Why Does TieBar.com Not Want Me As a Customer? | The problem with Automated Marketing

 

Automating your marketing processes, whether it be through managing your social media, email marketing or lead generation, is all the rage right now. It is Ugg’s boots in 2002 popular, Big Data 2013, Content Marketing 2014, Meat Loaf (the dinner) 1955, Meat Loaf (the musician) 1978. There are some good reasons for it. Automation can allocate our most prized resource, time, more efficiently when used well. But it can also annoy, turn-off, anger, and even turn away customers and potential customers.

At the end of August I surveyed my collection of ties and lamented my lack of a ‘power tie.’ It’s the end of the year, that time when you want to bring a little extra oomph to the office. Let your bosses know: review time is approaching and I look very damn professional. So I placed an order for four new ties from tiebar.com. It was a decision driven almost entirely by successful marketing on their part. I did not want to go to the Mall. Dwayne Wade dresses a hell of a lot better than me and he endorses tiebar.com. He must be confident enough that his personal brand won’t take a beating with an inferior product so boom: I purchase.

The ties arrive. They are nice ties. They are nicer than some ties and not as nice as other ties. There are ties, in the same price range, that are equally as nice being sold every day by a large variety of competitors.

Before the ties arrived, I started getting emails from tiebar.com marketing their ties to me. This is understandable and we are all used to getting promotional emails by now. I probably forgot to uncheck a box, it’s no big deal. Then the emails started getting a little more frequent and they annoyed me.  I was receiving an email from tiebar.com every day, which is just too much tie talk for me.

I came up with an idea, a plan if you will. But before we get to that, let me sort through something obvious you may have caught on to by now.

At any point I could select “unsubscribe,” as we have all done countless times. But that puts the onus on me, the customer. And, besides, I liked the ties. I wouldn’t mind receiving a seasonal email regarding a sale. In fact, that would be great. Let me know. Keep me in the loop. Since you are trying, as a company, to sell me more of your products, why do I need to take an action to not be bothered by you? Is this the best way to market?

I wrote tiebar.com an email. Here it is:

I propose a deal.

I will buy every tie, for the next three years, from The Tie Bar.

In return, you will only send me emails related to me account.

Do we have a deal?

I received a response right away from Customer Service.

Hello,
Thank you for your email! Your inquiry and feedback has been
passed out to our marketing team.
Please let us know if there is anything else we can do for you!

Ignoring the odd grammatical choice, at this point, I am thinking “Great! I am in! They will pass this along to their marketing team, and someone is going to see this and jump on it.”

It has been ten days now. In that time I have received 10 more promotional emails from tiebar.com, but no response to my deal.

The purpose of marketing, we should all be reminded from time to time, is to increase revenue for the business. It’s not more complicated than that and everything else is just tactics and strategy (yes, there is a difference between tactics and strategy).

Automated marketing is a tactic to free up the precious resource of time for marketers to do more. What you do with that freed up time is pretty important. What you do with all of your time is pretty important, we have one brief trip through this bizarre intergalactic rush.

My deal offered more revenue for tiebar.com, but they didn’t take it. It’s possible, even likely, that it never reached the right person or even the right department. That’s understandable, I get it. But it’s terrible marketing.

Avoid the same mistake. Automate some marketing tasks, absolutely. But when your customer, or client, or prospective customer or client speaks to you, no matter what the medium (we all know the mediums are growing every day, communication now entirely surrounds us): listen, and communicate back. Engage. Help. Be there. Be present. Form a relationship.

Grow the revenue.

The "V" Word

Corporate speak is mostly hilariously impotent and rightfully maligned. Synergy. Disruption. Paradigm Shift. We’ve all encountered numbingly boring presentations and articles that rely on these “concepts,” and hopefully we’ve all seen some very funny satire putting down these linguistic failures. But, as a lover of words, I actually believe in the power of language to alter our attitudes and, ultimately, our behavior. And there is one business buzzword that, when used in place of the dreaded “V” word, can make a real impact on how we approach business.

The “V” word is vendor and I’ve heard it whispered and uttered with a general sense of contempt many times.

“Oh, no need to talk with George at the social. He’s just a vendor.”

or:

“If we do this [insert marketing/networking activity], we’ll look like a vendor.”

and, of course:

“My client treats me like a vendor.”

