Archive for Legal Marketing

The skinny on Google+ Business Profiles vs. Facebook: what it can do for your law firm

A while back, I wrote a blog about Google+’s capabilities vs. Facebook. As mentioned in the post, Google+ is still relatively new and yet it has been constructed in an organically pro-business manner that simply needed to tie all of the pieces together.  Business profiles are to be released later this year. When they are, it should be a more compelling environment for businesses than the current Facebook business profile pages.

One major thing Google has going for them is the Search feature, you know, the one that made them famous. Google has been built for businesses. Google+ will be able to leverage not only the Search feature, but also a live feed into the Google+ business page search. Some time ago, Google disabled Real-time Search, which helped to display Tweets from Twitter and limited content from Facebook in real time. If they integrate real time into business searches, people will use the Google+ live feed to post information, “in real time”. This gives businesses a huge advantage on the Google search front.

In addition to the Search feature, Google has the Apps for Business productivity suite, with tools that include word processing, calendars, and a marketplace of proprietary apps as well. Law firms won’t be quick to leave their Microsoft Office Suites anytime soon, but the Google apps are great for those of use that are Android phone and tablet users.

Google+ hasn’t quite reached Facebook status in terms of eliminating email, but it may have an edge on Twitter. With real time search features and the capability to “like” a post, it may give Twitter a run for the money and it could enhance the business users’ bandwidth on the web by organically optimizing posts.

Another benefit Google+ has is its Blogger website. Facebook’s limitations are very obvious. Unless you understand its coding, the page is pretty succinct and “plain”. Google’s Blogger sites are much like this as well, however, the capability to add more text and more value added information is much better than that of Facebook’s. Google may have a one up in the business category just for the mere fact that it is more “serious” in nature.

The largest benefit next to the Google search capability is the built-in Google analytics. Not only does Google offer pay-per-click advertising, they also can see link activity. In other words, who is hitting what link, what time and from where?  This is a major advantage over Facebook for law firm marketing efforts.

Overall, it seems that the framework of Google+ is to benefit all businesses, including law firms. It has been cultivating the back-end and front-end tools through the years to enable businesses to easily optimize information. It seems to me that Facebook is truly a “social network”.  Although businesses still benefit from this, its capabilities seem less “business-like” than Google’s overall. I guess the proof will be in the pudding.

What are your thoughts on Google+ for your law firm?

Delving into Video – how and how not to market your firm

First came YouTube; companies started uploading “out of the box” viral videos that often didn’t directly promote the product, then companies posting videos on their own websites. For some reason, YouTube seemed a more forgiving venue for a poorly made video. At times, I cringe when I see the quality (and sometimes quantity!) of the homemade and even professionally made company video.  Law firms have delved into the online video marketing medium, and, according to Cisco’s Visual Networking Forecast, in 2012, “video on demand, television over IP and Internet TV will make up 90% of consumer IP”.  Video can be a powerful tool to market your firm, however, if poorly executed; it can shed a bad light on your firm.

Here are some things to be cognizant of in order to turn video traffic into a possible client:

  • Save the commercials for television. A good online video often answers a question that the viewer is researching. Perhaps someone gets in trouble with the law. They could Google how to take the right legal action, etc.  Would you be more likely to go to a lawyer touting their legal services and how they will get justice or how about someone who just helped you with the steps to take in a legally related situation? I believe it would be the latter. Try to solve a problem.
  • Make sure the video doesn’t look like it was made in a basement. Remember borrowing a friends’ video camera, fooling around and making the worst videos ever? Well, some corporate and legal videos out there look exactly this way. Even if you are offering some great information, if the quality is not there, the message will suffer.
  • If you decide to hire a professional (which I would suggest), ask around. Depending on how much you want to spend (FindLaw offers an expensive video production service), ask around to find someone with a good reputation who can produce the video. A producer with legal marketing experience would be the best bet. Take a look at YouTube to get good and bad production ideas.
  • Make sure the videos make it on more sites than just yours. Visit the web and look for legal marketing directories to post videos. Look around and find places to make them more viral.

Please feel free to share your own legal video producing tips and tricks. Good luck!

Electronic Newsletter Communication – Is it Dead? Social Media says it’s not

In the mid-to-late 90s, along with thousands of other companies, we jumped on the e-newsletter bandwagon. We built our subscriber list via trade shows, a website opt-in box, sales campaigns, etc. and the click-thru rates were (and still are) above average. Fast-forward 10-15 years and the playing field has certainly changed.

