Law Firm 4.0 Blog

Lawyers (and everyone else), ask yourself: Am I my resume?

With yet another high profile resume-fake (Scott Thompson, who was ousted as Yahoo! CEO after four months among accusations that he lied on his resume about having a computer science degree) I am compelled to write this blog post about telling the truth on your website and other biographies.

Whether you call it biography, bio, profile, CV, vita or work history, this document should never have an ounce of fiction on it.  No fudging on capabilities and experience, board and community service, education (years, your major, the institutions you attended) . . . simply, don’t say you did something if you didn’t do it.

I read an article in the Dallas Morning News yesterday about a new book by author James Donovan, “The Blood of Heroes,” with the subtitle, “The 13-day struggle for the Alamo and the sacrifice that forced a nation.”  Apparently, the Alamo stories that we were taught in K-12 history classes were not true.  Davy Crockett was not executed by Mexican hero/despot Santa Anna, and the storied Alamo battle didn’t last 15-minutes, but more like 45 minutes or longer.  You might wonder what this has to do with lawyer biographies?

Donovan's Dallas Morning News article started:

“Everyone knows that Davy Crockett was executed after the battle of the Alamo by Santa Anna.  Except he wasn’t.”

Donovan, a Dallas author, writes:

“Crockett’s death, and the duration of the Alamo battle, are two examples of how historical events often become encrusted with myth, legend and error, deliberate or not. Particularly before the invention of electronic recording devices around the turn of the 20th century, history was more pliable, especially for those with an agenda — or simply to make a good story even better.”

I love the phrase, “…history was more pliable, especially for those with an agenda – or simply to make a good story even better.”  We do this all the time in conversation, subconsciously believing that facts should never get in the way of a good story.

He concludes his article:

“History, like life, may be messy, awkward and embarrassing on occasion, but that’s because it’s about people, and none of us is perfect. Without respect for historical truth, we compromise our ability to grow and improve both as individuals and as a society.”

Too many lawyer resumes include every line of what the person has ever done, spoken or written.  Bios should follow the governing clothes-closet management rule:  Don’t put one new clothing article in your closet without eliminating something old.

Without such stewardship, the result of this year-after-year layering of data, whether online or on paper, is that your memory fades and you no longer remember if it was true.  If there was an error or omission 20 years ago, chances are you are still carrying it forward – simply because you aren’t looking at it that carefully, you can’t remember, and you assume it must be true because it used to be true. And it’s about you, so what’s the big deal?

My company, Content Pilot, is preparing to conduct our fifth research study, “2012 AmLaw 100 Websites: Ten Foundational Best Practices,” where we analyze the websites of America’s top 100 law firms based on gross revenue. The 4^th Foundational Best Practice is lawyer biographies.  I’ll write more about the foundational attributes of a “best practices” lawyer resume in another post, but the glaring problem we see is that too many senior partners don’t care about their bios.  This opens doors, however, for those partners who do care – by comparison, who stand out as relevant, current and subject matter experts in their fields.  After all, that’s the goal of your website (and other online sources, such as LinkedIn) biography – come across well enough that you are short-listed for a particular matter.  Then it’s your job to get chosen as “the one.”

When your bio is riddled with old information – or worse, lies (a strong word, I know) about what you’ve done – everything else that is accurate is questioned.  Don’t risk the reputation damage by being “too busy” to update your resume when your marketing team requests it.

The musical, “A Chorus Line” starts with an energetic number, “I Hope I Get It,” where the auditioning dancers start competing against each other for a job in the chorus.  In unison they sing,

“God, I hope I get it. I hope I get it.  How many boys, how many girls?  Look at all the people, at all the people” . . . Then one dancer sings, “I really need this job, please god I need this job, I’ve got to get this job!”

As it continues, it segues into a lone male dancer singing,

“Who am I anyway? Am I my resume? That is a picture of a person I don't know. What does he want from me? What should I try to be? So many faces all around, and here we go. I need this job, oh God, I need this show.” 

