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.)

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.

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.

 

Content Pilot's "Velocity" wins IAC Awards - Best Legal Mobile Application

NEWS RELEASE - March 26, 2012

THE 2012 INTERNET ADVERTISING COMPETITION AWARDS (iAC) HONORS CONTENT PILOT'S "VELOCITY"

The first mobile app to drive sales in the legal industry wins "Best Legal Mobile Application"

Dallas, Texas -- Content Pilot LLC announced today that Velocity™, the first mobile application that drives sales for lawyers and other professionals in professional services firms, won “Best Legal Mobile Application” in the 2012 Internet Advertising Competition Awards. The Internet Advertising Competition (IAC) Awards are produced by the Web Marketing Association to “honor excellence in online advertising, recognize the individuals and organizations responsible, and showcase the best in award winning Internet advertising.” In 2011, more than 86 industries were represented in the competition.

Law firms using Velocity have the clear advantage of their lawyers being able to search on their iPhone, BlackBerry, iPad or other mobile device at critical moments in business development discussions. The app intuitively organizes and pulls lawyers’ experience, client, team and other information so lawyers will never again miss critical business development opportunities.

“We are ecstatic that Velocity is getting this broad industry recognition. It cuts through barriers to success that lawyers have in sales and cross-selling, and it is ahead of the curve in terms of where smart phone and tablet technology is headed.” explains Deborah McMurray, CEO and Strategy Architect for Content Pilot and a former law firm chief marketing officer.

The IAC Awards were formally announced today.

About Velocity:

Velocity is patent pending, and is powered by Content Pilot, an industry leader that provides business development and marketing technologies to professional services firms, including proposal
centers, websites, experience databases and more.

About Content Pilot:

Content Pilot LLC (www.contentpilot.net) is a Dallas-headquartered marketing strategy and
technology company launched in 2006 that serves leading law firms and other professional services firms across the U.S. For more information about Velocity: Contact Deborah McMurray at
214.351.9690 or 972.897.4921 by phone or email at mcmurray@contentpilot.net.

What does a Chief Strategy Officer in a law firm do?

I reconnected with Janis Nordstrom, Chief Strategy Officer at Wolf Theiss, at the Marketing Partner Forum in Miami in January – and peppered her with questions about her globe-trotting legal
marketing career. It’s different, mainly, because she is an American LMA member living in Austria and working for a non-U.S. or UK law firm.

Having served as a CMO or senior director at large U.S. firms, I asked her how what she does abroad is different than working in the U.S. – and where the Chief Strategy piece fits into her role. Here is what she reports about her life and responsibilities:

I am sitting here in the airport in Vienna, waiting to take off for Moscow, thinking how far legal marketing has come over the years and what the expectation now is of a C-level legal marketer. I am charged with a great deal more than having oversight over traditional marketing or practice development efforts, although at my firm, Wolf Theiss, we try to do both extremely well.

Because of the way European legal practices are run, I have become more of an advisor, ambassador, door opener and deal maker with regard to business development opportunities, which involve multinational corporations and governments throughout the world.

I must navigate 25 languages, 30 nationalities and a host of cities and political issues virtually every day. I must set the tone and draft the strategy for multiple offices, practices and industry groups with highly diverse needs and expectations, and serve as a key integrator in making highly disparate cultures and lawyers operate as a single voice.

I must become the face of the firm and cross the divide between western and eastern cultures, whether I am in Vienna, Warsaw, Dubai, Istanbul, Moscow, Beijing, Rio or Singapore, and make everyone feel comfortable, while always representing the best interests of my firm.

In our firm, I am a primary bridge that connects business and law. I must make each side's opinions known and help them discover how they can best work together when, at times, it appears impossible.

As a legal marketer, I know the firm, its lawyers, its issues and areas of emphasis because that’s what a legal marketer does. I am a front line client service provider for both internal and external clients. I know who these people are, what they want and what they like – and what they don’t.

Like other CMOs in global firms, I am an objective third-party-witness to what goes on in my firm. I am thankfully viewed as a teacher, mentor, thought leader, advocate and judge.

It’s important that I know what the press thinks, and what colleagues and competitors say about my firm. It’s important that I can clearly see my firm's weaknesses and strengths through their eyes.

Our Management Board, Firm Chairs, Senior Partners, Department Heads and staff ask for my advice, and much of the time, I know they actually listen to me. Earning a seat at the table is critical to every senior legal marketer. I have worked hard to get a seat at the table and, after four years, am trusted enough to branch out into the real business world and serve as a key spokesperson for every working segment of my firm.

When I have a spare moment, I am excited to share what I know with everyone who might be curious or interested, for I have learned so much throughout a long and multi-cultural career.

I am becoming ever more cognizant of a continuously growing highly competitive marketplace in which all my C-level counterparts pass each other in the night, looking for ways to stay one step ahead of each other or to join forces when necessary to achieve a result we otherwise could not achieve alone.