 With the introduction of social media, blogging, etc. it seems that more formal e-newsletters have had to change with the times. Most are working to become more valuable; to provide more information to the reader. In doing this, most e-communications has been forced to become more personalized; less formal and “newsletter-ish”.  By ‘newsletter-ish’, I mean a piece that includes a fancy header, two columns, lots of images, etc. Most poignant pieces seem to come in the form of 2-5 short paragraphs or thoughts, one column and a mix of multimedia.

 Although the format, length and inclusion of multi-media in e-newsletters has changed, e-newsletters are still a valuable source of marketing communication for most companies today, especially when combined with a social media strategy. Here is why (and how):

  1.  Social media venues are great, but lack the provision for more detailed information. Have you ever tried to post a lengthy message on Twitter or LinkedIn or have you viewed one by another poster? It just doesn’t work on these sites. E-newsletters can be posted on these sites via a link, but writing an e-newsletter on these venues just doesn’t work.
  2.  

  3. E-Newsletters are measurable. Social media is and it isn’t.
    Although one can measure interest via ‘likes’ etc., it is difficult to track who read an article, when, how, etc. E-newsletters enable the sender to track who read what article and when. This gives the sender more marketing control, with click-thru rates.
  4. SPAM Filters are becoming more intuitive.
    SPAM will probably always be an email issue however updated anti-spam tools have become “smarter”.  In the past, SPAM filters have been the marketer’s worst nightmare, but with new technology, the important information can get through making the newsletter medium useful again.
  5. Social media is a great way to cross promote e-communication initiatives.
    Don’t get me wrong, social media has its place (for sure) and, when used correctly, can be a powerful tool to promote e-newsletters and enhance all marketing initiatives. Social media is also a great tool to use to get more subscribers.

Overall, based on my own experiences, it is my belief that e-newsletters are not dead. Mixed with social media and a valuable message, e-newsletters can be a very powerful tool in educating clients, finding new prospects and communicating an organization’s core message.

Information Overload – Email Organization 101

I’ll admit it, I get in upwards of 100 emails per day, and they are often in the form of a string of conversations. Email is a way to save time, but is your Inbox getting the best of you? Microsoft Outlook gives users a variety of tools, such as folders, flags, and priority to organize the plethora of emails we receive each day, however, how many of us actually use the tools available to us and which ones are worth setting up? Maybe I’m behind the times; maybe everyone uses Microsoft Outlook best practices, but it seems to me when I get a peek at people’s Inboxes, I see either a gazillion emails, a gazillion folders and/or no organization at all.

I’ve been using Microsoft Outlook for some time now, and although I don’t profess to be a Guru, I do think I have a good grasp on organizing the Inbox so emails are accessible and intuitively dispersed. The following are a few tips and tricks I’ve picked up along the way. Please keep in mind that these tips are for standalone versions of Microsoft Outlook 2007 or higher.

  1. The folder system seems to be the best way to organize emails (as opposed to using different color flags), but how you set them up really depends on your industry. A law firm would organize emails very differently from, say, a software company, e.g., folders grouped by client vs. by client helpdesk number.
  2. Subfolders are okay to use where they make absolute sense, otherwise forgo them. Folders should be intuitive and finding information should be simple. When you have folders, mixed with subfolders, the information is further buried. Sometimes over-organizing can get the best of us. Think about what’s going to work when you look for “that email from Suzie Soandso” 12 months from now.
  3. I don’t know about you, but when I have too many emails in my Inbox, I get Inbox anxiety. I read article years ago about closing one’s Inbox during the day to get work done. I just don’t think this is feasible anymore. Email is the primary form of business communication and to close the Inbox would just make me get behind. So, with that said, the constant stream of email can be contained using common sense. I try to deal with emails right away or pass them along to someone who can. If I cannot, I flag it until it can be dealt with. Once I respond, the email is either filed or deleted – very simple.
  4. SPAM is an Inbox reality, too. If you have a good anti-SPAM system, you are in luck, but there is always the one or two that slip through. Honestly, I try to never use my business email when I sign up for outside information, etc. I actually have a generic email address set up for this. This is not to say I don’t sign up for newsletters or special offers on my real email account; I just try to keep the junk at bay. If you are receiving a lot of junk emails via your real email account, the best thing to do is enable junk and email filters or, simply, unsubscribe.

As always, please feel free to share your Outlook best practices and good luck in your organization endeavors!

