You know what to do. Take it away, Readers!
[poll id=”14″]
You know what to do. Take it away, Readers!
[poll id=”14″]
This should attract a lot of interest. Maybe you can pair it with “What do clients think they are buying?”
Mark:
Splendid suggestion! I imagine clients would make a distinction between what they’re looking for in “Shirts” vs. “Skins” firms. Maybe your idea then becomes not one “QOM” but two paired?
Bruce:
The “shirts”/”skins” distinction would probably be central – and it would be important to test that, in both directions, as you suggest. Isn’t experimental design fun?
Mark Logsdon points out the important distinction between what the vendor is selling and what the purchaser is buying. Consider splitting the vendor question into two subparts:
1. What is the law firm selling to its clients?
2. What does the law firm think the clients are buying?
Then contrast the answers to those questions with Mr. Logsdon’s question:
3. What do the clients think they are buying from the law firm?
And then examine the firm’s marketing materials to see if they describe what the firm is selling, or what the clients are buying. A litigation boutique that three friends started last year has a website that implies that they are selling vindication and social justice, but their clients mostly merely want the court system to make them whole financially, usually with the unwilling assistance of a large insurer.
I voted for “Impartial description of potential risks, free of opinion or recommendation; it’s the client’s to decide”, I believe it’s all in the decision of the client even if we know what’s best, it’s their final say..