Anyone who has ever worked for an advertising agency, a
marketing firm or any other type of organization where design and copy play
such an important role, know that traditionally, one of the watchwords has been
“creativity.” Agencies sold their
wares by highlighting how “creative” they were versus their competitors (a
difficult premise to substantiate) and begged their law firm clients, to
embrace their innovativeness.
There was a reason for this and it had a lot to do with the
very nature of the marketing process. That process began when the firm took out
an ad in a publication, produced a commercial or developed a brochure, etc. Of
course their competitors did likewise, making it imperative that that ad,
commercial, brochure, etc. jump out from amongst the clutter, “grab” the
intended target and encourage them to take some kind of action.
But with the coming of the digital age, a lot has changed,
including the fact that the marketing process is now so often initiated by the
prospect. This is particularly true online (the vehicle of “choice for many, if
not most firms) where, instead of being “grabbed,” that prospect is now “seeking”
information about the firm – usually with the prompt being driven by “need,”
rather than traditional marketer “creativity.” Further, those organizations that do “jump out” on line do
so because they are at the top of the search engines. This is unfortunate as
that ranking is more a function of a) links to other sites, b) use of keywords
and c) volume of content than it is of the firm’s ability to convey its reason
for being and the benefits it provides.
With “content” and “relevancy” now the new watchwords, is
there still a place for “creativity?” The answer, I believe, is that while
clever words and pretty pictures may have lost some of their luster,
“creativity” still is a critical component of any legal marketing initiative.
Often, this is at a more macro level than it is at the single execution of a
web site page, an email blast, a pay-per-click campaign, a public relations
program, etc.. It requires getting into the prospects’ shoes more completely
than ever before and developing the offerings, practice areas and niche expertise
of individuals with very specific needs. Being “creative” with “content” and
“relevance” means knowing your potential clients better than your competitors
and applying that understanding to both the materials you develop as well as
how you disseminate that material. I am frequently amazed at how much law firms
develop certain content and then fail to deliver that very same content in a
multiplicity of ways, when all it would require is the touch of a key or a
click of a mouse. Knowing how to “creatively” use the myriad of online and
offline tools, and to do so cost-effectively, has become essential.
Examples? A seminar can be videotaped and turned into a
webinar which is then promoted via press releases, e-newsletters to the firm’s
contact database, email blasts to a targeted list, social media posts, etc.
Following the event, that webinar is then also archived on the web site and
posted on Youtube. All of this is done using mostly the same content and will
probably cost the firm relatively little.
Another such example is aligning the firm with a specific
cause and promoting itself around that cause. For one PI firm, our agency
recently implemented a “no texting while driving” campaign aimed at local high
school juniors and seniors. Similar initiatives can be implemented across a
myriad of other relevant causes.
I would be negligent if I claimed that today all
“creativity” is or should be of a “macro” nature. There are certainly instances where this is not the
case. A pay-per-click ad campaign
must be carefully constructed within the very tight character limitations
mandated by the search engines.
Similarly, one of the most often neglected aspects of an effective
e-newsletter or e-marketing effort is the subject line. Rather than something
haphazardly thrown together, it should be considered a “headline,” vital to
prompting email “opens.” In fact, it actually requires more “creativity” in the
traditional sense than the print ad, direct mailer, or television commercial,
because it must prompt an action in just a few words – and with no visual
element to augment it.
The net takeaway of all this is that while the ways in which
legal marketers can show their creativity may be changing, the continuous need
for that creativity in order to facilitate firm growth, remains unchanged.
