"Marketing" a law firm, to many partners (and some burned marketing
directors, I can only imagine), remains in too many circles a dirty word. Why
is this, and what, if anything, can be done about it?
As someone married to a senior marketing and advertising executive,
this parlous state of affairs troubles me. Yet, undeniably, it
is current reality. Just check out this commentary
on the situation in the UK, where the commentator finds the situation
deeply distressing. Example: "Why should we do a brochure? We’re
not a trade union!" (The
commentator is a marketing consultant, so doubtless eager to diagnose
many nails, herself being a hammer.)
My reaction to the syndrome of marketing-in-the-doghouse in law firms
is, as Cher famously said in "Moonlight," "Snap out of
it!" In other words, treat marketing as an organizational
asset and competence as essential as finance, IT, or HR.
Again
I will remind you that a theme of this blog is that law firms should
not, as a default condition of analysis, view themselves as intrinsically
distinct from similarly sized service businesses. So, if the
question is, "Where does marketing belong [sub
rosa: if
at all] in our firm?," the answer is to look at "best practices" in
corporate-land. Therefore, I commend to all managing partners
and committees, and beleaguered marketing directors, this article from CMO
Magazine about how to demonstrate ROI on marketing investments. Or,
guerrilla-warfare style, how to change the focus from ROI to one marketers
can demonstrably win on mutually indisputable territory.
If you’re still skeptical of marketing, remember this:
- "marketing" is simply information; if a potential client is unaware
of your firm, its capabilities, or its relevance, they are not a potential
client after all; and - if you think marketing is only for the feeble or the otherwise challenged
firms, remember the first rule of advertising: "The worst thing
you can do for a bad product is to advertise it."
