Brand Blow Ups

A lawyer and journalist by training, Anne Gallagher is now a partner in Extreme Marketing providing marketing consulting and brand development services. She can be reached in Chicago at 773-227-0700 or at anne@extrememarketing.org.

“Oh. No,” is the phrase that goes off in the heads of marketing directors, managing partners and marketing partners when that “just-right” brand exercise goes south -- or seems to be clearly heading in that direction.

Five years ago, the concept of brand development and branding was a novelty among law firms and often the source of partner cynicism. But today, many have embraced the concept and the evidence appears in legal advertising and a host of law firm marketing efforts – from sponsorships to public relations and from client development to market research.

Indeed, the concept is a simple one: discover the essence of the law firm, codify it and then use it as a tool to create internal oomph and marketplace distinction. Branding’s popularity has mirrored two important trends in the law world.

First, the rapid consolidation in the industry has created large firms that presumably, are melding well-known reputations and established cultures. Who these new firms are in terms of their service offerings and cultural sensibilities becomes a question to clients, prospects, new recruits and most importantly, to the lawyers in these new institutions. Second, the majority of law firms understand how the profession has dramatically shifted to become a business. Salary wars, layoffs, poaching key partners and staff as well as the more client-driven environment are just a few of the markers that signal a more business-oriented approach from lawyers. Within that environment has come the realization that almost every successful non-legal business relies on brand development to help create and maintain distinction.

Realization Ain’t Implementation
Realization of the need to brand and its actual implementation are not one and the same. Convinced of the need for brand development, lawyers who become the market leaders face the toughest times on the learning curve. And while law itself has become a mature industry, the new techniques that support it can still face uphill battles. Law, after all, remains a partnership structure. Partner buy-in, leadership scuffles, compensation squabbles, allocating money for marketing and even the design of a new logo can create combative battlefields in many firms.

It is these hallmarks of the modern-day law firm that set the stage for some of the more interesting brand blow-ups. In fact, what separates the wheat from the chaff in branding initiatives today is not only how clever the resulting brand is but also how well-conceived a firm’s infrastructure is, how competent its leadership and how strongly committed the organization is to entering a more modern era of law practice.

Let’s be clear: no law firm wants to publicly admit to a brand blow-up. In fact, many law firms hit a bump in the road and then find one or more a good ways to return to smooth ground. The blow-up, for many firms, simply represents the inevitable conflict arising from the introduction of something new. For example, if negative partners rule the roost, then that negativity will surface during the brand development stage (i.e. discovering the firm’s essence) or in the resulting implementation of the brand, whether internal (i.e. codifying the brand inside the firm) or external (i.e. communicating the brand to the external marketplace).

Every firm will have a branding blow-up of some sort. Just what it will be and how the firm addresses it form interesting case studies. Without naming the firms, several of these examples follow.

But We Want to Change Our Reputation And Be More Hip
Like many firms, Firm F was torn by the juxtaposition of the new economy to its established law practice. Although not heady with dot.com businesses, Firm F felt its reputation was “stodgy” and “old” – both characteristics being deterrents to attracting younger clients and a broader scope of legal work.

Thus, here was the genesis of a brand development process. At issue here wasn’t agreement to brand but whether that brand should represent the old-line practice or the new attempt at being “hip” law firm. In this sense, the firm was split roughly 50-50 between older or more conservative partners and more liberal-minded individuals.

An outside agency was hired and a brand was allegedly born. But Brand A never made it out of the boardroom. The partners involved didn’t think it captured the firm’s essence. Another agency was hired and a different brand development process employed. Brand B ultimately was closer to where the firm wanted to go, but again, it just wasn’t there. The outside agency, at the firm’s request, developed Brand C. “This is it,” said the more liberal-minded faction at the firm. Or was it?

Here, the tension between the factions began to play-out. It seemed as if the second outside agency had failed. That is, until concept testing was suggested. Concept testing is a process by which a mix of clients and/or non-clients are asked specific questions about the communications ability of the brand. In the case of Firm F, six long-standing and trusted firm clients were asked to participate in a facilitated one-hour concept testing session to rate the brand choices as well as some advertising concepts.

Without question, the firm clients gravitated to Brand B. They told the firm that the reason they worked with the firm was not because it was “hip” but because it represented stability, solidity and outstanding client service. Brand B epitomized this; Brand C was an attempt to be something the firm was not and clients did not want it to be.

Result: the firm adopted Brand B, both factions quite happily relied on the feedback of clients and the process of internalizing and externalizing the brand has moved forward.

We Want a Brand to Move Us Forward
Firm R was at the precipice. It had been busy and business meant some of its stalwart customs like associate mentoring, regular get-togethers and spirited marketing efforts had fallen by the wayside. When the head of its transactional practice passed away several years back, no one had picked up the baton and the practice languished. As a result, the litigation practice, while very busy, was not attracting new clients and new types of work.

“We have to change,” said the firm’s managing partner who launched an ambitious effort to move the firm forward. Every system and process was up for review, including the compensation system. In addition, a brand development agency was hired to assess the situation, understand the firm’s challenges, create a brand that embodied this new direction and add the needed oomph to jump-start marketing efforts again.

A branding committee was formed to manage the brand development process. By all accounts, the process was a success. Three brand were developed and presented. One of the brands stood out because, as one partner described it, “It requires us to work hard to make the brand promise real for our firm. The other two brand options are too easy.” The brand committee presented Brand A to the executive committee, explained their logic for the selection and asked for approval. The executive committee approved of the brand and a date was scheduled for an all-office internal launch.

On the day of the launch, partners in each office were dispatched with powerpoint presentations to explain the brand, breakfast was brought in for all firm employees, and signs of the brand were evident from the minute an employee walked into any of the firm’s five offices – from branded t-shirts to new business cards for every employee, replete with a new logo. The day produced a collective high-five around the firm. Motivation levels were high. New client marketing efforts were to begin.

Ka-boom. The only remaining founding partner of the firm sent a scathing memo to the entire partnership lambasting the brand, calling it “unprofessional” and “unintelligible.” The new brand essentially wiped out the firm’s hundred-year old reputation. And furthermore, he didn’t like the colors of the new logo.

Discussions were held. Theories postulated. Alternatives explored. The managing partner pondered. The result: the managing partner chose to do nothing. No follow-up memo was sent to the partnership or to the founding partner. The brand was not defended further.

In the case of Firm R, the firm’s managing partner was a leader. He had set up a process for feedback on the brand. He had established a brand committee. The brand committee approved the brand and received the blessing of the executive committee. The brand was rolled-out to the partnership before it was launched within the firm. “In the end, I decided that the founding partner’s feedback was just that, feedback. It didn’t need to be treated any differently at that stage in the game than any other feedback,” explained the managing partner. Status: the brand is thriving at the firm and it is appearing in national advertising.

A Range of Other Blow-Ups
The good story in these two examples is how each firm was able to find the right strategy in a relatively short time frame to recover from the blow-up and move forward. Other firms are not so fortunate. There is the story of the Firm T that chose a brand and is currently in the process of attempting to gain concensus from all of its several hundred partners. There is the story of Firm L that thought it created a brand but really has only developed an advertising campaign, marked by the inability of any of the partners to get involved in the effort (“We don’t do marketing; we hire people to do that for us”.).

Of course, there are countless stories of blow-ups, recovery, success and stalled efforts in today’s marketplace. Likely, these same incidents will continue to unfold as branding takes hold among law firms. While brand consultants and marketing folk can help to create new platforms, the ultimate success of a branding initiative still rests with the firms who are ready for new things and those with excellent management in place