So, ask the question:  Am I my resume?  Take a fresh and critical look at every claim you make – the three-prong test against which your assertion should be judged is:  1) Is it truthful? 2) Is it current? (If it’s not, buyers of legal services may not care about it.) And, 3) Is it relevant? (If it’s not, buyers of legal services won’t care about it.)

What law firms can learn from Dyson's (think vacuum cleaners) anti-branding slur.

British industrial designer, Sir James Dyson, is best known for his iconic bagless vacuum cleaner that he peddles on television. And among frequent travelers who wash their hands in airport restrooms, for the Dyson Airblade, which dries your hands as would the edge of a tornado.

But after a recent comment in which he said he didn't believe in branding - "We're only as good as our latest product. I don't believe in brand at all." - he is now famous for being the anti-branding guy.

Matt Straz, blogger of MediaPost's Online Spin, wrote yesterday, "Like a cat coughing up a hair ball, Dyson's comment caused a loud, involuntary response from the advertising world."

Let me give you some context: Dyson was speaking at Wired magazine's "Disruptive by Design" conference earlier this month. He responded to the question, "Does brand make the product or does product make the brand?" He said that "Brand was the only word that was banned at his company," then concluded with the statement above.

A Forbes.com article about his statement said, "A remarkable comment from someone who has stood in front of a camera for the last decade or more on behalf of creating his own eponymous brand of vacuum cleaners, and spending millions in the process."

The Forbes article suggests that Dyson may not understand what "brand" or "branding is, and it goes on to describe what it is. It talks about how successful brands create new rituals:

"Powerful brands have rituals. Much as Starbucks changed how we have coffee in the morning, and Ikea has changed how we interact with newly-purchased furniture, Dyson has changed the ritual of how we interact with our vacuum by handing us one that can be snapped together (or unsnapped) much like Lego blocks. The rollerball changes the way we move across the floor. The quick-open canister lets us dump right into the garbage can, rather than unleashing those nasty vacuum bags. And if you really want to get into it, there’s the ritual of innovation–and creating 5,127 prototypes, and more innovation."

I asked friend and colleague Norm Rubenstein, Partner and branding expert at the Zeughauser Group, about his take on Dyson's slur - and whether law firm leaders with an anti-branding bias might have new fodder to dispute its efficacy.  Norm says:

"There is profound irony in Dyson’s claim 'I don’t believe in brand at all.' Dyson’s company is reminiscent of Apple, a company whose followers buy products, often products they don’t need, because of their elegant marriage of form and content. In creating his high-end vacuum cleaner, Dyson has made it the ultimate status symbol: what greater triumph of brand recognition than to invest in a luxury good that lives in a closet with one’s cleaning supplies as opposed to on a desk or adorning one’s person? And once people got on the Dyson bandwagon, reinforced through traditional advertising that always has extolled the product’s innovative technology and consumer benefits, they suddenly found a need for Dyson’s chic fans, and one suspects, will require his future products in the same way as they are introduced."

Online Spin also points to Nike, who has significantly reduced its investment in traditional branding pillars, such as advertising.

"Having relied for years on mass branding messages like 'Just do it,' the company has now dramatically scaled back its investment in traditional branding. Nike has also reduced its emphasis on big brand athletes like Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, and Lance Armstrong. Instead, the company has focused on creating software and gadgets like its new Fuel wristband that measures athletic output. Instead of marketing products, Nike is using products to market itself."

To that, Norm says,

"The truth is that brand development and brand maintenance, decidedly different stages in a product’s life cycle, are opportunities to employ different tools and tactics for reinforcing brand awareness and loyalty. Products and services require significant marketing focused on developing and raising visibility in their infancy: in their adolescence, assuming they come to enjoy unaided top-of-mind recognition as both Dyson and Nike have done, they can rely on satisfied customers to help sustain their brand equity."

Social media has changed the branding landscape in ways we couldn't have imagined even four years ago. It supports both mass customization and engagement at the most powerful of all levels - person to person. And the dollar investment is a fraction of the cost of traditional broadcast and print advertising.

