Expertise Marketplace - Professional Service Firm Marketing Blog

Get serious about valuing brand equity

In filing papers to run for the US presidency, Donald Trump claimed that $3.3 billion of his $10 billion net worth is related to his brand equity.

 

Journalists and news organizations immediately began picking apart this claim. They had no trouble proving the value of his skyscrapers and golf courses, but they found his brand equity claim harder to prove.

In this situation, Trump is right. He reminds us that the brand valuation community  – if it tried – could test or pilot a number of tools and techniques to codify a professional services or thought leadership brand. It doesn't have to be so hard to prove the value of an intangible brand!

It’s high time for the professional service industry to get serious about doing so.

Follow Suzanne Lowe on:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/SuzanneLowe

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/suzannecampbelllowe

http://www.expertisemarketing.com/index.html

http://www.expertisemarketing.com/suzanne-lowe.html

 

Three trends in 2014 for professional services branding

One of the modules in our upcoming November 2014 Professional Services Leadership Initiative will be Global Branding. Check out my newest video about three trends I observe about professional services branding for 2014.

 

The first trend is the way brands are impacted by technology. Increasingly, professional service firms must manage the consistency between the digital and in-person manifestations of their brands. Plus, they must manage this consistency across an array of digital channels, including web, mobile and numerous social media.

The second trend is brand globalization, in which professional enterprises must manage their brand identities across varied cultures, languages, and geographies. Global brand management is also complicated when professional firms merge with or acquire other enterprises. This situation brings up issues regarding brand architecture, and naming, too!

The third trend relates to professional service marketing leaders’ growing interest in determining the brand’s value to the enterprise.

Mid-level marketers learn about The Client Experience

In this new 90-second video, I'll describe one of the curriculum offerings for the November 2014 cohort of the Professional Services Leadership Initiative (PSLI) -- the client experience.

I've highlighted some of the skills growth areas about the client experience that professional service leaders want their mid-level marketers to understand. These areas include: researching and mapping the client experience (digitally and in-person); designing a unique client experience that aligns with the firm’s differentiation, positioning and branding strategies; and delivering the experience consistently across channels.

 

 

Chief Client Experience Officer in a professional services firm?

Hospitals have them. Hotels have them. And, according to this HBR blog post, so do other B2C and B2B companies. I'm talking about a Chief Client (or Customer) Experience Officer. Caution: I'm not talking here about someone who has been designated to "look at our customers' needs and ... make their experience with [our firm] more efficient and pleasurable."

Instead, I'm talking about client experience as a strategic differentiator, in the same way that Southwest Airlines created an entirely distinct passenger experience that was totally unique from any other airline's experience.

But I have yet to find a professional services firm that has decided to:

1. create 3-5 differentiated “client experiences” that ultimately would be distinctly recognizable as their firm, setting them apart from competitors; and
2. help their people to consistently deliver those differentiated client experiences repeatedly.

One of the ways I think professional service firms could tackle this challenge is to exchange knowledge with someone who is a Chief Client Experience Officer in a services company.

Do any of you know of a (professional) services firm that has tasked a person to be a Chief Client (or Customer) Experience Officer? If so, I’d be interested in interviewing that person for a future blog post or speaking engagement with my clients.

I’d appreciate a referral.

Professional service firms: A famous partner’s name should stand for something more than that partner

In this post, I summarized an article by an author who advised professional service marketers to focus their marketing efforts internally (and not to clients “externally”) to a law firm’s partners.

My recent posts have featured comments from top tier professional service firm CMOs (none of which are law firms). One argued that PSF clients rely on institutional brands, especially in global buying situations. Another CMO advised “firms to be cautious about not allowing partners to dominate relationships.”

A third PSF CMO argued that PSF brand investments must extend beyond an internal-only focus.

A fourth comment came from a public professional firm CMO, who wrote: “the mindset of the private partnership . . . is outmoded and needs to be modernized . . .”

A final comment comes from a global firm CMO, who finds a major flaw in the author’s reasoning: “to say a law firm is not a consumer brand is probably true. [But] the conclusion that therefore it must not be a brand is not logical.  If an animal is not a circus animal, it can still be another type of animal!”