The best business women and men I know, the best attorneys, and, if we’re being honest here, the best people, treat everyone exactly the same. Have you ever heard someone described as “magnetic?” We’ve all encountered people that just seem to brighten rooms and lives. Those folks come by it honestly, by being genuinely interested in other people across all spectrums and, crucially, being totally present in the moment. Those derogatory vendor quotes? These people don’t utter them because they don’t think that way.

Try as I might, I am not one of those people.  Don’t get me wrong, I want to be. I work on it. But something is wired in me to default to cynicism in stressful or unnatural situations. And so I change a word. I use that handy corporate speak. Everyone I do business with, whether I am paying them (or they are in the process of trying to get paid) or they are paying me (or I am in the process of trying to get paid) is a partner.

“I need to talk to George. He’s a partner.”

or:

“If we do this [insert marketing/networking activity], we’ll show we’re serious about partnering.”

and, of course:

“My clients are my partners.”

We are selling something, all of us. It’s not dirty. You wouldn’t apologize for helping someone. There’s no need to apologize for charging for the service. Make sure your service is worth it, make your service something you would be happy to purchase if you were in the market for it. We know this well, and understand it intuitively, but apparently there is still some squeamishness associated with certain terms. Like, the “V” word. If that bothers you, like it sometimes does me, change the word.

 

Click Twice if You’ve Heard This One Before

(Place pacifier in baby data's mouth if it screams)

 

For anyone even peripherally involved in Marketing in 2014, this headline is an eye-catcher:  “We Have No Idea if Online Ads Work.” It starts the way every single published article must now start – with an anecdote. This one is pretty funny. A CBS executive is fearful, in 2003, that Google offering companies data on which ads work and which ads do not work will ruin the magic. The article goes on, the way every single published article must now go on, with data. This time the data is about data which makes the article twice as sexy. There was a study. Some people were going to buy some thing regardless so online ads may or may not be effective.

It’s not that interesting of a study or an article, even to a marketer. The main takeaway of the article is that it is not presented in an easy to read, single-page format. Instead you have to click on a button to go to the second page of the article.

That seems pretty benign. Why would that ever be a main takeaway? It’s an utterly forgettable action on behalf of the reader. Because clicking on to the second page is only there so that Slate.com can show you more ads. And here I thought David Foster Wallace laid irony to rest for good in 1996.

The best content in the article is the quote in the finale from one of the study’s co-authors:

“If you were comfortable for the past 100 years, if you were comfortable pissing in the wind and hoping it goes in the right direction, don’t kid yourself now by looking at this data.”

Let’s jog right past the juicy part to arrive at the point – don’t bother with the data. For companies selling goods on the internet this is, quite obviously, absurd. Listening to what your customers want and spotting trends before your competitors is too reductive to even be considered Marketing 101.

But what about legal marketing? Specifically, what about legal marketing for mid-sized firms and smaller? In other words, can we please make this about me?

I took the free Google Analytics classes. I read a book on data. In other words, you are enjoying the thoughts of an expert. And this expert agrees, in part, that you should not bother with the data. (I’m sorry, I realize nuance makes poor copy, stay with me here and we’ll land eventually. There is some bad weather here on the ground so we’re just going to circle the runway a few more times).

Oh, not because marketers are not savvy enough to detect causation and correlation, as the article suggests. This would be about as helpful as telling an attorney that the legal issue s/he is arguing is tricky so s/he shouldn’t bother. Yes, it is hard to determine where to allocate money and resources when marketing a service. Presumably that’s one of the reasons we receive a paycheck for our services.

Don’t bother with the data (in part) because the sample size is too small. This is not big data. This is little baby data. It can’t walk, talk or even roll over. It just sits there looking adorable all the damn time. Example: You run your web analytics report for April and notice that 200 more unique visitors went to your law firm’s website that month than average. To me, bothering with the data would mean drilling down even further and parsing out exactly where this surge of visitors came from, where they specifically went and how long they stayed.

To what end? Why? Are you going to change your strategy based on 200 unique visitors to your law firm website? If the answer is yes then, by all means, drill down that data! But the answer probably shouldn’t be yes. Maybe if you were blessed with unlimited staff resources and time it might be novel to spend a little bit on projects like this, but you’re not. Is this really the best use of your time?