Norm agrees,

"The emergence of social media makes it possible for a company like Nike to shift the extent to which it has to rely on traditional branding tools. In its previous marketing, which always has been advertising-intensive, Nike has made its 'swoosh' synonymous with the achievements of admired athletes. By creating ongoing demand for its products and aligning them with a promise of quality and performance, Nike now enjoys the benefit of extensive brand equity. As the marketplace shifts and consumers now have become their own product reviewers/marketers, the company theoretically can take advantage of marketing that shifts its focus away from admired role models (who often disappoint in real life) and place it on the traditional—might one say, the average, buyer—the buyer whose endorsement in the Zagat world in which everyone’s opinion counts—can begin to redefine its approach to the marketplace."

So, what does this mean for law firms? It's challenging for law firms, even the largest of the AmLaw 100 firms, to defend their brand positions as unique among all their competitors. Is it possible? Yes, absolutely, but it requires research, rigor and patience, plus a significant and consistent investment of time and money. Law firms can take advantage of all the media that Dyson, Nike and Starbucks use - but they often don't have the stomach for it or the budget to sustain it. It also requires leadership and vision constancy - meaning, firms whose Chair and Managing Partner positions are up for grabs every two or three years will have a harder time than those firms who invest in the same leaders year after year.

Norm concluded our interview by saying,

"... For a law firm to follow the lead of a Nike and begin to shift its marketing focus, say by taking greater advantage of new media as a critical component of its marketing mix, it needs to assess the brand equity it already enjoys, and if it is not an acknowledged market leader in the spaces for which its seeks to be known (defined not by the firm, but by the market), it will need to maintain or to develop a robust strategy that well may continue to require extensive use of traditional marketing tools (e.g., thought leadership and credentialing)."

I'd say that Dyson is all about branding, even if he doesn't call it that.

 

Where are the Dewey partners now - and how is your firm doing recruiting them?

Late yesterday Greg Lambert published a post on the 3 Geeks and a Law Blog called "Visualizing the Dewey & LeBoeuf Implosion." He includes several charts that track where the Dewey lawyers have landed. While the reports of departures have gone on for months, it's handy to see it all in one place - firms can compare their success in recruiting these partners against top competitors.

IBM publishes a free chart tool called "Many Eyes." You can interact with it right on the 3 Geeks blog. Completely worth taking a few minutes to dash over to Greg's post and view it.

 

How long do CMOs last in their organizations?

When I took my first marketing director position in a law firm in 1987 (I know! A million years ago.), the function and position were so new, no one was measuring average tenure of senior marketers. Five years later when I moved to another firm to take its top spot, grumblings about the short tenure of senior marketers started to surface. By the mid-1990s, dissatisfaction was on the rise - among the marketing professionals filled with hope and promise who were racing to these jobs only to receive a lukewarm reception, and among law firm leaders whose lofty expectations were consistently unmet.

This was before we held CMO titles and before "marketing" morphed into a department with additional people and processes. Firms had no marketing infrastructure - heck, we didn't even have websites yet. And few were talking about business development or sales.

Throughout the 1990s and well into the 2000s, the average tenure of CMOs in corporate America was just under two years. This resulted in well documented frustration among the CEOs, CFOs and COOs in those companies who were hiring and firing them. Marketing Officers were getting a bum rap. In 2004, Spencer Stuart published an oft-cited study that had the CMO tenure in corporations at 23.6 months. Once we started measuring, we learned that law firm marketers averaged 1.5 - 1.9 years during this same period of time.

Spencer Stuart updated its study in 2010 and the average tenure leapt to 42 months, a big improvement, but still way behind the tenure of CEOs at the top 100 advertised brands. CEOs last 111 months (9.25 years).