The Gap ‘Jumped the Shark’ – How re-branding can be a mistake & quality is king

Back in October, 2010, the news included some hullaballoo about the popular staple store, the Gap, reinventing its well known logo. The replacement was a hideous, generic, Word Art-looking attempt to desperately change its failing brand. 

The idea reminds me of the iconic “Happy Days” show when Fonzi “jumped the shark” for ratings. He went waterskiing and literally “jumped over a shark” which was so far-fetched for loyal viewers; the move was a grave reminder that the show really had reached its peak and then crashed and burned. Not shortly thereafter the show announced its final season. Many firms “jump the branding shark” when things aren’t going well – much like the Gap. The Gap’s style had become dull and sales plummeted; why not try to reinvent the iconic logo to drum up some business? Bad idea, yet so many firms use nomenclature (new titles), brand reinvention, and/or restructuring when, in reality, they should be working on reinventing the level of customer service and value they bring to client relationships.

What should companies think about before rebranding so they don’t make the mistake of “jumping the shark”? Here are some suggestions:

  • Think about how much equity you have in the current branding. For example, it would probably be a mistake for Facebook to change its simple, yet iconic logo. If an organization has a dated looking logo and/or needs some attention, it may be time to visit rebranding/refreshing.
  • How important is a logo/brand facelift to the perception of your company? In other words, will people view your firm as more “on the cutting edge” if you have a fresher brand or do people view your firm as steadfast and true thanks to your current brand? What would you like to convey?
  • If it isn’t an imposition, perhaps you could poll your clients who know your brand and what it offers?
  •  What can your organization gain from a successful rebranding? Is it worth the investment?
  • What can your organization lose from an unsuccessful rebranding, e.g. the Gap?

However difficult it might be, try to visualize what your return on investment might be as a result of a brand refresh and count the cost.

Facebook vs. Google – Will Firm’s allow “Buzz”ing?

Obviously, Facebook is not going anywhere.  It’s everywhere and has, arguably, become the predominant source of communication, even for attorneys.  With every Tom, Dick, Jane and Harry on Facebook (over 600 million users), it’s no wonder it has inched into the social search engine universe. As a result, Google has tried to get on board and become more relevant and social by adding weak features like Google Buzz.  Google has also tried to add a “like” feature called “+ 1,” where users, when signed into their Gmail account, can “like” a search result.  Since many firms are limiting employee use of Facebook at work, this new feature allows users to do Facebook-like things at work, and, when signed in, allow them to see their social group of friend’s “likes”.  In addition, Google can use the +1 feature to up the popularity of a search engine listing. Hopefully, Google is smart enough to know when a biased source is +1-ing their own link more than once or the organic search engine game could become “processed” very quickly.

To rival the copycat +1 feature (and a copy of pretty much all the Facebook features), Facebook has started to request if users would like to make Facebook.com as their home page which would reduce Google’s traffic extraordinarily.  But, with all the rivalry, does social really matter that much? Google has served its purpose well over the years. There are many non-social products related to law firms that Google has provided. Google Buzz is hardly used, and it isn’t making or breaking Google. Really doesn’t it come down to quality versus quantity? When a brand tries to be all things to all people sometimes the quality suffers. Although Facebook has access to a lot of information, it doesn’t mean that the quality would be the same as Google’s and I think that’s okay. Facebook could, ultimately, become the one stop shop for emails, RSS feeds, etc. but it doesn’t necessarily mean the search quality and proficiency would rival that of Google.

Facebook is good at what it does: provides a mega social media medium for millions of users. Google is good at what it does: provides a practical and centralized location for searches from Ant to Zephyr. Facebook is the Mac of the online world, whereas Google is more the PC. There is nothing wrong with the PC, it provides a function and it is good at it. There is nothing wrong with a MAC, it’s a more fun, creative tool to both communicate and accomplish tasks. Merging the two, although somewhat useful to the computer world, would be a mistake. I suppose it really comes down to is it best to be jack of all trades or does that deflate the tools as “master of nothing”? We shall see.

“Power Point – Presentation best practices (and worst)”

I recently read a blog on law.com about Power Point’s 9 new features entitled PowerPoint Powers Up: 9 New Features. It is a great overview of new bells and whistles that can be found in the new version of Power Point and how to use them. I found this article interesting because I use Power Point quite often and I have learned (usually through the school of presentation hard knocks) what works and what doesn’t from color scheme to organization to organizing my own notes.