Lead with a question that data may be able to be one piece of evidence in figuring out an answer. Say, for instance, you want to know how effective a partner’s recent publishing tear has been. Some baby data on profile visits, article shares and the like can be one helpful piece of evidence.

But be careful.

Recently I heard, twelfth-hand, of a firm that scrapped practice group pages entirely because no one was visiting them, or, more accurately, less people were visiting them than they found acceptable. Did they lead with a question or did they look at data blindly and allow the data to tell them what should be done? There may be a very great strategic reason to abandon practice group pages. Plenty of firms are doing it and/or getting more creative with how they present their myriad of services.

But right now a client is on your webpage. Your client has used you and your firm to handle their real estate closings. The client is on your webpage because s/he is bored at work and wants to know what the new associate that was so nice over the phone looks like. As s/he is clicking around to their ultimate destination, they see that your firm handles Premises Liability. And for 0.2 seconds, the client registers this in his/her head, “I didn’t know that.” They don’t click on the page because your client is pretty sure what “Premises” and “Liability” means and is brilliant enough to, when combining the two words, ascertain meaning.

Since they don’t click, baby data doesn’t know. Baby data doesn’t talk, remember? The data goo goo ga ga’s that practice group pages are worthless.

Or, maybe you’re lucky. Maybe your firm’s data isn’t baby data at all. It’s all grown up and even has its own apartment. And it’s telling you, “Ads don’t work.”

Somewhere a smart marketer listens to that big, bad data and responds: “We Have No Idea if Online Ads Work. Click here, and then click again to the second page to find out why.”

Thoughts on Outsourcing Content Marketing

 

(Note: I wrote this article myself, using my own opinions. All mistakes and logical fallacies are my own)

Content marketing has moved beyond buzz-word, passed Hot Seminar Topic, driven right by Panel Discussion & firmly landed as an industry. I’ve read dozens of articles about content marketing the past few weeks that are, in fact, themselves, content marketing. Articles that explain how many ‘touches’ of content marketing you need in order to solidify a sell (it’s 12, apparently. It used to be 10, but now it is positively 12). Articles that define content marketing (it’s a tricky concept but, essentially, you use content to market). And, increasingly, I see a suggestion in content marketing articles about content marketing that the “development” (writing) can be, and maybe even should be, outsourced.

Here’s how I picture this:

                John, Attorney: I need to content market. Can you assist me?

Steve, Content Marketer: Yes, we have experts in many different fields. What would you like to market?

                John, Attorney: I want clients and prospects to know that I am an expert on immigration law.

Steve, Content Marketer: Great! We can do that. We have a research team that can put together the content for your final review.

                John, Attorney: Oh, also, I want to seem approachable. Likeable, even, if that’s possible.

Steve, Content Marketer: That’s not a problem at all. We provide a high level of service to our clients, and we also strive to put a personal touch on all of our content.

So my imaginary scenario is glib and, most likely, disrespectful to outsourced content marketers. I apologize. Let me go ahead and lay out my specific issues with outsourcing the creation of content.

1.      YOU are supposed to be the expert

2.      People want to get to know, and hire, YOU

3.      “Research team” is fancy speak for “Google,” which a lot of people have access to already

You create content to show off your expertise in a particular niche. So, show it off. Did you become an expert by googling terms related to your field, printing out academic articles you find and then piecing them together into a coherent article? No? You didn’t? You became an expert by handling dozens of cases, spanning a variety of issues and touching on many disparate facets of the law?

Many content marketers interview the individual purporting to write the content and then put together an article or articles based on those interviews with the ‘writer’ always having final approval. That’s better, absolutely. But now you are paying someone to dictate, convert your verbal responses to a writing style and add clauses. I want to suggest that the biggest missed opportunity with this approach is the time you would have spent thinking about what you were going to write. Writing is difficult, without a doubt. But sometimes, the most difficult part of it is staring at a blank screen. It can also be the most illuminating part. Think of this way: most professionals spend a majority of their working time actively engaged in tasks. How much time do professionals spend on introspection? Or, for that matter, retrospection on the work you have done? That’s very valuable for you and your clients. Your clients want to know what you do, what you have done and what you know. No interview or research team can encapsulate that. Only you can, and only over time. You will not find your voice immediately, but the process of you finding your voice is actually pretty interesting, as a reader, to watch unfold. There’s no confusion about who is behind the thoughts and opinions, because it’s not carefully crafted and sanitized.