As an aside, Spencer Stuart publishes research and other studies about CMOs and marketing trends that are very helpful: http://www.spencerstuart.com/articlesearch.aspx?PageID=602&keywords=&category=20&region=-1&publishdate=ALL

There are well known CMOs (and now CBDOs and CSOs - Chief Strategy Officers) in the legal industry who have been at their firms for years - many have served ten or more. It's challenging staying put - I learned years ago that it's hard being a prophet in your own land. But there are many more stories about disastrous hires, abbreviated tenures, dashed hopes and unmet expectations - from both the marketers and the law firms.

To understand today's average tenure of law firm Chiefs, I queried several executive recruiters and market researchers who serve the legal industry. Last August - November, 2011, ALM Legal Intelligence and the Legal Marketing Association conducted a compensation survey, which also determined the marketers' tenure at their law firms. In a universe of 429 firms with 100+ lawyers in the U.S. and Canada, 197 marketers responded to the survey.

Sue Stock Allison, managing director of Brand Research Company, led the survey and is the primary contact for it. Here is what she said:

For heads of marketing, there were 11 senior titles (not all Chiefs) - but 28% were CMOs, 4% were CBDOs, 3% were a combination CMO/CBDO. This group had been in their jobs for an average of 4.9 years (4 years was the median). The largest percentage, 49%, had been in their positions for 2-5 years. 20% of the Chiefs had been in their positions 6-10 years and 11% had held their jobs for 11+ years.

In a different 2011 study conducted by Eva Wisnik, President of Wisnik Career Enterprises, she found that the average tenure of Chiefs at their firms was 6.3 years. Wisnik and Allison both found that Chiefs have been at their firms longer than non-chief positions. Wisnik reported 4.7 years for managers and 5.9 years for directors, and Allison found that non-Chiefs had been in their positions an average of 4.6 years.

Based on these data, law firm CMOs are tracking better than their comrades in corporate America - by several years. This is an interesting fact for those firm leaders who are seeking talent outside the legal industry, believing they will get fresher, better ideas. While it's impossible to compare the marketing life in a corporation to a law firm, it is important to note that the corporate marketers are not lasting as long in their positions as the legal marketers are.

The longer tenures of Chiefs bode well for Amlaw 200 and 100 firms that are conducting CMO/CBDO/C-- searches today. On the one hand, these professionals are proven contributors in their current firms, making hiring them a lower risk endeavor. But on the other hand, their satisfaction in their current positions may make it harder to lure them away. Competition for the best talent is stiffer than ever - the cream of our industry has definitely risen to the top.

Chiefs who have proven success in the legal industry care about more than money - although to compete, a high salary is imperative. They want to make demonstrable contributions to top line revenue, the profits of the firm and help lawyers enjoy their client relationships more. These proven professionals have already earned their "seat at the table." They are participating in the most sensitive and strategic discussions in their law firms.

And that's how it should be.

If it were REALLY a good idea - Part 2

This is a continuation of yesterday's blog post http://lawfirm4-0.typepad.com/law_firm_40_blog/2012/04/if-it-were-really-a-good-idea-.html . . .

Tom Fishburne, the Marketoonist, who designed the cartoon I posted yesterday, wrote his own blog post about it. He says something that we've known in legal marketing circles for a long time:

"In innovation, we often fixate too much on the competition. We benchmark and validate ideas based what everyone else is doing. This cycle of one-upmanship makes it hard to launch something truly new and different. It also creates a lot of me-toos."

He includes a quote from David Brooks' piece, "The Creative Monopoly," about PayPal founder Peter Thiel. Always thoughtful Brooks writes:

“Instead of being slightly better than everybody else in a crowded and established field, it’s often more valuable to create a new market and totally dominate it. The profit margins are much bigger, and the value to society is often bigger, too … He’s talking about doing something so creative that you establish a distinct market, niche and identity. You’ve established a creative monopoly and everybody has to come to you if they want that service, at least for a time."

And Fishburne concludes by quoting innovation writer David Hall: "If you're not meaningfully unique, then you'd better be cheap."

Good friend and colleague Jeff Yerkey, Web and Interactive Director for Right Hat, wrote after seeing the Fishburne cartoon: "Reminds me of the old law firm saw, 'Nobody wants to be first, but everybody wants to be first to be second.'"

