Expertise Marketplace - Professional Service Firm Marketing Blog

"Weak on Transitioning Prospects to Sales"

In his June 15 "At Large" newsletter column summarizing the recent 2009 Association for Accounting Marketing annual meeting, Rick Telberg summarizes the top 10 tips that emerged from the conference.  Guess what was number one?

"Firms do a good job of marketing but are weaker on transitioning prospects to sales, wasting the firm’s marketing investment."

Am I allowed to be just a little satisfied that that's the main topic of my upcoming book? It suggests a framework to address just this challenge, and provides 11 case studies on how successful professional firms are addressing it.  

The Integration Imperative: Erasing Marketing and Business Development Silos -- Once and for All -- in Professional Service Firms will publish next month. Watch for announcements and ordering details here.

What About Loyalty to Clients?

Did you catch the June 5 New York Times article "A Study in Why Major Law Firms are Shrinking"? The article quotes a White & Case lawyer:

"Market forces have replaced 'the social contract,' a top partner there said: 'camaraderie is 'not terribly strong,' because 'people are very scared.' "

. . . "The loyalty of the institution to its people, and vice versa, isn’t really there anymore — it’s a different animal from what a lot of us were used to. It’s much more of a business now and less of a true partnership. The problem is we’re supposed to all be in this together. But at some point, you stop and think: ‘Well, maybe we’re not.’ ”

This article nails directly many of the points I'll be addressing in my upcoming book, The Integration Imperative: Erasing Marketing and Business Development Silos -- Once and for All -- in Professional Service Firms. 

One thing is clear: Law firms like this, and firms in other professional sectors, allowed the balance between their internal and external focus to become terribly skewed.  In the quotations from the anonymous partner above, there's not one mention of clients and their needs. 

What happens when a professional firm becomes too inwardly focused?  You guessed it -- it gets "surprised" by the marketplace. I'll wager that part of their myopia stems from their internal silos, which kept them from connecting their marketing and selling functions to real client value.

My take: there's nothing wrong with a firm refocusing itself toward astute business goals. These and all professionals can indeed have fun again, and hopefully next time the clients will be a bigger part of the picture.

Is it really "thought leadership" -- or just great design?

I just read a Booz & Co piece (authored by Munich-based partner Gregor Harter), entitled "Who Would Ever Want to be a CMO?" This white paper is targeted to the consumer goods world. Harter says, "Simply dazzling consumers with great creative is not enough anymore." 

It gets me wondering about how PSF marketers approach the packaging of thought leadership. Stay with me here....

Senior marketers know how hard it is to encourage their revenue-generating practitioners to develop truly cutting edge intellectual capital. And today's hypercompetitive markets require a continuous feed of new thought leadership output for search engines and opt-in marketing programs.

Won't PSF marketers inevitably have to fall back on nifty packaging and cool graphic design to catch clients' attention? Are we distributing thought leadership that really isn't good but sure looks good? Are we about to fall into the same trap that consumer goods marketers did?

What can we do to avoid it?

(I know what I would do .... what about you?)

Packaging for Thought Leadership

In the last two weeks, I've received two very creatively packaged pieces of thought leadership on professional service marketing.  The first was a PDF from wals studios. It was entitled "Meet ROI: Marketing Metrics Survey Results."  Using an illustrated version of a fictitious architect or engineer, Roy, the authors outline their purpose for the document: to identify current uses of and trends in marketing metrics for architecture, engineering, and construction firms throughout the Washington, DC metropolitan area. I was impressed at the excellent targeting for this study -- narrowly focused on a particular sector and limited geographic area.

The second was a high-end print piece entitled "The Little Black Book: a Lawyer's Guide to Creating a Marketing Habit in 21 Days," by Paula Black & Associates. The book takes readers through three priorities to create their marketing and business development plans.  It's one of three of Black's "Little Black Book" series on lawyers' marketing and business development. In particular, Black's book invites readers to drop in at almost any point and gain a valuable nugget of information.