 Here are a few best practices I have picked up along the way:

 Color Scheme
When choosing a Power Point color scheme, one thing to keep in mind is what type of room you are presenting in. I know this sounds strange, but often presenters choose a scheme with a dark background when presenting to a large crowd in a flat conference hall. The shadows and the logistics often make this type of presentation difficult to see. The nice thing about Power Point in Microsoft 2010 is that many “razzle dazzle” templates are available, and they are usually well thought out in terms of audience logistics and overall presentation aesthetics.

Space
How many times have you sat through a presentation and never paid attention to the presenter because you were too busy reading all of the text on the page? White space is a key to any organized slide, along with well appointed points. I once heard of the “seven by seven rule” whereby the presenter only has seven points on a slide and seven words in each of the seven points. This makes the point clear and the audience is less likely to be distracted by “War and Peace” on a Power Point slide. 

Over-animation, aka Animaniac
I’m sure I have been guilty of this some time in my presenting career, but often orators hide behind the presentation and lose all good presenting skills as a result. Instead of using a flashing icon to get the audience’s attention, perhaps voice fluctuation or even a visual would work instead. The only place animation comes in handy is to deter people from reading the entire slide ahead of time and not paying attention to the presenter.

 Number of Slides (quality over quantity)
Maybe it’s ingrained in us as a result of writing 1,000+ word term papers, but a successful Power Point presentation is not judged by how many slides are in the presentation. At most, a presenter should think about using 20 or less slides to create an effective presentation; more and the presenter runs the risk of losing the audience or cramming too much information in. For the most part, most of the time should be used speaking and/or for audience participation.

When and How to Chart
I’ll admit it – it’s neat to use charts. One feels so accomplished making a cool chart using Microsoft Excel or Word, however, charts should really only be used to illustrate a data driven point. Really, only use a chart when the point can be simply illustrated via a chart, e.g., here is how much money our company gained and lost this year, etc. The exciting thing about charts (now I’ve given away my true nerd persona) is that you can make them very effective by using animation, e.g. show the audience a bar chart with static information – next slide, use the same bar chart and add the dynamic information: wallah! You’ve got yourself a great illustration!

Use Text and Visuals
See above. Some people are visual, and others are verbal. Either way, it’s a good idea to cover your bases by including both text and visuals in your presentation. This does not mean cutting and pasting every clip art from Microsoft office or, even worse, from random Google images.

 In addition to visuals, keep font choices simple.  Serif fonts, e.g., Times New Roman, is good for bullet points. Sans Serif fonts, e.g., Calibri, Arial, Tahoma are good for headings. Try to avoid overusing bold and italics, etc. these tend to make slides difficult to read.

This is an old You Tube video, but the comedian, Don McMillan, very comically lists the Power Point what not to do:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpvgfmEU2Ck

 

 

“SEO – How the Landscape has Changed”

I do not profess to be a marketing expert nor a search engine optimization wizard, but I have made some search engine observations over the past year or so. To give you a little background, my organization started actively “optimizing” using keywords and algorithm patterns about four years ago. Before this, we paid per click, which didn’t seem to do much in terms of prospects or search engine viability. We worked with a search engine “guru” who ran reports and told us how many pages we needed to optimize and what keywords our competitors were using.  We went through the process; adding keywords, Meta tags and value- added information to our website. Within one month or so, we noticed our site climbing to the top of the major search engines for the most dominant keywords within our niche. What a great feeling! We had mastered the search engine game and thought we would just have to maintain the site and continue to add the words on a regular basis. Yahoo!

Fast forward a few years and suddenly our consultant started talking of Blogs, podcasts and social networking, in addition to maintaining our site. Our consultant refers to it as “Social Media Optimization”. I mean, it wasn’t that difficult to do; we had great press releases on new products and new clients, etc. on a monthly basis. Keywords? No sweat.  But now, this new world of organic search engine optimization appeared – a new landscape, if you will.  Suddenly the old vertical presence on the web became quite horizontal. And, instead of selling via keywords, companies are now required to provide more value-added information that will help to build a relationship both with clients and prospects and – search engines.

Keywords are still important to the viability of a company website on the web, but an interactive strategy is what organizations need to focus on in order to stay on top. An interactive strategy blends together company content through three different means: 1.) Publishing/Sharing (e.g., Delicious, DIGG, Flickr, etc.), 2.) Networking (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.), 3.) Community (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.). This requires companies to become more creative and relevant both to potential clients and search engines in an ever-changing landscape.

