I’d call you to brag about my new iPhone, but it isn’t activated. Probably won’t be until later this afternoon. It looks cool, though.

So here’s the marketing angle. Why is Apple, the brand of brands, having such difficulty in launching a new product … again? Did you not learn anything the last time around? Did you not have the “what went right, what went wrong, what will we do different next time” meeting after last year’s bang-up launch?

I understand you tried to lock the phone down so it won’t work on other carriers, and that has lead to many of today’s problems. Tell me, how’s that working out for you? Challenge a nerd that you can’t break their system and you know they will. Call it the Gary Hart Syndrome. It seems the only thing you got for forcing immediate activation is lots of bad press.

The systems are crashing left and right, and the 1.0 users can’t upgrade. Now I’m hearing it’s a software bug that is keeping the phones from being activated. Ugh. I think you need to hire some of those guys from Gizmodo to help you out.

Some Casual Observations from the Front Lines
There were long lines of people camping out in front of the stores (I got there at 6:30 and was 33rd in line) for no reason, really. Why not allow people to pre-purchase or reserve? That would pace customers coming into the store over a couple days, and alleviate some of the back-up on the systems.

Where were all the “chiefs” who could do the problem solving this morning? While everyone in my store was really nice, poor Dave was just being run ragged: “Dave, I need a 16 white.” “Dave, I’ve never seen this on the screen before.” “Dave, I need a jawbone.” Dave had to problem solve and was one of only two people allowed in the stock room to get the phones.

This one’s for the guy I met at 6:30 this morning: Thanks for all the free water while we waited in line. Now, how about access to your bathrooms?

And finally, why all the upgrading hassles? Stop changing the rules mid-stream. I’ve been an AT&T customer since three or four phone companies ago. I’m on a family plan with three phones, two of which are eligible for upgrade. Yesterday I was told no problem using any of the upgrades for the iPhone for my number. Today there was a problem and I had to shell out an extra $200 for a phone that isn’t activated yet.

But it looks really good sitting on my desk.

In an eat-what-you-kill law firm culture, associates are the appetizer. They might keep us from starving, but when’s the last time you made a decision where to eat based on the appetizer?

Most associates are viewed as disposable by the big firms and are churned in and out. The leveraging required to make the numbers work will prevent most associates from joining the partnership track. The high cost and salaries of the associates requires that they be seen as valuable from day one; they’re just too expensive to “wait and see” if they’ll develop from students to lawyers. I remember a time when associates were given a couple tries at passing the bar. Not anymore. You’d better pass it the first time, or you’re out.

Yet, time and again we read in surveys how associates want “work-life balance,” interesting work, mentors, a pathway to partnership, etc. However, when there are good alternatives presented, associates are still lured away by the prospects of the $165k firm.

The National Law Journal has an article on local Southern California IP firm Knobbe Marten and their business model. Buried towards the end of the story is the impact the system has on the firm culture and associates:

[Washington, DC managing partner William] Zimmerman, who joined the firm out of law school in 1998, said its short partnership track has the added benefit of giving more responsibility to younger lawyers, such as taking depositions and participating in trials.

Most of the firm’s hires are first-year associates who stand a good chance of making partner within five years, [managing partner Steven] Nataupsky said.

Knobbe Martens has hired more than two dozen associates in the past year.

The firm boasts a more relaxed culture; most attorneys work, on average, seven hours a day and bill about 1,640 hours a year.

The catch: associate salaries of $150,000, which are below market rates. Some former associates, speaking on condition of anonymity, said pay was a factor in their decision to leave.

Granted, if I was 25-years old and $100,000 in debt I’d care what the other firm pays, but a few thousand here or there will not impact your life 10-15 years from now as much as your firm culture. And while Knobbe’s PPEP at $475,000 doesn’t begin to rival the AmLaw 25, you have to admit it’s not a bad living for a 35-hour work week.

Seth Godin in his blog post today questions why, if George Costanza of Seinfeld fame has a Wikipedia page, shouldn’t your brand receive entries? My first reaction: sounds like a good idea to me. After all, I’m a legal marketer, not a lawyer.

I know that several law firms already have Wiki pages, including Latham, Skadden and Pillsbury. Several more have set up LinkedIn pages, including Skadden, Weil Gotshal and Dewey Ballantine. And while I am always eager to jump out in front of a new trend, lawyers are by nature cautious, weary of change, and definitely don’t want to go first.

As we coax our law firms and lawyer into the new frontier of Web 2.0 I sometimes wonder if “not right now” is the best answer as WE discuss: Should I promote the firm on Wikipedia? Does the firm need a LinkedIn profile? Do we need to open a branch in Second Life?

I’m not advocating a return to the era and comfort of ecru stationary, nor do I advocate waiting to see what O’Melveny does prior to making a decision (ask me about the light up pen story another time).

