Insights from the Marketing Partner Forum 2011

I recently attended the Marketing Partner Forum in Scottsdale, Arizona.  I've attended and spoken at this event multiple times in the past, though I hadn't been in a couple years.  I was pleasantly surprised to see full rooms, which is a positive sign for the economy.  After all, when law firm profits are down, attendance at conferences plummets -- even at those conferences showcasing techniques to increase law firm profits! There are several good recaps of the conference content:  here and here and here and here and here and here.  You can even see a video recap of one of my sessions here.

You can also view the entire Twitter feed from the conference here (note that the most recent posts are displayed first).

Here are a few brief takeaways from the sessions I attended and from my own two presentations:

• Although the economy is reviving, General Counsel are not content to go back to the "old ways."  They will continue to exert downward price pressure on law firms, seek alternative methods of accomplishing routine legal work and cast a wider net for law firm providers that "get it."
• Sales is no longer a dirty word in many law firms.  It's no longer sufficient to characterize a law practice as a profession that rises above such mundane tasks as generating business, as evidenced by the numerous lawyers who've had a rough go of it the last few years.  If you don't know how to generate new business individually or collectively, you won't thrive.  Lawyers are embracing business development more than ever -- and without exploring the nuances too deeply, let's just say that Marketing can be delegated, but Business Development is the lawyers' responsibility.  Law firm marketers are employing more sophisticated tools to identify target markets so the firm can more efficiently direct its resources.
• There is a blurring of the lines between the traditional roles of Marketing, Business Development, Knowledge Management, Finance and Operations.  Slowly but surely law firm leaders are realizing that profits can be generated by allocating resources efficiently, and this means not chasing every dollar, not endorsing every partner's whim, targeting prospects that fit the firm's skill set, retaining clients that are profitable, exploring new ways to deliver legal services at lower rates, and so on.
• There is a clear role for both business process improvement and Legal Project Management, some of which is simply doing things differently, some of which requires technology to be effective.  There are a number of firms effectively embracing these concepts, and they are taking work away from competitors one and two tiers above them because they can demonstrate high quality and competency at lower rates, not just talk about it.

The Evolution of Legal Marketing - An Interview of Allen Fuqua

As part of Hubbard One's Innovation Forum in late 2010, I had the good fortune of spending time with a number of thought leaders in the legal marketing and legal technology sectors.  Allen Fuqua, Chief Marketing Officer of Winstead PC of Dallas and a veteran of legal marketing, shared his views on what's new in the field.  As the economy emerges from the recession, it's notable that he doesn't see law firms retreating completely back  to old ways.  We are all faced with doing more with less, focusing on efforts that produce results, narrowing our field of vision... and helping lawyers understand that such prioritization requires choices.  See the interview here.  Enjoy!

Customer Service - What Are You Solving For?

Many moons ago I was given responsibility for my organization's customer service operation.  I had been a longtime critic of the way things had been handled by the previous management team, so a clever senior manager gave me the chance to do something about it...  and a good life lesson in being careful what you wish for!  Nevertheless, I embraced the opportunity with gusto and when I eventually moved on to my next assignment we had reduced employee turnover, improved working conditions, implemented better metrics and improved our satisfaction rating.  I made plenty of mistakes, but I had a very patient and competent team and we learned from each other -- I learned from them the intricacies of customer service, they learned from me how to measure performance and use data to drive investment decisions. Since then I've had many occasions to observe other organizations.  We all have.  Whether it's the cable company that can't commit to an installation appointment window of less than 8 hours; or the phone company working on the telephone pole outside until the shift ends and the tech leaves the neighborhood without phone service until he can return tomorrow; or the politically-minded restaurant owner who stopped by the table to openly mock his opposite-leaning dinner patrons; or the rental car agency which tried several times to pursue a false claim of property damage despite overwhelming evidence rebutting the charge, which as it turns out is a regular tactic designed to extort money from customers who don't have the time or energy to fight; or the temporary office suite rental company that began collections proceedings against a longtime client within a week of a changed reservation that incurred a change fee; and the list goes on and on.  These are just a few of the examples I've witnessed or heard of in the last several months, and the prevailing question these actions leave in my mind is: what the heck are they solving for?

In math (or maths as my UK friends say it!), it's important to know what you're solving for, because then you can line up the givens and the variables and formulate an equation to derive the solution.  Customer Service has multiple moving parts, and, to be clear, service roles can be thankless because most customers won't be satisfied with anything less than having their opening demand met.  But every service organization should establish clear and unambiguous goals for its desired outcome.  All service agents, indeed everyone from top executive to new hire, should be clear about what the organization is solving for.