Let’s zoom way out. Why do you want to participate in content marketing? If the only reason is because you heard that Google’s search algorithms reward original content then I submit that’s a bad reason. You can absolutely feel fine outsourcing your content if that’s your reason, but it’s a wasted opportunity. If you are interested in content marketing it should be about something else – about turning your experiences and expertise into something of value for other people.

Think about your audience. Isn’t that the first rule they teach when writing anything? If your audience can find this same exact information in a 0.0004 second google search: what value are you adding?

Think about your audience. If your audience will come away from reading your content with nothing more than “s/he practices immigration law,” you probably could have saved some time and money writing that in your various bios + linkedin profile.

Think about your audience. If your audience will come away from reading your content with a sense of who you are as a professional, what you do and what you know then they will come again to learn more and they will be much more likely to pay to utilize your knowledge and experience because you have added value and, more than that, you have presented yourself. You did not hide yourself or wall yourself in canned industry-speak. That stuff gets read right over when it does get read. Be interesting. Be you.

You can’t outsource you. You can outsource elements of content marketing, of course. The design, the functionality, the delivery system. But you cannot outsource the critical piece that makes content marketing, when done well, so effective: the feeling of connection between the reader and the writer.

Sometime soon I’ll write a quick post on where to spin that monkey mind of yours as you stare at the blank screen. I don’t have much experience or any expertise, but that is a place I know very well.

What a Major League Baseball Team can teach us about Legal Marketing

Joe Posnanski is a very good sportswriter. When it comes to baseball, he may be the best in the business right now. He recently wrote an article on “The Oakland Way,” examining the Oakland A’s continued success more than a decade after Moneyball was written by Michael Lewis. It is a very good article and I recommend you read the entire thing, but, for my purposes, here’s your summary:

The Oakland A’s do not have a lot of money to spend on baseball players, the way teams like the Red Sox and Yankees do. Michael Lewis wrote Moneyball, which then became a successful movie, profiling their General Manager, Billy Beane, and the approach the Oakland A’s took in identifying talent and finding success with less resources than other teams. The book has been a lightning rod since its publication for a myriad of reasons that are mostly too boring to get into. Basically, many took it as some sort of hagiography of Billy Beane and misinterpreted the message. The book is about exploiting inefficiencies. Michael Lewis made his bones writing about markets, and still does, and in this baseball story he found some interesting marketing inefficiencies that the Oakland A’s were exploiting. Now, it’s over a decade later and those inefficiencies are no longer inefficient. They are known by all teams, fans, writers and even the players themselves. And the Oakland A’s keep winning with resources that suggest they shouldn’t. That is because, in a nutshell, there is a new inefficiency, and that inefficiency is execution.

One of the key quotes that immediately clues us in that this is “not just a baseball story,” comes from the Oakland A’s current Director of Baseball Operations, Farhan Zaidi, “We’re not trying to be smarter than anybody else. We’re just trying to stay true to our philosophy of building a baseball team.”

The lesson within the article is actually relevant to any organization or business, but since my particular interest is legal marketing, I’ll focus on that. I receive, like many marketers, a barrage of daily industry information in the form of articles, books, white papers, webinars, podcasts and every other medium designed to deliver a message. The duplicative content of much of this onslaught is exhausting. Content marketing is king. There is a new normal. Add video. Stay engaged. Automate. Pine for and mine big data.

As a sample, here are three headlines for content sent to me before Noon on Wednesday June 5^th, 2014:

o   How Does Business Intelligence Improve Your Bottom Line?

o   How CMOs and CIOs are working to improve business with technology

o   Marketer's Guide to Mobile Engagement 2014

I don’t have an opinion either way on the content of these articles (or presentations or 3-D virtual reality seminars, whatever they may be). I don’t have a problem with any of the headlines. I can’t write headlines, mine are no better. What strikes me as I look at the plethora of knowledge in my industry is how transparent and ubiquitous the playbook is.