“The name of a growing, important law firm can certainly be embodied in the name of a famous partner. But it should stand for something more than that partner, over time Allen & Overy and Linklaters, or Skadden Arps come to stand also for a place where a specialty lives, where a young and aspiring lawyer can learn something, and an expensive but safe bet for a client who really needs assurance that he’s got top people working on a nasty problem. Nobody gets fired for choosing one of those… to borrow an old IBM credo.

Attracting talent is the lifeblood of such firms, without a big name this is very difficult. The big name must be built more by integrated PR and B2B marketing than by ads and TV.

So the major flaw in the [author’s] reasoning is right in the first subheader: to say a law firm is not a consumer brand is probably true, the conclusion that therefore it must not be a brand is not logical.  If an animal is not a circus animal, it can still be another type of animal!

And the idea that clients do not come for the name chiseled on the wall strikes me as nonsense. . . . they do. And in droves. Until it gets known that an old name “has lost it” . . .

So the next flawed logic is the idea that “ïf the partners walk, the business walks” and that therefore the brand is not important. Well. If Skadden, Arps, Meagher or Flom [had] walked, there would have been damage. They embody the brand. If a lesser person walks, not a lot. Which is why Skadden became the symbol for the brand. The author defeats his own argument here also.”

 

Professional service firms: private firm partners have outmoded mindsets about branding

In this post, I summarized an article by an author who advised professional service marketers to focus their marketing efforts internally (and not to clients “externally”) to a law firm’s partners.

My recent posts have featured comments from top tier professional service firm CMOs (none of which are law firms). One argued that PSF clients rely on institutional brands, especially in global buying situations. Another CMO advised “firms to be cautious about not allowing partners to dominate relationships.”

A third PSF CMO argued that PSF brand investments must extend beyond an internal-only focus.

In this post, a public professional firm CMO writes: “the mindset of the private partnership . . . is outmoded and needs to be modernized . . . "

“The writer reminds me of how back woods lawyers used to talk - they were the brand and the Firm was simply an administrative support to them.  Apart from the logistic nightmare of having 500 brands in one firm, it is also economically inefficient as most of these partners want an individual marketer to promote the individual. 

This is also a commentary that is very typical of . . . law firms who promote the star culture and who are focused on the local market.  What the writer fails to recognize is that it is impossible to use his recipe in the international market - lawyers are typically "local brands" and I think that this law firm was a small local law firm. 

The point that he misses is that it is the mindset of the private partnership that is outmoded and needs to be modernized and which is clearly inadequate to meet global market forces - rather than have marketers act as individual PR agents to second rate lawyers.”

Professional service firms: brand investments must extend beyond an internal focus

In this post, I summarized an article by an author who advised professional service marketers to focus their marketing efforts internally (and not to clients “externally”) to a law firm’s partners.

 My recent posts have featured comments from top tier professional service firm CMOs (none of which are law firms). One argued that PSF clients rely on institutional brands, especially in global buying situations. Another CMO advised “firms to be cautious about not allowing partners to dominate relationships.” 

Here’s a third comment from a PSF CMO, who argues that PSF brand investments must extend beyond an internal-only focus.

“. . . building the institution’s brand is critical to avoid the individual partners’ brands becoming too dominant. Certainly our culture, our people and their resulting actions day in and day out define what the brand can be. 

 And it is interesting to think that a majority of the value of branding could be from the internal reinforcement, but I would hate to believe that the investments in brand should only be internally focused.”

Professional service firms: don’t let partners dominate client relationships!

In this post, I summarized an article by an author who argued that PSF marketers should focus only on individual brands – those partners and rainmakers of a law firm.

The article’s points stimulated comments from a number of top tier professional service firm CMOs (none of which are law firms). In my most recent post, I featured a comment by a top tier PSF who argued that PSF clients DO rely on institutional brands, especially in global buying situations.

Yet another services organization CMO advises “firms to be cautious about not allowing partners to dominate relationships.”  

“The writer makes some valid points but I think part of the reason that marketing and brand building in PSF is so complex is because there is no single solution/answer. PSF brands are built around a combination of things: Personal relationships, Client rosters, Results, Reputation.

Clients can be driven by any combination of those. If anything it argues for firms to be cautious about not allowing partners to dominate relationships. The broader the basis of the relationship the more stable it will be.

In my opinion, the brand reputation of a firm is built around its core values and what it delivers for clients. The people who deliver on the mission cement the reputation, but without the resources/methods of the firm, the chemistry for success may be lost. A study done by one of our [experts] last year showed that people who were rainmakers in one firm were rarely able to recreate that magic in another.”

