• Be there when we need you. A great example is when my accountant was on vacation but was able to be reached and even came in, off the beach in his shorts, to the attorney's office to help us finalize a critical deal.
• I feel like my firm sees me as a "nobody." I just can't get good service. My firm checks in with my CFO who thinks things are fine but I'm going to fire my firm in the next few weeks because they aren't meeting MY needs. I may go back to a sole practitioner.
• I don't really have anything to say when you ask if my firm has ever done anything "above and beyond."
• I don't appreciate when a firm acts like they can be all things to all people.
• Ultimately, know my business and me personally.
• Don't answer a question with "it depends." Instead, put yourself in my shoes and answer the question!
• I know I'm under-served because my financial advisor keeps pointing out certain needs and the services I should be getting. I may be small but I'll pay for quality.
• Continuity of staff is pretty important. We don't want different people every year.
• The devil is in the details. Remember that I don't know what you know.

But I was really struck by these comments:

• How can you measure my satisfaction? If I'm happy, I refer a LOT of business.
• Another panelist agrees this is the best way to know if you are doing a good job.
• The occasional survey is okay, but I may be too busy to fill it out.
• An in-person survey is good.
• Come see me and ask me.

Its hard to ask for a critical evaluation, but it is so worth it.  And yet year after year, one publication after another publishes statistics showing the very few law firms do surveys of their clients, let alone in-person surveys.  The same surveys show GCs really want those surveys to be conducted.  When will law firms learn that in this area, for them, 2+2=5?

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Absolutely great post by Tom Kane, author of Legal Marketing Blog on the use of speaker phones with clients and other basic "good manners" that would make your Mom proud.  Tom rightly reminds us to ask permission rather than just assuming use of a speaker phone is okay, since there might be a problem with confidentiality or some other reason why your client might not want even others in your office to hear the call.  The other items mentioned include using a firm hand shake, proper business card etiquette and use of email thank-yous, a definite no-no. 

The fundamentals can never be stressed enough.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Coincident with a post in The Wired GC about his review of of "notice by email" provision in a draft agreement (which The Wired GC did not endorse), I had a "miscommunication" with a vendor about something that was sent to me last week.  The document never got through because of my spam filter.  This SNAFU caused me to wonder whether anything I sent to clients (or prospects), especially when the email was unexpected or unsolicited, was similarly captured by filters and never made it to the intended recipient.  My assistant and I now have a practice of follow-up calling to make sure things got through. Good service means getting your message to your client.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

Anne Gallagher of Extreme Marketing comments that one of her favorite authors on professional services (probably herself or her equally insightful partner, Merry Neitlich) "says that when marketing is done right, 'sales' becomes superfluous.  Think this means that relationship selling is about developing and deepening relationships rather than using traditional 'closing' techniques to get commitment."  Agree or disagree?

On a very general level, its hard to disagree with the comment.  Many inside counsel say that they hire "the lawyer," not her law firm.  Those that do hire the lawyer tend to hire someone they know and like.  Like any other relationship, the deeper and stronger it is, the more likely it is to be productive.  I wholeheartedly support the idea of building relationships, so much so that I suggested (and my partners agreed) that a portion of our compensation be based on relationship building efforts (rather than actual clients delivered to the firm).  I so firmly believe that building relationships will pay off, I am prepared to tie compensation to the effort not the result.

Having said that, I also take the view that "sales" is nothing more than helping people meet a need or solve a problem.  No matter what you think, sales in professional services will never be like a used car salesman's approach or the cold call from a large investment house.  If your goal is to help someone meet a need, you necessarily have to know what needs they have do some thinking about what solutions may work.  But I am not prepared to trust marketing to cause the client or prospect to make the right decision.  You do not live or work in a vacuum.  Others are trying to build the same relationships you are, and some might be further along in the process.  To the extent that "sales" includes "asking for the business" and utilizing some techniques to ensure that the call come to you instead of a competitor, I'm all for sales.

Here's an example.  I grew up in an environment where associates heard from day 1 that if you don't ask for business, you won't get it, and that lesson has stuck with me.  Years ago, I was marketing a client-paying a visit to the office to visit with my contacts.  Just that day, a class action complaint had come in.  It was a big piece of work.  I remembered my lesson and asked for the case, and used some very basic "closing" techniques and left that day with the case in my briefcase.

So my real response to Anne's comment is that I don't think marketing really displaces sales.  In professional services I think good marketing and good sales really are the same thing with slightly different points of emphasis.

| 0 Comments | Permalink |

I ran across the Revenue Roundtable blog the other day.  The Roundtable is made up a panel of experts, who describe their mission this way: 

"The Revenue Roundtable team's saying is "Be practical, or be quiet." So, head off to academia if you want to read jargon-laden management theory. Stick with us if you want specific advice on marketing strategy, lead generation, managing a complex sale, and expanding your business with your existing customers. And that's just the start."

With that as an introduction, I wanted to highlight an interesting Roundtable article titled How to Sell More--Back to Basics, which contained a mixed bunch of sports metaphors ("home runs and moving the ball down the field").  But the punch line is pure wisdom:

"This particular sales manager loved to say "Kevin, if you want to be good at sales, remember it's all about blocking and tackling!" In sales, "blocking and tackling" is actually three activities:

1. Connecting with people
2. Asking questions
3. Getting commitment

If you don't do these things you will not develop the relationships needed to make sales. You won't discover how you can be of service to anyone. And you'll never close the deal. It's that simple. Blocking and tackling."

He then goes on to say that his list of three really boils down to one:  Be of Service.  Good discussion of what service is-helping others get what they want.  But then they screw it up by asking  "what do you consider the basics of selling in your organization?"  We know what the fundamental is ("blocking and tackling")-service.  The better question is what we consider the elements of service?  Sometimes its hard to discern elements but easy to know good service when you see it, so let's also ask for examples of good service.  LET'S HAVE A DISCUSSION!  COMMENTS ARE GOOD!

| 1 Comments | Permalink |