Looking back at the handful of examples, is the cable company solving for customer convenience, or ignoring it while solving for fitting in the maximum number of service calls per assigned vehicle, regardless of how long it takes?  Is the phone company solving for uninterrupted service with the corresponding revenue generated, or solving for fitting as much service into the normal workday but not a moment more?

Is the restaurant owner solving for promoting his own political beliefs or for demonstrating how clever he is, or for diner satisfaction, repeat visits and good feedback on OpenTable.com?  Is the rental car company solving for generating some revenue from fooling a few customers into paying for imaginary property damage or is it better off solving for lowering the costs to acquire a new rental by creating happy repeat customers?  Does the office suite rental firm solve for and therefore reward its employees for prompt collections and cash flow rather than solving for repeat business?

In my own experience, my team initially solved for call time, and the clear and overriding objective was to end the call as quickly as possible, even if that meant the problem went unresolved.  Forwarding the call to a 3rd party, or worse, to a 3rd party's voice mail, seemed to be more acceptable than extending the call beyond the stated goal in order to resolve it.  Once we tackled that, we learned that agents began to solve for pleasing disgruntled customers at any cost.  So the number of credits issued skyrocketed, until we reset the target to improving customer satisfaction  quickly and at the lowest cost.  Then we added more and more conditions until there were too many objectives, so so we dialed back until we found our comfort zone.

The lesson is that addressing customer satisfaction is an exercise in optimization rather than maximization.  In other words, there are competing objectives or constraints which create boundaries around our potential actions.  It's important to find the right balance within these various boundaries, rather than focus on one at the exclusion of others.  Yes, this makes things more complex.  Anyone who shudders at the memory of manually calculating complex linear programming equations in Calculus class, with multiple constraints and "subject to's" knows that optimization is a challenge.

But as a practical matter, is it really so hard to address customer concerns while keeping a few tenets in mind?  For example, we will acknowledge your inquiry promptly, and if we can't provide an answer right away we'll advise you when we can, and then we'll meet or exceed that deadline.  We may offer a solution that is less than what you demand, but will acknowledge any mistakes we made, compensate you fairly for your trouble, maintain our profitability but encourage you to stay, or become, a repeat customer.

Two anecdotes to emphasize the point.  I travel regularly to London, and I often arrive on Monday morning when Heathrow airport is at its busiest.  The line for immigration and customs was over two hours long on my last visit.  Many airlines offer its elite fliers a "Fast Track" card to speed through this process, but I discovered my preferred airline, Continental, no longer does.  Alternatively, the UK offers a program called "Iris" which, not surprisingly, uses eyeball scans as proof positive of your identity, and speeds you through immigration and customs if you're a registered member of the program.  However, on my last visit the Iris office in my terminal was closed so I couldn't register.

While planning my next trip to the UK, I emailed Continental Airlines and the UK Immigration Authority.  I asked the airline if they could find a way to secure a Fast Track card for me, and I asked the Iris team if I could somehow register before my arrival.  Here are excerpts from their respective responses:

Continental Airlines:

Thank you for contacting Continental Airlines.

We appreciate customers taking the time to share comments and suggestions. Feedback like yours presents opportunities for improvement.

At the moment, Continental does not offer the Fast Track ticketing option. However, your comments will be forwarded to appropriate senior management for internal review and possible action.

On behalf of the entire Continental Airlines team, we appreciate your business. We hope to see you on a future Continental Airlines flight.

UK Immigration Authority, Iris office:

I can confirm that you appear to meet the criteria for enrolment on IRIS, although the final decision rests with the enrolment officer, and also that you are only able to enrol on IRIS at the terminal from which you are departing.

Enrolment room staff can only enrol you after scanning your iris.  Enrolment is therefore not possible by any other means or at any location other than an enrolment room.

The enrolment room at Heathrow terminal 4 is not closed permanently, but was closed during the summer as it was clear to local managers (who set the opening hours) that it would be necessary for most of the stated opening hours to re-deploy staff to work at the border control in the arrivals area. Although this was frustrating for would-be users, it did at least remove any uncertainty.

I appreciate that this continues to be frustrating - yours is not the first enquiry I have received about a re-opening date - and an update will appear on the website as soon as I have some news. I am sorry that I am unable to send a more helpful response.