I might take issue with some of the points in these works. Neither does much to break new ground intellectually. But it's hard to deny their visual attractiveness. Of course, one would expect marketers -- even strong designers like these two firms -- to do a good job of packaging and distributing their intellectual capital.

The real reason I wrote about these examples is that they give their authors an eye-catching opening to begin a substantive conversation with their potential clients. I can't help but admire the obvious high quality effort that went into both of these initiatives. 

Are we at the point, though, where "eye-catching" is what it takes to stimulate a conversation with clients? Beyond marketers, who goes go to this much trouble and expense to get a prospect to take notice? Are the clients of lawyers, architects, engineers, or any other revenue-generating professional practitioner, able to get beyond thought leadership packaging? 

I guess I want both -- truly innovative ideas, packaged nicely. 

"The real barrier is our lack of courage..."

At the law firm conference panel discussion I facilitated in January, I asked two questions of the senior level attendees.  One of the questions was, "What is the most difficult barrier you face in leading autonomous professionals to accept forward-thinking marketing and business development changes?"

I blogged about the conference attendees' responses here, but I also asked this question to the blogosphere.  With only a few respondents, here's what you said:

General resistance to change: 33.3%
My function is marginalized (i.e., viewed with skepticism): 0%
An atmosphere of short-term thinking: 33.3%
Unrealistic expectations for what can be done: 33.3%

Respondents told me they wished they could have chosen all four barriers! One especially pointed remarked was, "The real barrier is lack of commitment/courage on our part to do what needs to be done. I believe that we need to lead the charge to create change in PSFs, unless we want to be marginalized."

I happen to agree with this viewpoint.  Most revenue-generating practitioners have deep credentials in their own professional area, whether it be accounting, management consulting, engineering or any other recognized profession.  And, while it makes sense for marketing and business development leaders to push them to make forward-thinking changes, I think revenue-generating professionals also bear the responsibility for self-initiation.

The bottom line is this:  in order to gain meaningful market share, grow the "right" revenues, and substantively improve a firm's value proposition for clients, someone's got to lead the charge, but it's everyone's job to become more effective.  And they'll have to work together. 

This is the main theme of my upcoming book, The Integration Imperative: Erasing Marketing Business Development Silos -- Once and for All -- in Professional Service Firms(Professional Services Books, 2009).

Want Marketing and BD effectiveness? Then talk to us!

In January, I posed a question to the attendees of a law firm marketing conference about the barriers they face in improving effectiveness. 

Those attendees responses are featured here.  I asked the same questions of my blog readers. Here's what you said:

What is the most difficult barrier your firm faces in improving marketing and business development effectiveness?

None/not enough measurement of programs or people: 28.6%
None/not enough incentives and rewards: 28.6%
Poor/less than optimal systems capabilities (i.e. contact databases, intranet): 0%
None/not enough communication, training and/or professional development: 42.9%

One respondent said: "We are working on this and it goes hand in hand with #3 [systems capabilities], but it's a long, slow road to Rome." Another said: "Leadership....our leaders are not in tune with M&BD activity, needs, etc, they are focused laser like on short term financial numbers. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!"

From these and the law firm conference respondents, it's clear there's not enough talking and learning underway between revenue-generating practitioners and marketing/business development professionals.  These findings echo two articles that appeared in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, "Law Firms Embrace Business School 101," and "Lawyers Often Lack the Skills to Draw, Keep Clients," (Subscription required on both).

I'll have a lot to say about this topic in my upcoming book,The Integration Imperative: Erasing Marketing and Business Development Silos -- Once and For All -- in Professional Service Firms (Professional Services Books, 2009).

My "fight" with Ford Harding

About 18 months ago, Ford Harding and I had a "fight."

Well, we agreed to disagree in public, in advance. 

Our disagreement was real; it was our bickering that was trumped up. Once we got started, we both got into it with spirit and good humor, and had fun doing it.  We were hoping we could stimulate some important discussion. We didn't really get any comments on our blogs. But recently I learned there had been a significant amount of behind-the-scenes chatter about our "tiff."

People thought we didn't like each other.

Today, Ford and I are laughing about this. But we are also a bit surprised that our "fight" would be remembered, not the points we were trying to make. 