Folks who do not work at law firms and have very little experience with firms as a business typically start a conversation with, “How do you market a law firm?” But within the industry, the answer to that question is known across the board.  Being a bit of a contrarian by nature, I’m always looking for some new angle or some popular technique to dislike or rail against. But, the Oakland A’s story gets straight to the point – there is no new angle.

Let’s get back to the story. The meat of it, the point of this post in one quote from the story, comes from Posnanski summing up the secret to the Oakland A’s success:

No, it's not about KNOWING things others don't. It's about ACTING differently from other teams.

Acting differently comes down to execution. For the Oakland A’s they cannot afford to get seduced by a hard-throwing left-handed pitcher who, if they could just teach him to throw strikes would be a superstar. It doesn’t matter that other teams do this. In legal marketing, we cannot afford to have some portion of the team operating outside the organizational philosophy. It does not matter if there are office politics at stake. The Oakland A’s cannot afford to ignore a 27 year old minor league hitter that is tearing the cover off the ball just because he is too old. If he can hit, he can hit. Why he didn’t hit in the past is not of any concern to them because they are playing baseball in the present. Legal marketers cannot afford to take half measures and shortcuts or use short-term minor successes as evidence that the long term vision is flexible. I mean, yes, be adaptable. But don’t abandon principle.

Strategy is fun and intellectually stimulating to discuss and craft. I love strategy. Spending an inordinate amount of time strategizing is a great way to sound fantastic at meetings and not further the firm’s goals. The real work, the work that pays off and shows up, is painstaking. It is filled with details that cannot be overlooked or tossed aside. Strategy is big and broad. Execution is a daily process. It is tiny. It is necessarily stubborn and slow. It is extremely tempting to look at the competition, see something new and exciting, and take off in an entirely new direction. The Oakland A’s choose not to do that. They know the playbook, it’s the same playbook every other General Manager in baseball has, and they focus on execution and ignoring the temptations to stray. And there are many temptations.

The marketer down the street is just as smart as you. The attorneys down the street are just as smart as your attorneys. The market inefficiency is not intelligence or skill. It’s execution.

There is no “New Normal.” There is Normal & There is you (2014 LMA Annual Conference)

#airportgiftshop

Derek Maine

There is a “new normal.” You’ve probably heard about it. I wasn’t around for the old normal so I’m working at a disadvantage here but I’m going to step outside my own experience and make an educated guess: the new normal is the same as the old normal. It’s the norm. Individuals and businesses need lawyers. Lawyers need individuals and businesses (and laws, of course, but there’s plenty of them to go around). Our job is to connect. Or coordinate, direct or official a connection, as the case may be. Buying ad space in the phone book doesn’t make much sound sense anymore. So now we chase Google’s ever-changing algorithms in pursuit of the almighty first page result. LinkedIN is a lot prettier to look at than a dusty rolodex.  Clients with voluminous legal needs started noticing that there sure were a lot of lawyers and a timely bottle of scotch didn’t go as far. Some even dared to speak the unspeakable, “why do we pay that way instead of this way?”

There is no new normal because there was no old normal. The phrase “change is the only constant” is attributed to a Greek philosopher that lived from 535 BC until 475 BC. In other words, we’re all already well aware of this truth. But have we accepted it?

We are in the stage of a business cycle, in the legal industry, where the supply outweighs the demand. That will change because that’s the nature of cycles. But which attorneys and which firms will make it through and flourish in this portion of the cycle is a fair question. Some of the tools I was introduced to at the annual conference may play an important role in answering that question. Some of them won’t. Identifying which one’s will and which one’s won’t and allocating your resources in an effective manner definitely will.  It always has. That’s just normal.

The 2014 Legal Marketing Association Annual Conference was unquestionably geared towards large firms. International firms. Cross-coastal firms. AmLaw 100, AmLaw 250. Firms with marketing departments and specialization. I was a proud and honored recipient of the LMASE scholarship to attend the conference but I happen to not work at one of those firms. I gained some insight, was able to see a lot of really cutting edge software and processes and met some really interesting people. I know more about the industry today, as I wrap this up, than I did when I boarded that plane. But there are a lot of us out there, toiling away in one or two member departments for smaller firms. My experience at the 2013 LMASE Annual Conference in Charleston, and the local meetings and meet-ups, tap into this culture of smaller firms much more effectively.

