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

By on August 7, 2011

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!

Comments (0)
Categories: Best Practices, Legal Marketing, Technology, The Legal Market

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

By on June 27, 2011

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.  

  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

Comments (0)
Categories: Best Practices, Legal Marketing, The Legal Market

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

By on May 24, 2011

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.

Comments (0)
Categories: Best Practices, Legal Marketing, The Legal Market

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

By on May 17, 2011

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.

Comments (0)
Categories: Best Practices, Legal Marketing, Technology

“SEO – How the Landscape has Changed”

By on March 30, 2011

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.

Comments (0)
Categories: Best Practices, Legal Marketing, Technology, The Legal Market

Trade Show Trade Off – How much does a lead really cost?

By on February 23, 2011

Trade shows – there is a part of me that feels they are a thing of the past, yet year after year we all pay the money to model our wares and elicit leads. Although we still get leads from the shows; the shows, when it’s all said and done, are very expensive and often one might feel that they are there just because everyone else is. This is not to say the shows are not well done, because they are, and this is not to say that vendors don’t get prospects, because they do – it’s just an interesting analysis to see how much, on average, these leads really cost at a major legal technological trade show.  The other thing to keep in mind is that often vendors view these marketing activities as branding tactics, rather than targeted marketing. Some vendors might focus most of their marketing money on targeted marketing to a pinpointed demographic. This is a difficult thing to accomplish at, say, a Legal Tech New York.

 So, here’s the possible cost of a trade show from soup to nuts:

 10 x 20 Booth Space: $15,000

Booth Aesthetics: $10,000

Freight/Material Handling: $11,000

Labor & Miscellaneous Services: $3,000

Travel: $15,000

Pre-Show Marketing: $1,500

Client/Prospect Entertainment: $3,500

TOTAL: $59,000

 Based on the above estimate, here are the average “costs” of a lead:

 5 qualified leads: $11,800/lead

10 qualified leads:  $5,900/lead

15 qualified leads: $3,933/lead

20 qualified leads: $2,950/lead

 Depending on your sales cycle and average sale, I’m sure your company can reap a quick ROI on your own figures. This blog post is not meant to discount the fact that trade shows are a great opportunity to network and visit with clients, etc. this focuses purely on the lead aspect.

 Overall, trade shows are a necessary evil expense. I enjoy the face time they give companies with prospects and the chance it gives to see and model, first hand, up and coming products. I still can’t help but keep wonder when the shows will become “virtual”.  We shall see.

 



Comments (0)
Categories: Legal Marketing, The Legal Market

“Streamline Your Way to Bigger Margins”#5 – Maximizing your Marketing Dollars

By on January 20, 2011

This ongoing series will visit small (and large) overlooked ways firms can save money that can add up to big dividends.

Although I don’t profess to be a marketing guru, I have spent some time in my 29 years of work experience in the legal industry drafting marketing budgets and coming up with creative strategies to make the dollars work.  Here are some observations I have made in my own business that have helped us to take a more hands-on and individual approach to marketing our business. I hope these practical strategies help you as well.

  1. Make Sure to Measure
    This is listed as point #1 for a reason. So many firms blindly run marketing campaigns because, a) it’s the way it’s always been done and, b) because it’s an afterthought. Measuring responses and prospective clients will help your firm keep track of each initiative while justifying the effort and dollars spent.
  2. Social Networking is Worth It
    I’ll start out by saying most social networking mediums are free. With this said, it’s imperative that a firm doesn’t take a carte blanche approach and slap whatever they feel like up on the web. I wrote a past blog entry about this; make sure what you communicate via Facebook, Twitter and via blogs is potent and valuable.
  3. E-Communication
    From the mid-1990s on, e-newsletters and digital communication has become a leading way to get in touch with prospects. The only downfall is obvious; people are sick of it. This is why targeted messaging is so important. Avoid poor execution and watered down information by knowing your audience(s).
  4. Try Some New Stuff
    Many firms are afraid to branch out a bit and go outside the norm. Although I’m not advising that you throw away all sense and decorum and send out smoke signal messages in the center of Times Square, sometimes utilizing existing mediums to “test” new concepts such as special event invites or a survey may be the best way to see what works without blowing the budget. It’s also easier to track success rates and interest this way.
  5. Repurpose and Outsource As Needed
    Ramping up your marketing campaign can be expensive, no matter how thrifty and wily a marketer you are. Sometimes it may be best to outsource a campaign and some of the grunt work. It may sound crazy when you’re trying to save money, but often freelancers can do things quicker and with quality because, simply stated, they have practice.

 Whatever you do, make sure your marketing money is spent with purpose. So often it’s easier to do things because competition is doing it or because it’s a challenge to come up with creative marketing solutions. Do your research and cross your fingers that it will pay off.

Comments (0)
Categories: Best Practices, Legal Marketing, The Legal Market
Gallery
ist2_5516813-business-people-joining-their-hands ist2_11425109-business-woman-with-colleagues-at-the-back ist2_7730216-library-tables
Follow RainMaker