If it were REALLY a good idea . . .

Marketers hear this throughout their careers. Of course, the complete declaration is, "If it were really a good idea, someone would already be doing it." Thankfully, I haven't heard this much in recent years, but I still frequently hear, "Who else is doing it?" (Whatever "it" might be on that particular day.)

Tom Fishburne, the "Marketoonist" emailed this today and it's a perfect Monday kick-off to your week. Don't get discouraged if you hear this from your firm leaders. Take a lateral step and find the way around it. This occasional obstacle has, for me, resulted in resourcefulness, Without the put-down, I might not have dug deeper to find answers that would resonate with the slower-to-adopt firm leaders. Enjoy the digging - it will pay off.

Do the leaders of your law firm use social media? Employees trust leaders who do.

By now, most law firms have inked social media policies, yet leaders' fears are still cresting at the thought of firm employees' fingers running amok and damaging the firms' reputations in some way. It seems this trepidation is a one-way street, however, as BRANDfog's 2012 Social Media and Leadership Survey found.

BRANDfog surveyed hundreds of employees in companies ranging in size from start-ups to Fortune 500 behemoths asking about company executives and their use of social media to communicate with them and the rest of the world. 81% said that CEOs who use social media are "better equipped" than their peers to lead companies in this contemporary business environment. This included "communicating values and shaping corporate reputation."

82% said they were more likely or much more likely to trust a CEO and other top executives who use social media. And 78% said that they'd prefer to work for a company whose leaders regularly use social media.

Most respondents agreed that social media significantly aids leaders' engagement with key stakeholders:

1. 89.3% said executives can better communicate with customers
2. 84.7% believed that it improves communication with employees
3. 66.3% said executives should use it to communicate with investors
4. 71% said executive engagement in social media enhances your brand.

But you can't fix a company environment that's broken, they said. Only 45% believed that you can improve bad company morale via C-suite social media use.

Erik Sass of the MediaPost Blog The Social Graf notes: "All this makes interesting reading when juxtaposed with actual rates of social media engagement among CEOs and top execs. According to figures cited by BRANDfog, while 61% of Fortune 500 brands use Twitter to engage with customers, just 2.5% of Fortune 500 CEOs are actively using Twitter."

What can law firm leaders take from this? Employees want more communication from you - not just staff, but your lawyers, too. There is a readily available platform you can use to post your musings, and to show how you understand today's world of business communication. I know you have a lot to say -- roll up your sleeves and plan your communication strategy for the next 12 months. Choose the social media forum that makes the most sense for you - LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook or a blog - and commit to it.

Your firm's clients will be listening, too. And they will finally have a chance to know why you have been chosen to lead your firm.

Brilliant strategy and brilliant execution - are they strange bedfellows?

The CMO Network on LinkedIn has an interesting discussion sparked by the question: What is your opinion on Execution trumps Strategy?...Do you agree?... This is both a rapid and rabid-responding group, and those who have come down hard on the side of strategy (as they slap-slap the faces of the proletariat executioners), suggest that execution won't ever distinguish you if the strategy isn't sound. Fair enough.

As someone who has built a career around designing and executing strategies in the legal industry, I can't imagine execution without the clear, guiding light of strategy. When it comes to technology implementations (websites, experience databases, proposal centers, CRM tools), the reason that these initiatives are under-serving their firm stakeholders is that there is no strategy driving the execution. I wrote about this a few blog posts ago, while quoting Richard Hsu from King & Spalding.

Every initiative worth investing in demands strategy at the outset. If you can't clearly articulate what it is, then don't start your execution - you aren't ready. It will fail. What does failure look like? Scope that can't be defined, budgets that increase at all phases, expectations that won't be met, timelines that extend months or years beyond the original launch date, and dissatisfaction that runs up and down the organization. I have seen this failure side-swipe many careers.

I have also seen "strategy" kill law firms because the firms were ill-advised (i.e., the wrong strategy for the firm) or because the firms didn't have the commitment to execute (i.e., invest in the right people to do the job).

