Expertise Marketplace - Professional Service Firm Marketing Blog

How to be an outstanding professional services CMO, Part 4

Here is my final set of observations from Egon Zehnder International's Executive Briefing for Chief Marketing Officers. You can download the 3-page report here: Download G__CMO Practice_2010 IP_CMO Brief #2 (2).

The Egon Zehnder Executive Briefing cites findings that suggest "great CMOs can develop relatively easily into CEOs."

Now, that statement is a telling one, and implies much about this report's respondent base. If we asked to look at a breakdown of the companies featured in this research, I think we'd find a vast minority from the professional or business-to-business arena. Currently, especially in more licensure-oriented sectors like law, accounting, and architecture, CMOs typically do not rise from the base of client-facing practitioners. Especially to CEO or the equivalent.

However, I predict we will eventually see significant changes in the marketing orientation of CEOs and managing partners of professional service firms (PSFs). And we'll see a significant change in the credentialing and business orientation of those who rise to be the senior-most marketers of PSFs.

As a result of this credentialing and/or proven business orientation, I think we will also begin to see an increasing number of privately held PSFs offering their senior marketers a pathway to equity ownership. More and more CMOs will be partners of their firms. And more professional firm CMOs will grow in their ability to hold the strategic orientation that is the hallmark of an outstanding CEO.

I also predict we will begin to see increased cross-pollination of senior-most marketers from one profession to the next. It won't be unusual to see an accounting firm CMO become, say, a management consulting firm CMO. Or an architecture firm's CMO move to a law firm.

What will it take for these predictions to come true? For a "good" CMO to become a "great" CMO who is capable of being his or her firm's CEO or managing partner?

This is the subject I will tackle during 2011, in my Marketplace Master^TM newsletter. The series will be entitled "Learning to Fly." Watch for further posts about this topic! (You can subscribe to the newsletter here.)

How to be an outstanding professional services CMO, Part 3

This is the third of my four-part set of observations about Egon Zehnder International's recent Executive Briefing for Chief Marketing Officers. Here's a download of the 3-page report. Download G__CMO Practice_2010 IP_CMO Brief #2 (2). (Go to page 2 for explanations of how Egon Zehnder International describes the characteristics of an outstanding CMO: a results orientation and change leadership.)

This post is about the change leadership capabilities of what Egon Zehnder defines as the "great" (versus the merely "good") CMO. The Executive Briefing says,

"Encouraging others to pursue opportunities for change, outstanding CMOs are able to build coalitions of such people and create champions who then mobilize others."

The Briefing goes on to say that outstanding CMOs have:

"an uncommon ability to engage others in change, explain to them their roles in it and, when necessary, help them come to terms with things that take them out of their comfort zones."

To my mind, this is "code" for political acumen. In the professional services world, most senior-level marketers have successfully learned the art of diplomacy and political maneuvering. They've had to, since many are still kept away from the equity partnership positions offered to client-facing practitioners. To equity owners of a PSF, marketers are not "one of us."

But let's face it. In the professional services arena, CMOs who rely solely on political acumen will not have as much success in driving change and transforming their businesses as is implied they could have from reading the Egon Zehnder International research. Anyone who works in a professional service firm knows that a senior marketer cannot "engage" people in change and "explain to them their roles in it" by being charismatic enough, or well-connected enough, or sufficiently gray-haired.  

That's why it's particularly important that Egon Zehnder International's findings highlight the interdependent relationship between driving change with objective, well-analyzed facts. 

Professional service CMOs (or any senior marketer) will need credible fact-based evidence that can convince a skeptical, highly confident client-facing practitioner that s/he must make changes or else something competitively unacceptable will happen to the firm.

Click here if you'd like to see Part 2 of this series.

How to be an outstanding professional services CMO, Part 2

Here is Part 2 of my 4-part series of observations about Egon Zehnder International's recent Executive Briefings for Chief Marketing Officers. I'll publish parts three and four separately in the coming weeks.

(You can download the 3-page report here. Download G__CMO Practice_2010 IP_CMO Brief #2 (2). Check out page 2 for background on the report's findings.)