I have found, after spending 10 years as a legal marketer, I need to edit my enthusiasm for anything new around my partners. While they are willing to take a leap of faith with me, they would just rather wait until a few other firms have taken that one giant step first.

I just heard the wonderful news that Martindale-Hubbell & LinkedIn have hooked up. Not that kind of hooked up, the good kind that makes legal marketers like me scramble an e-mail out to all of her attorneys gushing about their products.

If you haven’t heard the good news, Martindale.com is now featuring LinkedIn social networking functionality.

Kevin O’Keefe broke the news here. And while Doug Cornelius finds it clunky, I just have to say Mazel Tov to the new couple.

Dell #1 in Laptops. Splashy headline in the ad on the front page of today’s WSJ. “Dell Laptops named the preferred choice for U.S. businesses,” the ad continues. Says who? The ad doesn’t say. I assume they have some inventory statistic to support that claim. My experience with #1 Dell Laptops was enough to make me switch back to Mac.

It made me think of the law firms who paste accolades on their home pages of Web sites. The only difference is that they reference the publication or peer group who says its so. Seems like a legitimate way to tell visitors why they should hire you. “These publications and peers think we’re really great and you’re going to want to be our client too.” (ha ha ha)

Did we mention we’re #1 in Customer Satisfaction seven years running*?” says Wachovia’s Web site, billboards, ads, etc. Four years ago I put my money, and my trust, in Wachovia based on “*the American Customer Satisfaction Index results of the largest U.S. retail banks.” (ha ha ha.)

What does #1 mean anymore? If that’s what it is, I don’t want it.

Wachovia may satisfy a lot of customers but my experience with them has been any thing but satisfying. In fact, it must be that all banks have a 30% satisfaction index and Wachovia has a 30.5% satisfaction index –therefore they are number one. Among a number of frustrating experiences with the bank over the years, too numerous and painful to mention here, I think I’ve reached the tipping point.

For example; my “small business specialist” never picks up the phone, nor does he return calls. The “Financial Center Manager” at my branch never picks up the phone either. I’m always switched over to a mechanical voice prompting me through the commands till I finally get to a person. More often than not, the person transfers me to someone who can help me. But that’s never the end of it. I have been given incomplete or erroneous information several times and I had to go back through the drill on another day. More than once I was given a different answer to the same situation. Yesterday the operator told me the reason I wasn’t able to get a person to answer the phone at the branch was due to a special rate CD offer the bank was running. And everyone is really busy. WOW! That’s customer satisfaction – for the lucky person that actually gets to speak to someone. Perhaps if my question had a commission attached to it I might get a better response.

Is this what happens at the #1 law firms? I think it’s pretty scary to place yourself in that box. What happens when you don’t deliver? Does it do more harm than good to boast?

So, what do you think? Do you use rankings and accolades to market your firms? Does it leave an impression on visitors – if so do you know? Has it ever come back to haunt you when some one finds out you aren’t really what the numbers and accolades say you are? Is it authentic to publicize those rankings? Does it scare you when the lawyers want you to promote those?

Equally as important, does it matter? In today’s ABA Online Journal there is this item about Kevin Renfro and the Becker Law Office running a promotion at a local gas station on the first day of Kentucky’s gas tax hike: 99 cents a gallon for gas.

Apparently led to do this by their PR firm, the Louisville law firm gained a kind of populist notoriety by “slamming the man” and helping 250 drivers beat the high cost of gas, including the tax increase. Except, they didn’t. The law firm actually paid the high price of gas and the tax, but their beneficiaries didn’t.

So, this is the dilemma, I think. Shall we reduce marketing to slight of hand stunts where there is an apparent popular benefit and coordinate name recognition for the mere chance for a face-to-face fillup with a potential client or shall we, as others around the water cooler say below, aim at higher strategic ground?

Isn’t the answer obvious? Law firms can continue to buy the brief attention of their market with advertising, publicity gimmicks, giveaways, events, stunts and, egad, seminars, or they can actually learn something about their marketplace by asking their clients and prospects what it is they need and fitting their service array to those actual facts and requirements.

Please, no more 99-cents gas. I’m getting indigestion.

After reading Heather’s great post, I decided I should respond since I have an interesting perspective. You see, I have worked on the inside of law firms buying software as well as on the outside selling software to them. There is a consistent theme I have seen at hundreds of law firms where I have been sitting at the big-decision, conference room table:

“That thing might mess up our XYZ system. No way are we going to combine the two.”

The CIO says it. The VP of HR says it. The Marketing Director says it. And, heaven knows, the finance department? Fugeddaboutit. All are concerned about the same thing: if my software system blows up, I will be out on the street before lunch.