It's apparent that each organization has different objectives in mind when dealing with customers.  Continental values expediency over information, choosing not to provide any context, rationale, explanation, timeline or any other detail concerning its decision to cease participation in the Fast Track program, though they are very polite in providing no information.  Undoubtedly the airline receives reams of inquires each day, but how many come from travelers who have not only achieved the highest elite status, but who have achieved lifetime elite status?  A more manageable number I would venture.  Yet a form response is all they can muster.  By contrast, an actual human in the UK Immigration office took the time to respond to my specific concerns, providing helpful insight and context.

Upon reading both notes, I am no closer to achieving my objective of a speedy trip through UK immigration and customs, but I'm annoyed at the airline for its template response and I'm delighted with the service posture of the Iris agent.  The latter responded quickly, demonstrated empathy, explained the factors impacting me and apologized for not having the answer I sought.  As I wait in line for two hours or so on my upcoming visit, I won't be upset at the UK Iris team, but I'll be wondering why -- now that I've achieved the highest status I can possibly achieve on Continental Airlines -- I didn't switch my allegiance to another airline which provides benefits commensurate with the outrageous business class fare I pay.

When addressing client concerns, be clear about what you're solving for, lest the result of your equation result in declining value for your business.

Social Media: the Ultimate Business Development Tool or Huge Waste of Time?

I had the pleasure of speaking on a panel at the recent Futures Conference hosted by the College of Law Practice Management, of which I'm proud to be an elected Fellow, and American University Washington College of Law.  I was joined by Steve Matthews, founder and principal of Canadian-based web marketing company Stem Legal, and our session was moderated by Dan Pinnington, Director at PracticePro, the Canadian-based Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company and editor-in-chief of the ABA's Law Practice Management magazine.  Presumably I was invited to participate because I grew up on the shores of Lake Ontario, just south of Ontario, so I'm an honorary Canadian! We were challenged to provide practical feedback on the use of social media in a law practice.  What are lawyers doing well?  What can they do better?  Is the whole Facebook/LinkedIn/Twitter/blogging game a huge waste of valuable time, or can it actually aid in the development of new business?  We covered quite a bit of ground, but I'll provide just a couple insights here from my remarks.

Is Social Media overhyped? Of course it is.  Many pundits speak of social media as the panacea, the solution to generating new business when all other efforts have failed, or in lieu of any other efforts.  It should come as no surprise that those touting social media as the best answer to all problems are those who tend to profit from social media.  Consultants and vendors who offer services in this space tend to over-promote.  Needless to say, as a former legal management consultant and now a vendor whose organization offers social media tools, I have some standing to make this claim.

But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, as it were.  One reason why social media is so compelling to so many is that is indeed effective in many ways.  Can social media be both overhyped and under-utilized?  Sadly, yes.  At its core, social media are merely tactics, tools to be used to further one's strategy.  Any business, law practice or other, should have a clear and rational view of which clients to target, which services to offer and how to reach these potential clients.  Much of professional services marketing involves creating awareness of your offering and demonstrating expertise in the subject matter, and social media can be a multiplier in these efforts.  A good analysis of social media will measure whether tools such as Twitter, blogging, Facebook fan pages, a robust LinkedIn profile and the like will have the potential to reach more of the target audience.  And if so, will it provide a conduit for the lawyer to demonstrate credibility.  If we can establish which social media tools can be helpful in this regard, then it's a question of cost -- can these tools generate a greater return as compared to alternative investments, say, sponsoring and speaking at client industry conferences, or authoring articles in traditional media, and so on.

So many lawyers haven't embraced social media because they're dazzled by the technology, or jaded by the noise -- silly games on Facebook or celebrity bloviating on Twitter, for example -- so they fail to properly assess whether these tools can be helpful.

Should a lawyer keep his or her business and personal social networking separate? Without question, lawyers should recognize that their political rants among like-minded friends on Facebook, if made public, may turn off potential clients with different political views.  Similarly, potential clients or employers may find the Spring Break pics from five years ago an exercise in poor judgment.  Unfair?  Of course.  The plain truth is that there's a blurring of the lines between our professional and personal personas.  When I opened a Facebook account it was intended for close friends and family only.  But like you I have a number of close friends in my professional life and they were natural additions to my community.  As time goes on, acquaintances slip in until suddenly one's network is full of distant acquaintances or, in many cases, particularly with the younger crowd, complete unknowns.  Today's youth tend to make connections as flippantly as my generation used to trade phone numbers.  You may call, you may not, but there's no harm in passing out your number.  All of which is to say, you can try really hard to separate your business and personal personas but through your own actions or through the actions of your connections who have less rigor, you will very likely expose more of your personal life than you probably intend.