I spent some time walking around the halls of the hotel feeling a little insecure about my place in the profession. The large firms, with their supremely competent big staffs and legal software to die for, was part of it. The other part was my inexperience, obviously. And this was my first time. Not being a natural at networking, I’m bound to feel myself get tied up. But there was something else and it stemmed from the educational and information overload I had experienced in a short matter of time. I felt like I had too many options, was being seduced in too many directions. I have the resources for one big project a year and my notebook had suggestions for 12. I took a seat, grabbed a coffee, and looked at the list. The theme was choice. If there is a new normal, it’s an abundance of choice. And there’s just me. That’s overwhelming. I used to tell friends that romance, work and home ownership were not that difficult because you only need one partner, one job and one home. It only takes one so the odds are pretty well stacked in your favor to find someone to love, something to do during the day and somewhere to sleep. There are a lot of people to love, a lot of things to do and a lot of places to sleep. They outnumber you. The key, and this is hard for some people, is to commit to that one thing. So I took my silly advice and crossed out 11 of the projects in my notebook, emailed firm leadership about an initiative I was interested in exploring and committed.

Thanks for reading. Reach out, say hello, my email is derekmaine@yahoo.com. I am always happy to talk and sometimes I even listen.

Buying In and Selling Out (2014 LMA Annual Conference)

#Day2

Derek Maine

This was my first Annual Conference. I have been a Legal Marketer since July, 2013. While I’ve worked at law firms for my entire career, up until July, 2013 I only wistfully looked at the marketing department in the firms I worked at. In other words, I don’t even know what I don’t know. It’s my single biggest strength and my single biggest weakness. I look at everything through fresh eyes. I am also missing, or just learning, concepts and tools that have been obvious to most for many years. But I do have a hunch that the theme of attorneys “buying in” is not new this year. Attorneys understand the importance of marketing, probably more so in this climate than ever. And it is short-sighted to assume that attorneys have no innate marketing skills. After all, plenty of attorneys are able to pay their light bill without a marketing department. So why does the issue of attorneys “buying in” keep getting uttered in panel discussions, the exhibit hall and during coffee breaks?

I think the question of “buying in” isn’t about attorneys believing or not believing in the power of marketing. It’s the issue of someone telling them what works best. And that someone is often not an attorney themselves. It’s difficult for any intelligent, driven individual to hand over the stewardship of their work ex fide fiducia. Actually, here we go: no one likes to be told what they have done that has worked before does not work anymore. We don’t like to change, we don’t like to be told we have to do something. And we want to exert control over our work. Attorneys have no trouble buying into the principles, but they may be hesitant to buy into specific tools and techniques that marketers are advocating. So the very first thing I do when I receive push-back on any project or initiative is reflect. What is my logic and is it sound? I build my case to myself and, if that case holds up, I sell it. I look at the partners in my own firm as the very best sounding board and critics. If there is a lack of “buy in,” and it’s not rooted in clear realpolitik, the problem is most likely not with attorneys refusing to buy in. The problem is me and what I’m selling.

I attended this year’s conference with the Marketing Partner at our firm. I wanted her to be inundated, as I would be, with the strategies, tools and techniques. How would we view the themes and concepts differently? Would we hear the same message? Early on in day one, my colleague lamented that many panel discussions were critical of attorneys and focused on some negative generalizations that deal with professionals hesitancy to adopt change. I didn’t hear that. She was clear, “I already know this about attorneys, I want to know what to do about it.” I always defer to bumper stickers for the important lessons in life. So, be the change, I say. Because, truthfully, there isn’t always something you can do about it. Some people, across all facets of work and life, do not want to put in the frustratingly slow and hard work necessary to reap the rewards. So spend more time and resources with those attorneys that do.

The first panel discussion for me on day two was “Trends in Media/PR for Law Firms in Terms of What’s Valuable and Effective Today.” Again, a quote from the program landed me in the chair. “…but now even online media can be a fool’s game.” Tell me more.