I heartily endorse the report's point that outstanding CMOs effectively "introduce new models that successfully transform existing businesses or create new businesses, fundamentally improving the way the company or industry operates."

But does this phenomenon occur in professional service firms (PSFs)?

I've begun seeing evidence of it, especially among sectors that are fairly commoditized, and/or undergoing significant marketplace transitions. The most obvious example is the accounting sector.

Increasingly, we are seeing how greater public scrutiny (Arthur Andersen regarding Enron, and now Ernst & Young regarding Lehman Brothers), as well as continuing encroachment from a host of business consulting firms, has pushed accounting firms to take a hard look at their value propositions, differentiation strategies, positions versus their rivals, and brand promises to clients. 

You can bet the senior-most marketers of these firms are at the forefront of their enterprises' decisions about these issues. It's no accident that PricewaterhouseCoopers has just rebranded itself as PwC, that Grant Thornton initiated a highly successful advertising campaign a few years ago, or that GT's move was followed by BDO's. We'll see Ernst & Young robustly respond to the lawsuit against it. But I wager we'll also see an eventual marketing strategy shift, too. 

What will it take for a PSF CMO to truly "transform" his or her firm? To "fundamentally improv[e] the way the company or industry operates?" And to become outstanding? 

Outstanding professional service firm CMOs will help their firms get serious about their most competitively advantageous marketing strategies (and I'm not talking about simply adopting digital marketing) and differentiated value propositions in the marketplace. 

They will use rigorous analysis (as I said in Part 1 of this series) as a driver of change. 

How to be an outstanding professional services CMO, Part 1

I received a copy of the second installment in a series of Executive Briefings for Chief Marketing Officers based on recent research conducted by Egon Zehnder International involving several hundred senior marketing executives at more than 300 companies worldwide.

The focus of the research was "What differentiates today’s outstanding CMOs from good ones?" The key findings: outstanding CMOs outperform good CMOs most notably in two areas: results orientation and change leadership.

Here's a download of the 3-page report. Download G__CMO Practice_2010 IP_CMO Brief #2 (2)

(There are succinct descriptions on page 2 about how Egon Zehnder International describes the results orientation and the change leadership of an outstanding CMO.)

Of course, professional service firm (PSF) marketers will want to hear my thoughts on this report. (!!) I've broken down my observations into four parts, which I'll publish separately in the coming weeks. This post is my first of the four parts.

I love the point about how outstanding CMOs use "robust analysis and benchmarking." In bigger PSFs, this practice is beginning to happen, especially among enterprises that have gone public. But in anything less than the biggest firms, "robust analysis and benchmarking" are not happening.

Why?

The private corporate structures of most PSFs makes it very hard for CMOs to get any comparative data from rivals, much less their potential and current clients. Most partnership-oriented PSFs operate as confederations of individuals, each watching out for his or her own bottom line rather than envisioning the collective benefits of funding firm-wide initiatives. With partner mindsets like that, even the most respected senior marketers have had a hard time convincing their firms of the necessity for funding substantive market research.

Nevertheless, this Egon Zehnder Executive Briefing correctly underscores the importance of solid fact-based market, competitor and client analysis.

The sooner professional service firm CMOs can begin building substantive data sets from which objective analysis can be undertaken, the better.

And the more likely they will become outstanding.

Opting-out of shared accountability?

A few of you have asked me to explain further my viewpoint about allowing people to opt-out of sharing accountability for professional services marketing and selling.

Let's be clear: I'm not suggesting that people should be allowed to avoid their basic jobs! But, especially as professional enterprises consider the changes required to effectively integrate marketing and selling, new roles must be accepted. Functional changes are inevitable.

Often, professional firms pursue what I've called the "Friendship Model of Marketing (Selling)." In these situations, a professionally passionate champion pitches an idea for a new approach to improve effectiveness. He or she is (hopefully) encouraged to do so by a more senior leader. From there, the newly appointed "champion" builds an informal team or task force to undertake some kind of pilot initiative.

So far, so good, right? If that individual chooses well, everyone on the team somehow finds a way to carve out time to focus on this informal initiative. Or is as motivated to contribute as we would hope. But in reality, since informal team members are typically not charged with formal shared accountability for this project, their contributions to its success vary widely. Often, the "champion" ends up with some sense of disappointment at the uneven help offered during the process. And, unfortunately, sometimes these informal initiatives sputter or even halt altogether.