The first law firm for which I served as marketing director from 1987-1992 hired one of the industry's largest legal management firms to develop a strategic plan. More than a million dollars later (in 1991-92 dollars), the firm was completely ill-prepared to survive the recession of the early nineties. How the planners could have missed the economic and competitive indicators pointing to the financial collapse of the real estate and banking industries was astonishing to all of us. I never heard what the strategy was supposed to be because I moved on, but the firm failed two years later.

I also believe that one of the most strategic things marketers and IT professionals can do is brilliantly execute. That's where the results live. I have seen both teams wanting to be defined by how strategic they are, believing that the roll-up-the-sleeves parts of the job are too "blue collar" and that they are somehow a lower-class stepchild of strategy.

Designing a successful execution team is highly strategic. Too often we hire people to fill job openings comprised of job task lists, frequently without fully understanding how their daily work will support broader strategy, or how it will fit into the execution assembly line. The hIring of key law firm positions is often handled so far outside the executive office (and thus removed from firm strategy and goals), firms end up with well-intentioned people who have no idea what they should be doing. They are given orders by supervisors who are also too far removed from the strategic core of the firm. These new hires are doomed to be unhappy because their execution may never measure up. How can it? It isn't supporting strategy.

This goes for the hiring of young associates in corporate law firms as well. They are given discrete tasks to complete without a full understanding of what the client hopes to achieve. What opportunity is driving this research? What problem are we hoping to solve? What horizon issue are we hoping to get out in front of? I think, perhaps naively, that attrition among the young associates would lessen if they understood that the work they were doing was tied to a client's bigger goal or purpose. They could feel a part of something, as opposed to churning hours day after day.

The term "strange bedfellows" was first used in Shakespeare's The Tempest, when, according to Wikipedia, Trinculo crawls under the cloak of a man he believes to be dead to shelter himself from a storm, saying, "Alas, the storm is come again! My best way is to creep under his gaberdine; there is no other shelter hereabouts: misery acquaints a man with strange bed-fellows."

Strange bedfellows is defined as "a strange alliance, often formed between parites who would normally be enemies who have come together for a common, often urgent cause." I posit that brilliant strategy and brilliant execution should be so intertwined that they can't be separated. There should be no choice of one over the other. They are inextricably linked and both fundamentally essential to the success that we want to achieve.

 

Columbia Business School study proves that ROI is an elusive partner to marketing departments

Senior law firm marketers have been seriously talking about ROI since at least the mid-1990s. Believing in its relevance and importance to financial decision-making, this "proof" has frustratingly been like a mirage in the desert. For years we have relied on anecdotal data and stories - an RFP or pitch that was won, a lawyer who cross-sold another practice, a client interview that resulted in new work.

We have always coveted the sound financial management that corporate-America marketers have had. Well, until now. According to a just-released Marketing Measurement in Transition study by Columbia Business School Center on Global Brand Leadership and the New York American Marketing Association called "Marketing ROI in the Era of Big Data," it appears that our perception of how rock-solid corporate marketers are in their ROI tracking and management is skewed.

The researchers interviewed 253 marketing executives from large corporations and were hoping to "gain a better understanding of changing practices among large corporate marketers in the following areas: data collection and usage, marketing measurement and ROI, and the integration of digital and traditional marketing." Among others, they asked the following questions:

1. Which organizations believe that they are doing well with respect to measuring marketing ROI?
2. What are they doing that allows them to succeed in measuring marketing ROI?
3. What are some of the barriers organizations face in measuring marketing ROI?
4. How does knowing their marketing ROI affect how they view and use metrics?

The headline for the ROI section of the report is this: ROI – Marketers Know They All Need It, But Can’t Even Agree What It Is

Here is an excerpt from the results:

Marketers think that they should be measuring their marketing ROI …

Marketers know that they need to justify their decisions financially. 70% say that their marketing efforts are under greater scrutiny than ever. 39% go so far as to say that they consider it important to spend only on marketing activities where the financial effects can be measured.

