As we have discussed, one of
the biggest mistakes that law firms make is acting on the assumption that
individuals or businesses become clients of a firm through a single exposure.
Is this true?
Sometimes. But more often than not, prospects
become clients through several exposures.
At our agency, we have found
that some law practices are hesitant to invest in marketing or business
development because their clients come through word-of-mouth. The phenomena of “word-of-mouth” is
wonderful when it happens and one which we will address in a later blog post.
But it is foolish to think that even “word-of-mouth” exists in a vacuum. Even
the individual who is referred to a law firm by a trusted friend, will in all
likelihood still visit the firm’s website or look at the firm’s brochure. If
the message conveyed in these vehicles is inconsistent with how the firm and
its services was described by the friend, a disconnect is created that can
limit the opportunity for a successful lead conversion. In this case, the
potential client has been exposed to two “touchpoints,” neither of which is
reinforcing or underscoring the other.
Similarly, when exposures reinforce one another, it stands to reason
that the overall perception of the firm (and hence the likelihood of converting
the prospect into a client) is enhanced. In many ways, this is the very essence
of integrated marketing.
In tracking the ROI of an integrated
legal marketing campaign, it is important to consider all of the ways in which each client was exposed to the firm. But
taking such an approach also creates some logistical problems. For example, if
one wished to ascertain the ROI of an advertising campaign, most would assume
that the standard formula {(Revenue – Advertising Expenses)/Advertising
Expenses} would suffice. However,
this would fail to account for all of the other ways in which new clients may
have learned more about the firm. Were they aware of the recent new case the
firm was handling? Did they visit the web site? Did someone refer the firm or
justify the decision to contract with it? Were they introduced to one of the
firm’s attorneys?
Another way to look at this is
to question why millions of dollars are allocated every year for marketing
materials and activities that unto themselves, may generate zero new revenue. A
new firm logo is created, a strictly “image” advertising campaign is initiated,
an expensive brochure is produced. Why? The answer lies in the fact that when
executed well, they make other elements of the overall marketing program work
that much more effectively.
The interesting thing is that
if one could determine the relative contribution of each marketing “touchpoint”
to the firm’s overall revenue growth, one would then be in a much better
decision to determine the “value” of specific marketing elements. For example,
today, creating a new web site can cost anywhere from a few hundred dollars to
tens of thousands of dollars. How can the legal marketer know how much he or
she should invest in that site?
How important is it that it “look right” and how much is lost if the
decision is made to skimp on the expenditure?
Traditionally, there have been
no ways of which we are aware, for tracking the business development process
across multiple touchpoints and in such a holistic manner. Thus there is no
real formula that truly captures the legal “purchasing” process. To do so would
require determining how much of a new client’s revenue was due to exposure to
an ad versus how much from the referral of a trusted friend. And in more complex cases, it might
require allocating new client revenue amongst a PR campaign, a firm brochure, a
web site, a seminar, a referral from a trusted friend and still another
referral from an already existing current client of the firm.
In the coming weeks, we will
discuss more about how such a methodology might be put into place.
Next Week: Dissecting Direct Revenue, Aggregate Revenue and Revenue
Generated Through Word-of-Mouth