What would happen, I wonder, if at the outset of these new marketing and selling initiatives, a "champion" and his or her management leader were able to carve out formal shared accountabilities for undertaking a new initiative? What if they did so in real time with the proposed team members, before the project gets started? What if the senior leaders themselves could opt-out? If we offered each individual the chance to opt-out of sharing accountability for this particular project, wouldn't we then have a more committed group of team members and/or senior leadership, as passionate as the "champion?"

By allowing people to opt-out of shared accountabilities, it allows them to self-select integration projects (designed to increase the effectiveness of marketing and selling) that most attract them. The implications are multiple and far-reaching: 1) if we allow you to opt-out now, we will expect you to step up later, perhaps on another effectiveness initiative; 2) our enterprise encourages entrepreneurial behavior and innovative thinking -- you are on notice that we seek this behavior from our people, and we will reward it.

In people-driven enterprises like professional and business service firms, we have to move beyond a reliance on "Friendship" as the only means to compete more effectively and to better grow market share. Formalizing shared accountability will help.

Allowing opt-outs will help too. 

Making frustration an advantage

Oh, what to do when encountering periodic rage? Last week, I participated in a Facebook thread that raised an old issue: Marketers versus lawyers. A number of law firm marketers and business developers vented their frustration with lawyers who "don't get it" about what marketing and selling are and what they can do for law firms.

There were a flurry of remarks back and forth, and then, maybe not so mysteriously, the thread was removed.

My reaction? This kind of periodic rage is inevitable when an industry is maturing. And professional services marketing certainly fits that description!

This kind of disconnect happens in other professional sectors, not just in law. My advice to marketers and/or business developers: take control of your circumstances. Lead the redefinition and reintegration of marketing and selling into your firm's cultural DNA.

I published recently a short piece in CPA Trendlines about this very topic. Here is the gist:

1. Diagnose your firm’s barriers to marketing and selling effectiveness. This means you operate from facts. A good idea is like charm . . .  too easily brushed aside.
2. Decide on a barrier you want to remove or a situation you want to improve. (Hint: it has to help the whole firm, not just you.)
3. Ask your boss to let you lead a new project to remove this barrier, but to first set up and then communicate about
   • an agreed-upon set of shared objectives among you and your potential collaborators,
   • an agreed-upon set of shared accountabilities among all, and 
   • an agreed-upon set of shared rewards for all.
4. Let people opt out of sharing accountability.
   • The boss outlines the new project with the team, including all shared accountabilities and shared rewards.
   • Anyone who wants to opt out can do so (with the implication that they should step up later toward sharing their own accountability with someone else for another improvement initiative).

 

"If I understand you correctly . . ."

Last year I published a book that addressed the barriers to marketing and selling effectiveness in professional service firms. One of the biggest barriers was the lack of understanding about marketing and selling concepts, best practices, and individual terms.

People (marketers and client-facing practitioners alike) think they understand what the many terms mean. They find out later -- when something has gone wrong or expectations have not been met -- that they really didn't understand each other from the beginning.

A few weeks ago, I was reminded of this dilemma anew. I was a panelist for a couple of sessions at the Association for Accounting Marketing's 2010 annual Summit. Many attendees reported that their client-facing partners basically didn't understand what the marketers meant for terms like "branding," or "business development," or "direct mail" (and many other terms too). Even among the marketers themselves, we had to set out definitions during our discussions! This situation is no surprise; professional services marketing, selling and leadership is still "growing up."

For my book, I compiled the attached glossary of the most commonly-used terms by the many professional service marketers and sellers that I interviewed. This is the most across-the-board set of definitions I've seen in professional service marketing.

Download The Integration Imperative Glossary

Talk amongst yourselves!  

Mapping out "sample experiences" for clients

Many of you know Charles Green's substantive Trusted Advisor work. He sent me a new piece recently, in which he says: "The best way for a client to learn how to work with you is to let them work with you. Create a sample experience."

These two short sentences offer an incredibly good articulation of how to integrate marketing and selling. 