Paul Webb, Director of Marketing at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP was the single best panel speaker I saw at the conference. He had a tremendously interesting story on how his firm used an office move to build up an entire PR campaign in a very creative fashion. And then we started talking about rankings. What started as a whisper of annoying surveys to fill out, in-office politicking and affirmed total lack of client interest in how or why an attorney is ranked soon became a roar. Everyone hates having to do this. It serves no purpose. Everyone does it anyway. I heard this over and over throughout the conference and now we were going to discuss it out in the open. Paul Webb asked if anyone in the room knew of a client that hired an attorney based on a ranking. Someone raised their hand. It was the first time he had heard of that. It was suggested that one possible useful tool in rankings is recognizing attorneys that do not always get the spotlight. That sounds like a nice thing. Chambers came up for the 26^th time. I’ve been hearing about Chambers for a while, but nowhere near the amount of chatter going back and forth at this conference. One of the first things I did when I got back to my office was check out Chambers & Partners. The website smelled of mahogany and rich leather. I knew the names of almost all of the law firms on the shortlist. The brands were large, institutional, old, international, conservative and boring. The website gave my computer this weird virus where now everything around me was 1983 and cartoonish financiers and their bespeckled counsel drank dry martini’s and smoked cigars in the back room of a restaurant that does not exist anymore, sitting in high back red booths.  

For a civil defense firm the best work, the really ingenious creative cost-saving legal work is known by the attorney and the client. That’s it. It is actually always unethical and most of the time illegal for it to be any other way. It’s not ranked, recognized, Super Lawyered or Best Lawyered. There is no SEO formula and no app for that. I submitted a press release, for immediate distribution, to all major networks and outlets: Attorney called client back immediately and resolved an issue before it became a legal claim; billed 0.1. Even The Onion passed.

The room was huge. Every chair was taken up. Extra chairs were brought in. Legal Marketers sat down in the back and in the rows on the side. “Quick Fixes: Innovative Solutions in Law Firm Business Development” was, from my view, the most popular breakout session of the conference. Dave Burns, Director of Client Services at Farella Braun + Martel LLP {shortlisted for Best Real Estate Firm by Chambers and Partners 2014] had a story to tell. His firm is serious about diversity. As in, they don’t have a diversity pamphlet and document tucked away on their intranet. They get out in the community and practice what they preach. And, it turns out, they were so good at it that their clients wanted in. They committed to something and benefited their community with their work and their clients noticed and wanted to get involved to help. This is the future of our industry. This is the success story. This is the theme. And it’s not just our industry, it’s everywhere. The American Dream as a shared experience and goal as opposed to an individualistic ideal.

Melanie Green, Chief Client Development Officer at Faegre Baker Daniels, had a nice problem to have. Her firm had just merged. All of a sudden there were a lot more innovative, intelligent attorneys at their disposal. She needed them to talk to each other. At a firm retreat, catering to the competitive nature of attorneys, they set up a trade booth style show where attorneys would get prizes for visiting other practice groups in the firm and having conversations. Follow-ups were identified and tracked. There was some trouble with buy-in. Alcohol was served. It worked. In planning for this year’s event the firm leadership admitted that they needed forced interaction so that attorneys didn’t just spend their time socializing with colleagues they already knew, but branched out and networked with their new colleagues. How many connections were made, how many shared clients with varied needs identified, how many in-house referrals gathered? Well, lets just go ahead and be crass. How much revenue did Melanie Green and her team generate for the firm by putting on an internal trade show? How much revenue did Dave Burns and his team generate for the firm by believing in ideals enough to put in the time, money and effort to commit to them?

Bringing people together. Sharing ideas. Learning birthdays, the names of children, favorite sports team, most underrated Coen Brothers’ film. Using digital tools to more effectively coordinate face to face interaction. In the same room. With your laptop closed. With your phone in your pocket. Being interested and present in life. I buy into all of that.

Thank you for reading. I will have one more post tomorrow wrapping up the conference. If we are lucky enough to meet, as a starting point; April 15, 1982, Wyatt & Zoe, North Carolina Tarheels, A Serious Man.

Thurs 4/17/14:                  There is no “New Normal.” There is Normal & There is you

                                              (#AirportGiftShop)