Cyberspace conversations do indeed take on a life of their own, even if it doesn't appear that way at first. I knew this, intellectually, but even I was surprised by perceptions I never thought we could set in motion.

People are naturally intrigued by "public" disagreement. While Ford and I may have been unsuccessful at stimulating conversation in the blogosphere, we certainly did so in people's real lives.

What does this situation say about the power of opposition?  By expressing our opposing views, can we help others learn, clarify their own perspectives, or make changes? Could expressions of alternative perceptions actually be useful to marketers and business developers? 

Could we use our unique viewpoints to help break down the silos that exist in professional firms' marketing and business development?  

Marketers should start leading PSF change!

In my “Big Question #2” post, I asked my blog readers who should start leading forward-thinking change first – the practitioners or the marketing/BD professionals?

The question pertains to an audience survey I posed at a law firm annual conference recently; it relates to the notion that marketing and business development professionals sometimes experience challenges when leading autonomous professionals to accept forward-thinking marketing and business development changes. Here are the answers again, in case you missed it.

• General resistance to change = 36%
• My function is marginalized (i.e., viewed with skepticism) = 20%
• An atmosphere of short-term thinking = 17%
• Unrealistic expectations for what can be done = 27%

I offered this same poll to this blog's readers. One of the early respondents picked "general resistance to change," but commented that he could have chosen all four answers. 

Click here if you'd like to add your own vote, and I'll blog about the responses separately.

Not surprisingly, asking this question is like asking which came first – the chicken or the egg? And of course these answers relate back to the orientation of the responder. 

Here’s my opinion: Using facts and armed with examples, Marketers and BD pros should lead their revenue-generating professionals toward forward-thinking changes. In doing so, they will indelibly change their practitioners’ understanding of the meaning of marketing and business development for the whole enterprise, and ultimately its real value as the engine for growth. Simultaneously, they’ll change practitioners’ expectations for marketing and BD, and make them more realistic about the optimal functional purview of marketing and business development. Inevitably, this leadership will help many practitioners (especially those in older generations whose belief in tradition fuels their resistance to change) feel a greater sense of shared accountability.

My Big Question #2

I've posted a few times  here and here about the first of two audience polling questions on the biggest barriers to improving marketing and BD effectiveness. I introduced these questions at a recent panel discussion featuring CMOs at an annual conference of law firm senior marketers and marketing partners. I’d estimate there were more than 150 people in our session.   

The second audience polling question was: What is the most difficult barrier you face in leading autonomous professionals to accept forward-thinking marketing and business development changes? 

(You may wonder why this question was posed as if marketers and business developers are not themselves autonomous professionals! But that’s a discussion for another day…)

Here are the conference's “Leading Autonomous Professionals toward Change” answers. 

• General resistance to change = 36%
• My function is marginalized (i.e., viewed with skepticism) = 20%
• An atmosphere of short-term thinking = 17%
• Unrealistic expectations for what can be done = 27%

What would your responses be to this same survey?  If you'd like to add your own voice to this poll, click here to answer these questions.  Once I get enough responses I'll blog about it.  

PSF and B2B marketers and BDers are under continual pressure to improve their firms’ effectiveness. But they are also under extreme pressure to overcome people’s general resistance to change and practitioners’ sometimes unrealistic expectations for their work. Clearly any kind of forward-thinking change -- even one toward effectiveness -- must be a collaborative effort, with shared accountabilities and co-leadership.

My big question to you is this: who should start leading forward-thinking changes first –- the practitioners or the marketing/BD professionals? Add your comments to this post and let us know.

I’ll share my own opinion on Monday April 20.

Maintaining marketing morale in the face of layoffs

There's a solid piece about this issue in today's WSJ. Especially since PSF marketers are working with practitioners whose intellectual capital is the product! If they're depressed, it becomes doubly hard to motivate them to face the market. And if it's marketers who are laid off, it's no surprise if the remaining marketing team members have low morale.

It's called "Boost the Troops' Morale After a Round of Layoffs." You might need a subscription, but here's the link anyway.