Green writes: "Sample selling the services might mean brainstorming; a small project; a lunch-and-learn; a webinar; a series of articles; a series of conversations for which you don’t bill time; sharing of some previous work."

Now read that sentence again.

Green's points raise three huge issues, each of which pertains to the powerful benefits of integrating Marketing and Selling in professional and B2B firms.

1. Marketers and practitioners, working together, can map out a series of well-integrated sample experiences for strategically-targeted clients and prospects. By thinking about offering sample experiences, they are encouraged to let go of old paradigms of what should be in the marketer's purview (webinars, a series of articles) and what should be in the practitioner's purview (conversations for which you don't bill time; a small project).  Instead, they can consider the best outcome of that sample experience: to acquire, retain or build share-of-wallet with strategically appropriate clients.
2. By considering how they might offer different sample experiences depending on the outcome they seek (acquire, retain and build share-of-wallet), marketers and practitioners can begin to break down their notion of what the firm really sells. Is it protected (but hide-bound) methodologies and relationships?  Or is it the dedication to solve the client's problem in a uniquely favorable way?  
3. Too many professional and B2B firms are stuck trying to measure the ROI of tactical marketing or selling programs that are too loosely tied to real marketplace outcomes (acquire, retain or build share-of-wallet with strategically appropriate clients). If they worked together to create sample experiences, they'd more quickly break down these old notions of measuring ROI.  

Write to me and let me know how your firm is doing at creating sample experiences. What's worked? What are your lessons learned?

Who Becomes a Legend?

Over the holidays, when I was on vacation, I was gratified to be recognized as one of the top gurus in professional services (and the only woman on the list). (Thank you, Ian Brodie!) First on Brodie's list (with great justification) was David Maister, who this week announcedhis well-deserved retirement.

Brodie said his criteria were "most influential writers, advisors and consultants to the professions – particularly when it comes to strategy, marketing and business development." 

Notwithstanding the fact that this was one man's opinion, Brodie's "top gurus" list calls an important question: why was Maister included on this list? Why was I?  

I think it's a couple of factors. First, and I have followed Maister's lead on this, is the idea of giving away one's intellectual capital. I have never worried that I couldn't eventually make a decent living while creating and sharing my expertise. "Giving it away" appears to increase one's stature and influence.

Second, of my own accord, I've endeavored to push the envelope in the arena of professional services marketing and management strategy. Call it curiosity, or intolerance to the status quo, but I want to continuously shape the future success for professional service firm growth. "Pushing the envelope" appears to increase one's stature and influence.

What are the other factors that make professionals recognized as influencers?

PSF marketers' best weapons for leading change? Facts and Data!

During my two weeks of moderating a discussion about the future of law firm marketing on Martindale-Hubbell Connected, I posed a survey question: "What is the most difficult barrier you face in leading autonomous professionals to accept forward-thinking M & BD changes?"

Although we did not have an overwhelming response, the results support what many of us already know: Most marketers and business developers are prevented from leading their firm's lawyers toward improved marketing and BD effectiveness because they encounter a general resistance to change, and they have to deal with practitioners' short-term thinking. Add to that a healthy dose of unrealistic expectations, on everyone's part, and you find yourself facing significant barriers to competing effectively in the marketplace. 

Here is a chart displaying the results (from a dozen respondents).

 
The findings break down as follows: General resistance to change = 41.5%; An atmosphere of short-term thinking = 25%; Unrealistic expectations for what can be done = 25%; and My function is marginalized (i.e. viewed with skepticism) = 8.3%.

Law firm marketers and business developers are not alone in facing these barriers. There are other barriers too. (To diagnose them at your firm, take our Marketing Barriers Assessments.) And these barriers exist in every other professional service sector.

So what's it going to take to get lawyers -- especially those functioning as managers for the firm -- to stop resisting change, and to pursue increased marketplace effectiveness? What will marketers and business developers need in order to lead these very smart people toward forward-thinking changes?

Facts. Data. Any information that displays the real marketplace and its impending shifts. Anything that allows practioners to hear the voice of the client and their emerging needs.

Marketers and business developers will need to carve out time and energy to get real facts. The closer you can get to the client, using accepted research techniques, the better.