Not that he needs the business, but our consultant is Bernie Borges from Find and Convert out of Tampa, Florida. You might also want to check out his book, “Marketing 2.0: Bridging the Gap between Seller and Buyer through Social Media Marketing”.  He gets results and he knows social media strategy better than anyone I know.

“The Money Machine and Human Nature – What a trade show draw reveals about adoption theories”

For some time, we have used a “money machine” as a trade show booth draw and incentive.  It’s a little “used car sales-ish,” but it really works in getting people to the booth, and it draws a crowd. Plus, it ties into our marketing campaign of “See More Green”.  The booth is a rectangular cube with plexi-glass sides and a fan on the outside. The fan, obviously, blows the money around while the player stands inside trying to collect as much cash as they can in 15 seconds. Once the timer goes off, the money stops blowing and the player has to stop collecting.

 I have been observing this game for a few years now, and, by far, the most interesting thing to watch is “the approach”. The most timid people have surprised me by going hog-wild in the machine once locked in – shoving money down their shirts (against the rules, by the way) and grabbing at the green like a victim being attacked by killer bees. Then there are those who take a more strategic approach and come up with a strategy ahead of time, e.g., let the money get at arm’s height and grab it. They also watch others and judge what they are doing wrong/right. There are those who have a fair amount of trepidation about getting in an air blowing money trap, and then there are those who beg to get in. A lot of these observations can be applied to many people’s approaches to purchasing new software/hardware/technology in general. It reminds me of the “Adopter Curve” that has been around for some time now (applied in a variety of arenas):

  1. The early adopter/innovators, aka killer bee victim: This purchaser buys something new because, really, they have to be on the cutting edge, and it is cool. It is more of an emotional purchase. They also have a problem that may be wasting a lot of time/resources and want to solve it so they make a quick buy. Sometimes this may lead to a non-fiscally responsible purchase and sometimes it works for them.
  2. The conservative/early majority/late adopters, aka studier:  These people purchase something new because it solves the problem at a reasonable cost. They study all of the ins and outs of the product and then, when the time is right, make an informed purchase based on facts.
  3. The late adopter/laggards, aka anti-machine: Usually the late adopter waits for the deal or they take the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach. While they may have the same problems as others, they can live with it.

It is always a little difficult for me to understand why people have any reservations about winning free money. I guess they think there must be a catch or they just don’t want to put themselves in the spotlight. As the old adage goes, “it takes money to make money”. A lot of technology companies promise to make firms money if they purchase their wares. A lot of times they are right. Sometimes it’s just a waste of resources and other times it really will make your firm money. Make sure to do your research and you may inherit your own money machine.

“Microsoft Office Suite 2010 – What’s the Buzz?”

I’ll admit it, I’m a PC and I’m okay with that. The geeky persona and business suit are all fine with me. I understand PCs, I’m quick and informed on PCs and I’m a Microsoft person. Obviously, I am a fan of the Microsoft Office suite. My company builds products based on utilizing the efficiencies of the Microsoft suite, and I use it on a daily basis (just like the rest of the world). So, what is the buzz on the 2010 Microsoft Office suite? And what are the major differences between it and Microsoft Office 2007? If you have already upgraded or if you’re thinking about it, here’s my take on it.

 Positive:

  • The 2010 version has the ribbon interface, just like the 2007 version. If you liked the ribbon in the former version, you’ll like the latter. 
  • More built-in collaboration web apps. 
  • Slicker templates. 
  • Video editing tools in PowerPoint. 
  • More intuitive and data integral spreadsheet features in Excel.  
  • The suite offers users the ability to work from anywhere with scaled down versions of applications.  
  • Outlook comes equipped with Spam filters. 
  • More memory. 
  • Word cut and paste – paste function doesn’t drag over any formatting from another application.
  • Integration with smartphones, and social media applications.

 Not so Positive:

  • Conversion tools are needed to open the .xml file extension.
  • The ribbon – depending if you like it or not.
  • No useful Outlook templates, still.
  • Re-worked interface – learning curve.

 Microsoft Office 2010 is a must-do for businesses and non-commercial users who are looking for high-end apps, but it will definitely take some time to learn it. If your firm is looking for a simple, “does the job” enterprise application then maybe 2010 isn’t worth it. It really all comes down to how your firm uses the Microsoft suite.





Gallery
ist2_7730216-library-tables ist2_11425109-business-woman-with-colleagues-at-the-back ist2_5516813-business-people-joining-their-hands
Follow RainMaker