So be sensible.  Mom's rule about keeping mum if you have nothing good to say applies here.  That doesn't mean you can't engage in harmless tomfoolery, bantering with pals or posting pictures of your kids, but treat such actions as you would a business trip at a sunny location where you stayed a few extra days and brought the family, knowing that some clients would be doing the same.  Act is if a client or potential client is watching, even inadvertently.

But don't overlook the simple truth that buyers buy from people they know, like and trust.  Buyers, like potential friends, size you up pretty quickly and make decisions on whether they'll like you based on a number of factors, only some of which are your subject matter expertise and accomplishments.  This is a tough lesson for lawyers trained in logic:  I went to the right schools, I've earned numerous professional honors, I have domain expertise in the legal issues you're facing, so naturally you should hire me... and so what if I contribute to a political party that rejects all of your political beliefs.  On the other hand, all other professional credentials being equal, a buyer might hire the lawyer who seems family-oriented, is clearly proud of his hobbies and who has an opinion or two about whether his team should have gone for it on fourth down or kicked it away.

For more insights on my social media involvement, see my discussion of what social networks and resources I find valuable.  Also, one of my favorite legal peeps, Ron Friedman, is also a Fellow of COLPM and live blogged our panel discussion, so check out his thoughtful insights here.

Also, for an excellent practical guide to incorporating social media into a law practice, run, don't walk, to buy Jayne Navarre's social.lawyers: Transforming Business Development (West Publishing, 2010).  Jayne is a veteran legal marketer, former Board member of the Legal Marketing Association and a consultant I've turned to for advice time and again.

ILTA 2010 Recap - Change is in the Air

I had the pleasure of spending a week indoors in 100 degree (F) Las Vegas last week while attending the ILTA 2010 conference, the industry's premier legal technology conference  The theme this year was Strategic Unity, suggesting that law firm and client technologies should be aligned.  I was interviewed on the exhibit hall floor and asked to give my reaction to the conference, including what themes were emerging.  You can view the 1-minute video here.  With slightly more context, here are three themes that resonated with me. First, and most evident given the high attendance at the conference, law firms are spending money again.  We can debate whether the recession is over, and whether law firms are filling pent up demand for capital improvements.  We can debate whether Biglaw survived through innovative strategies, client focus and attention to operational efficiencies -- scratch that, there's little room for debate.  Terminating associates and staff to increase profits while making few changes to the way partners operate is hardly something to brag about.  Or the headline as Jordan Furlong puts it (here): "Revenue down, costs slashed in panic, profits up."  But nevertheless, law firms are spending money again.

Interestingly, the lessons seem to be taking hold finally.  The second theme apparent to me is the focus on clients.  ILTA is a technology show, so the questions weren't "What extranet will suit my firm's needs"" but "What extranet framework will offer the greatest flexibility to meet my many clients' needs?" and instead of "How can these tools recapture lost time so we can bill more hours?" I heard "How can these tools drive efficiency in our internal operations?"  Law firms may be starting to embed client needs in their mindset, rather than merely their own.

Finally, the third theme is interoperability.  The word's a bit clunky, but it's my way to describe the need to build systems and tools that interact, that work together, that provide minimal complexity to lawyers and staff who wish to attend to their daily workflow with improved tools, not stop their daily workflow to go off and perform some function on some fancy new but isolated tool, returning later to finish the task at hand.  Law firms are a cash business, meaning they settle accounts once a year, and by and large their financial officers have been accountants, trained to look backward.  We're starting to see more finance-oriented professionals who look to the future, who can assess their options by comparing the total cost of ownership and NPVs of various options, rather than be blinded by sticker price.  If Product A is $50,000 less expensive than Product B, but Product A requires $75,000 of configuration to make it talk to other systems and $35,000 of user re-training and when it's done it's a completely custom application that can't easily be upgraded, well then it's simply not a better option than a more seamless Product B.

Ask me again in six months if the positive themes at the conference have successfully made their way into the law firm boardrooms, or whether they'll wither and die in the face of increasing profits as the economy continues to lift.

By the way, if you didn't attend the conference but would like to glean some insights from those who did, try viewing the Twitterstream.  Attendees to the various sessions captured notes and observations in tiny sound bites which were then published on Twitter, the microblogging site, using the hash tag #ILTA10.  If this means nothing to you, click on this link to see a reverse-chronologically ordered list of all the sound bites from all the sessions.  There's quite a bit to wade through, but some fantastic insights nonetheless.