…but many managers aren’t measuring marketing ROI either consistently or effectively.

Only 43% of organizations are establishing their marketing budgets based on marketing ROI analysis. By contrast, 68% base their marketing budgets in part on “historical spending,” and 28% on “gut instincts.” When it comes to specific marketing spending decisions, 21% are using financial metrics for little or none of those specific decisions, and 7% are making all or most of those spending decisions with no metrics at all.

Instead of marketing ROI, managers continue to use many traditional metrics such as recall, brand favorability, purchase intention, and willingness to recommend. Of those using some kind of universal metric, 22% make all or most of their marketing decisions with brand awareness alone.

What organizations are satisfied with their measurement of marketing ROI?

Overall, 45% of the organizations surveyed are satisfied with their ability to measure marketing ROI. Those most likely to be satisfied with their ability to measure marketing ROI are large organizations (55.5%) - sales of $25 billion or more - and service organizations (48.8%).

Only 33.1% of consumer product organizations and only 26.1% of industrial product organizations are satisfied with how they measure marketing ROI. Satisfaction depends on your viewpoint: 54% of CMO’s are satisfied with their ability to measure marketing ROI, but only 43% of those below the vice president level are satisfied – perhaps because they are closer to the problem of determining how to most effectively measure marketing ROI.

A call-out says, “37% of respondents did not include any mention of financial outcomes when asked to define what “marketing ROI” meant for their own organization.” The Advertising Age report of this study says, "...57% don't establish their budgets according to ROI measures."

The report goes on to say:

To what extent is marketing ROI used for decision-making?

Among the roughly half of marketers that are very or somewhat satisfied with their ability to measure marketing ROI, 57% use marketing ROI for their budget decisions and 59% use financial metrics to evaluate their marketing spend. 54% go as far as to say they consider it important to try to spend only when they have financial metrics.

Understanding what marketing ROI is

In the organizations surveyed, however, managers do not appear to have a consistent understanding of what marketing ROI is. When asked to define marketing ROI, 37% of the respondents did not mention financial effects and 82% did not mention that ROI consists of both financial return and spending. 31% think that just measuring the audience you reach is “marketing ROI.” Even when prompted, 19% do not think that “measuring the financial impact of our marketing” is marketing ROI.

In place of marketing ROI, many traditional measures are used. 37% of the respondents claimed that they used brand awareness as a universal metric to make marketing decisions. More troubling, of those using brand awareness, more than 60% said it was their only marketing ROI measure. To be useful, brand awareness must be coupled with some measure of brand perception. Brand awareness by itself is a lagging indicator of brand strength. Using it as the sole or main measure to make marketing decisions is truly managing by looking in the rear view mirror.

So, how do you have "ROI" without financial outcomes? You may have "return on something," but it's not ROI. (Think about your brokerage accounts. How would you like it if your stock portfolio advisor measured returns other than financial ones?) There are plenty of valid "returns" on marketing investments - things that can be measured, and thus managed. But don't call them ROI.

I'll report on how these corporate marketers are integrating digital and traditional marketing in a future post.

 

Your vote and opinion really matter to me! Deadline to vote: Friday, March 30

I am proud to announce that my company, Content Pilot, has been included in the first-ever National Law Journal list of legal vendors for 2012. We have worked hard to be a part of this important national list - and we'll work even harder to stay on it.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NLJBest2012

If you think highly of us, we would be honored if you would take a moment to vote for us in the following categories:

#27 - Who offers the best LEGAL MARKETING AND BRANDING SERVICES?

#28 - Who offers the best LAW FIRM WEBSITE DESIGN SERVICES?

#60 - Who offers the best LAW FIRM PROPOSAL AUTOMATION & EXPERIENCE MANAGEMENT SOLUTION?

If the numbers don't correspond to these noted here, worry not (they may vary by the position you note in your entry) - please look for the text titles as displayed above.

The deadline is this Friday, March 30. Thank you VERY much!! Deborah