United States: Why Brand One Steer In A Herd?

Law firms and their advisors persist in attempting to discover, refine and promote "the brand" or some monothematic reputation of their firm. The thinking behind branding is that a properly focused and communicated brand will be retained in association with an activity or skill in the collective consciousness of their clients and prospective clients. The theory promises that when the need for that activity or skill arises the law firm name pops up as an automatic reflex and that firm is either hired to do the work, or, at the very least, makes the short list of those to be considered for the assignment.

Considerable evidence exists to back up the theory. Branded products like Tylenol, Pampers, Polo and even something as mundane as Morton Salt enjoy price levels and profit margins far in excess of their unbranded competition. A branded law firm like Skadden Arps is able to command billing rates never dared by most of its competitors even though many of the Skadden lawyers once worked at those firms that envision themselves as Skadden’s competitors. Hell, consumers even pay an enormous premium for the likes of Evian, Poland Spring, and Perrier and all they are is water.

And on reflection, it is not surprising that these brands are successful. Brands are symbols and short cuts to reputations; reputations that over time have come to be depended on for a certain level of quality, expertise and reliability. As all of us are increasingly bombarded with promotions, advertisements and sales pitches via radio, television, newspapers, magazines, billboards, direct mail solicitations, telephone pitches and our computers, we can get lost. Some guidance in making purchase choices whether they involve goods or services is valued. Guidance and some type of assurance in this age of the never escaped sales pitch has assumed such importance that Ken Makovsky, CEO of Makovsky & Company, a prominent New York public relations firm, has publicly taken the position that an organization’s reputation is its most valuable asset. He has a lot of support. Makovsky cites an Ernst & Young study along with some General Electric and Amazon.com statistics to back up his position. (1)

These references are just some of the hard evidence for a proposition that is assumed as a given by many of today’s marketing professionals. But when law firms attempt to build a marketing position based on one brand, they squeeze all their practices under the banner of a single phrase label for a variety pack. You get a sense of their efforts by looking at some of the tag lines used in law firm advertising. While these taglines are not necessarily considered the brand, each supposedly reflects the essence of its firm’s brand. Examples include "Our Lawyers Mean Business", "Produces Results", "When The Issues Are Complex, The Choice Is Simple", "Partners To Industry Leaders Worldwide", "Serving Clients Around The World". Each of these lacks any persuasive force. They also share the failing of being applicable to all their competition as well as the firm promoting it.

Except for specialized boutiques, law firms typically offer a cornucopia of services. And these are provided by lawyers with disparate values, schools, backgrounds, work habits, personalities, traditions and types of clients. This stew of legal talent makes for very different images and perceptions by their clients even if we assume that each group of lawyers provides a high degree of skill and expertise. If nothing else, each attorney’s bedside manner is inevitably going to be dramatically different that that of a lawyer in another practice group. Yet, no less an authority than the Kellogg Business School of Northwestern University recognizes that, "All products under the corporate brand must be compatible with the associations that the brand evokes …." (2)

This is not going to happen with a hodgepodge of services provided by eclectic bunchings of lawyers. The bottom line is that most law firms have misinterpreted a marketing approach and made it inapplicable to their needs.

To some degree law firms and their consultants have recognized this reality. Partially to overcome this problem, as well as to appease the feelings of partners that would not share the spotlight if a firm brand was to focus on one practice or a segment of a practice, the branding is tied to conclusionary, abstract and extremely general positions such as the examples above. These abstract statements, when presented as a brand, supposedly reflect all clients’ pervasive feelings or thoughts about the firm regardless of which of the firm’s lawyers were involved or which services were furnished. This belief is the donning of rose colored glasses tinted to the point of banishing all reality. If inquiries are made about a law firm from those considering using it and the responses are "Our Lawyers Mean Business" or it "Produce Results" they carry less appeal than a pitch for a potential blind date as having a good personality.

Not only do these statements fail to convey a blended reputation of a firm in meaningful terms, they do nothing to distinguish one firm from its competition. A fundamental reason for going through a branding campaign is to have your firm come to a potential client’s mind when triggering events occur or are anticipated. Like many obvious points, this one has been substantiated by research. (3)

When a branding campaign can be applied with apparent equal validity by any of the competitors in a given field, it violates the basic precept of differentiation. It’s impossible to establish the desired pre-selection syndrome if a firm’s brand doesn’t set it apart from the pack.

The solution is to have brands that do distinguish their bearers from the competition and express themselves in meaningful terms to clients and potential clients. Again, an obvious position and one with just as obvious an application. Law firms provide a bevy of differing services. Practices with sufficient gravitas and profitability should each have their own brand. It is more likely that the clients of a particular type of service or practice are more apt to share goals and priorities that can be appealed to by a carefully crafted brand . It is also more likely that lawyers participating in a focused practice will share an appreciation for a brand that is designed specifically for their clients. It follows that properly crafted brands resulting from these unified influences will be appealing to their targeted audiences. The end result will be a firm that has a stable of effective brands much like Proctor and Gamble or Kraft Foods has for each of their many products. There should be no abstract, one-phrase-fits-all brands when firms are freed from the conflicting desires of partners looking to provide allure to the idiosyncratic goals and desires of their clients. It will also free them from the need to assuage the egos and concerns of spotlight lusting partners concerned about brands that emphasize other firm practices rather than their own when they live in an "eat what you kill" compensation system. Each practice will have its own spotlight and its own message.

An example of this type of branding is found at the Alabama firm of Crosslin, Slaten & O'Connor, P.C. A segment of the firm did a significant amount of legal work for the pest control industry (there are a lot of bugs in Alabama). Using the aid of an outside marketing consultant, the attorneys involved with this practice hit on the idea of branding themselves as the "Bug Lawyers". Now there is nothing abstract or one-phrase-fits-all about a brand like Bug Lawyers. The practice group targets the 3 billion dollar a year pest control industry and goes after it with a marketing campaign using the Bug Lawyers brand as a theme. The appeal of this brand to the pest control industry is – well, -- like a bright light to a moth colony. The brand screams: I know your business. What a contrast to conclusionary and nebulous statements that can be applied by any law firm. When separate practices focus on customized brands, each firm has the opportunity to equip itself with similarly targeted and appealing messages.

The consumer products companies have repeatedly proven that branding, when properly applied, is a powerful marketing tool that makes a dramatic impact on the desirability of a product and significantly enhances sales. Service companies like advertising conglomerates have used the same techniques and separately branded the individual segments of their organizations, again to their substantial benefit. It is time for law firms to correct their initial missteps and use this powerful marketing tool in a professional and effective way.

(1) Speech, "The Repucratic Revolution: What it means for your Company" by Ken Makovsky, delivered on November 4, 1999 at a workshop sponsored by Makovsky & Company and the Conference Board.

(2) For a more detailed discussion of corporate and other types of brands, see Professors’ Alice M. Tybout and Gregory S. Carpenter, "Creating And Managing Brands" in Kellogg on Marketing (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2001).

(3) Professors Alice Tybout and Brian Sternthal, "Brand Positioning" in Kellogg on Marketing (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2001).