Professional service firms’ institutional brands ARE important

In my last post, I summarized an article by an author who argued there are differences between an institutional law firm brand and the individual brands of its partners.

The article’s points stimulated comments from a number of top tier professional service firm CMOs (none of which are law firms). Here’s one.

"Like many a point-of-view piece, I think it tries to be somewhat black and white in its attempt to be provocative. In so doing, it makes some fair points, but some I would not agree with in my sector of the PSF world.

 - Of course, agree on the importance of both partner and institutional brands … it’s not all about the latter

 - Of course, also totally agree that it’s about the people / work / substance / results / brand experience across all the touch points … not about an ad campaign, theme or brochure.  Reputation is built through what you do more than what you claim.

 - For us, I’ve seen a big shift over the past 7 years AWAY from the “it’s all about the partner” dynamic.  We have legitimately seen more trust built up in the institutional brand.  We’ve lost a few reasonably high profile people and probably kept 90% of the business that should have gone with them if the [point of view article] were true for our business.  The institutional brand, and more importantly the trust that there would be comparable expertise elsewhere in the firm, has played a big role I think  … Perhaps globalization too in that if Walmart needs [our services] in China, it is quite likely they would turn to a firm they already trust and who has a track record of consistently delivering strong results for them  (like us!).

 - For us, the consultant is really important, but I also think the client is buying expertise  … expertise that, yes, is embodied in the consultant … and known and trusted to be there. But, I think there is permission to believe that it could also be embodied in others … and in a “practice” … IF the institutional brand is where it should be.

 - Not surprisingly, do not agree that the partners are really the product … from my perspective, the expertise / insight / “proven methodology” is almost the product … the partner is the vehicle through which that “content” is expressed; sometimes “the practice” is that vehicle.

- TOTALLY agree with the importance of internal marketing and senior-level (and all) recruiting … a big focus for us.  But, to say that a firm should NOT be marketed to clients is downright silly …"

 

What a brand means, and doesn’t mean, in professional service firms

In March 2011, John Hellerman (Hellerman Baretz Communications LLC) authored an article, “5 Marketing Lessons from Howrey’s Graveside.”

In the piece, he made some observations about the brand identity of a defunct law firm.

In this post I will summarize his five key points. In my next few posts, I will feature observations from CMOs of leading global professional service enterprises.

A Law Firm Is Not a Consumer “Brand:

“Clients don’t come to law firms for the name chiseled on the wall, but rather the individual attorneys doing their work.”

“. . . marketing departments often operate on [the] . . . premise: that . . . the firm itself is a product independent of the individual partners that practice there.”

“. . . despite all the resources spent marketing the firm as a product, when the partners left, their clients left with them.”

The Lawyer Is the Consumer “Brand”

“. . . firms do . . . have . . . “brand identities.” . . . The names Skadden, Cravath, and Covington all mean something in the marketplace for legal services.”

“[But] . . . even the finest law firm reputations . . . remain entirely dependent on the firm’s individual partners.”

“. . . [a big name law firm’s] “brand power”. . . belongs to its . . . lawyers, not the firm.”

Partners Are the Product; The Firm Is the Product Marketer

“Kraft Foods doesn’t market Kraft Foods — it markets Chips Ahoy, A1 Steak Sauce and Crystal Light.”

“. . . the bulk of marketing resources should be placed on marketing . . . branding, selling, promoting, advertising . . . individual partners and their expertise.”

“As a consumer, I don’t buy Procter & Gamble, but I trust it to develop quality products. In this way, an institutional brand can be an influential factor, along with the partner’s specific talents and expertise, which encourages prospective clients to choose that partner for their legal needs.”

A Firm Should Be Marketed to Partners, Not Clients

“The partners of a law firm are . . . the audience . . . whose good opinion of the firm — as an institutional brand — is necessary to its continued success.”

“Communicating effectively about the firm to this audience and its potential members, then, should be viewed as an essential management activity.”

Broaden Your Marketers’ Mandate

“. . . [a firm’s] leadership must allow marketers to go beyond business development in the traditional sense and aggressively support the HR and recruiting functions . . .”

In my next post, I will feature observations about these points from CMOs of leading global professional service enterprises.

They don't entirely agree!