Each department has its own budget, power base, information control and collective a** to cover. Finance gets the bills out to clients. HR keeps track of past and present employees. IT keeps the emails flowing and the documents able to be found. Marketing needs to find relationships and execute on the firm’s growth strategy.

When it comes right down to it, all software systems should be designed to address one or more of the following goals:

  1. Make more money (measured in profits per partner)
  2. Keep existing clients happy (increase realization and retention)
  3. Beat the other firm down the street (gain a competitive advantage)

Frankly, some software companies take advantage of this segregated decision tree by targeting departments and offering tactical tools to make their functional jobs easier. I suggest that all firms take a holistic approach to software selection by including the same partners who are the designated champions of the strategic plan. They have the most at stake, and they should help make decisions based on achieving the aforementioned three big goals. The department heads are better suited as functional experts to give advice.

A strategic software approach will allow you to target alumni who are now general counsel at current clients who you charged less than $100,000 last year in a particular industry. To do so, you need financial, HR, CRM and external data sources to work together. You own most of this data, and now you need to put it to work.

So, demand that your vendors offer total solutions to your firm’s big three goals. Assemble line partners to participate in selection. And, demand that your vendors get in front of such partners, with expert guidance from administrative department chiefs, to make their case from a strategic, not tactical, point of view.

That was the challenge posed by Charles A. James, General Counsel of Chevron, Inc. in his keynote address at last week’s LegalTech conference here in L.A.

Mr. James’ comments were directed at software that is not compatible, yet marketed to legal departments (and I would presume law firms as well).

I’d like to echo those remarks here.

Why is it that, when it comes to law firm technology, our administrative departments (marketing/business development, HR, finance, IT/systems) are not coordinating? And, in many of the firms, are competing against one another.

I understand that there are a finite amount of resources, from dollars to people, but rather than work together as a team, prioritizing projects, we all seem to work independently, jockeying for the attention of the managing partner or CEO to green light our project at the expense of someone else’s.

  • LMA’s technology vendors are limited to marketing software, CRM, web designers and the like.
  • At last week’s LegalTech there were no marketing/CRM, HR or finance vendors?

However, I saw a pretty sweet case/matter product there that could solve one of marketing’s biggest headaches – the RFP and all those pesky little questions they ask. This product was a calendaring system, document management system and a pretty sweet case/matter tracking system – all in one. Wow. Something we can all get behind!

I’m now motivated to get to ALA’s national conference to see what they have to offer.

Which raises the question: Why is it that there is not one place where all the vendors come together? Why can we not have a legal technology conference that targets all of us: marketers, business developers, HR, Finance, IT/systems?

Oh, and let’s not forget about the lawyers.


Starbucks has a community Web site that looks a lot like the future direction of all corporate (and legal) Web sites. Though it gets criticism for being too unfocused, “a slush pile for customer generated ideas,” they are definitely taking the best that Web 2.0 has to offer seriously and trying to build buzz around their offerings.

But, the real news is that there is an unofficial Starbucks site, Starbucks V2, which is a networking site that promotes volunteerism with customers and employees. It can only be accessed by invitation, so you can’t see what’s going on, but you can get an idea from their landing page. www.v2v.net/starbucks. According to John Moore, Brand Autopsy Blog, on Starbucks V2 participants have profile pages, which makes the V2 more personal than the official Starbucks community site, and on V2 you can post a cause, event or activity and have others join you. It’s very community focused and very international. It actually began in Brazil. Starbucks also has an alumni site on the drawing board. And it will probably be successful as they have evidence that their constituency is already active in online communities. And that is the rub when considering 2.0 for your law firm. Law firms and their constituencies may not be the most forward thinking when jumping into new technology, (e.g. Web 2.0) but perhaps they should not be too quick to write it off either.

I have found a number of corporate sponsored philanthropic communities online in recent months. (Yokohama (the tire company) sponsors a site ecotreadsetters.com that is an environmentally focused site.) Typically law firms are very generous with their contributions and non-profit involvement as it is viewed as marketing and public relations tactics in many cases. So, this “for a cause” approach to Web 2.0 may be a valid entry point for law firms to experiment, draw in new friends and maybe drive some new business. The cost of entry is not all that expensive, but there are a few things that need to be in place to make it successful. You need to ascertain that your audience (or some of it) is participating in the social web to some degree. You need to set realistic expectations and invest accordingly. You need to care for it and nurture it. Online communities are not just build it and they will come sort of tools.

What do you think? I think an online community with a cause could differentiate your firm, build search engine attention, and oh, yes, build a community of support around your favorite cause or non-profit causing it to raise its profile and funding.

Have you or your law firm considered an online community in your charitable program? Do you know of any? Do you participate in an online community that has a charitable focus?