Unlike global firms headquartered in the U.S. or U.K., I have no known address or headquarters from which I operate. I live on planes, eat unfamiliar food, stay at an assortment of unique hotels each night, attend endless meetings, rarely see my family, hate my BlackBerry, love my iPad and am absolutely passionate about what I do.

I work on a global basis. I have become a true citizen of the world. I recognize my fellow weary business travelers waiting in airport lounges and have become adept at transforming a casual
conversation into a meaningful business relationship.

Without sounding presumptuous, I think I am the face of what global legal marketing will look like in the future. Can we even call it that anymore? Have we outgrown that moniker?

I have become a Chief Strategy Officer. I am arriving in Moscow, so must dash off.

A final note: the “seat at the table” works differently at European firms. It’s progressive and inclusive. My wish is that American law firms consider this as a logical next step for experienced legal marketers. The firm and the marketing/business development professional will greatly benefit.

Janis can be reached at Janis.nordstrom@wolftheiss.com.

Bits and Pieces from James Kane's LMA Keynote Presentation - March 15, 2012

Like nearly 1,000 other LMA members last Thursday morning, I listened to our conference opener keynote, James Kane, speak about "loyalty."

It could be the best keynote I've ever heard in my life.

Thanks to Mark Usellis and Jill Weber, conference co-chairs, and Betsi Roach, LMA Executive Director (plus the conference committee and ACI) for bringing him to LMA.

Loyalty is old news as a topic. But it clearly remains elusive, as evidenced by the 4,346 books that appear in an Amazon book search for "loyalty." We love reading about it (or at least writing about it), and we hope that spending more time thinking and talking about it will move the loyalty needle to us over our personal and professional competitors. We believe we are loyal and we desperately want others to be loyal to us.

But are they? And are we?

Jim Kane described four relationship levels that are theoretically familiar to all of us, but I don't think it's human nature to analyze whether our friends/clients reside on one level or another. The four levels are as follows (and I am likely paraphrasing here, since I was furiously jotting down notes):

1. On the bottom is "antagonistic" - or, "I hate you." Ugh, we all want to avoid that.
2. Next is "transactional." Many lawyer/client and other relationships are like this. Essentially, you are viewed as "fine," but the person isn't loyal to you. They pay you for performing a service and they might be satisfied with you - but they aren't loyal.
3. Next up is "predisposed" - or "neutral." It means the person likes you, but that could change if something bad happens.
4. Finally, on the top is "loyal." People give you opportunities when they are loyal, they are advocates for you and pass positive messages about you on to someone else.

He spoke about the difference between loyalty and satisfaction. Kane said that satisfaction is a mood, and it's about the past. The person is focusing on what you've done for them and whether it satisfied them.

Loyalty, on the other hand, is a behavior and is about the future. It's about what that person can (and will) do for you. Loyalty is anyone saying, "You make my life easier. You make my life better." It is a measurement of what makes up your relationship beyond performing services and receiving money for it. Such as, trust, belonging, purpose and fulfillment.

Trust, Kane said, equals competency, character, consistency and capacity. All four of these elements must be present for someone to really trust you in a business setting. He added, "You get no credit for being trustworthy. It's the expectation." I recall him suggesting that people who say they are trustworthy are clearly missing the point about trust. He used Ford's advertising slogan a few years ago as an example: "Quality is Job 1." We all laughed when Kane admonished Ford for using a basic expectation that we consumers have (that the automobile that I am buying will actually and consistently go) as something special or unique.

He also used certain of Comcast's value statements/promises as poor examples or ineffective ways of engendering trust. They are:

• "We will treat your home with courtesy and respect."
• And, "We are here for you 24/7."

Kane chided Comcast and said, "You don't get credit for these things! You are a cable company! We expect this from you!"

The only way to build trust is to align your expectations with your client's. Trust is simply all about understanding and managing expectations.

Here are a few more snippets from his presentation:

1. When you make a donation to charity, give your clients credit. They are the ones that make it possible for you to make the donation.
2. Recognition - how well do you really know your client? He said at least six times - with heat and passion - how much he hates US Airways. Kane, in his introduction said that he flew nearly 180,000 miles last year on US Airways. Not because he is loyal, but because, in Philadelphia, they hold him hostage.
   
   He noted that he doesn't eat meat or chicken, but that every time he flies (always in first class), the flight attendant asks him, "Mr. Kane, what would you like for lunch/dinner - chicken or chicken?" Every time he tells them he doesn't eat it and asks what else they have. They never make a note of it and never remember.
   
   In contrast, he told a story about Singapore Airlines (a favorite of most experienced global travelers). When the flight attendant approached him about a beverage, he asked if they had Island Chill water. She said they did not. Two days later when he was back on Singapore Airlines for his return flight, the flight attendant brought him (yes, you guessed it) a bottle and said, "Mr. Kane, here is your Island Chill water."
   
   Singapore Airlines completely gets recognition. They care about it and demonstrate it in countless small, but meaningful ways.
   
   That builds trust. That builds loyalty.
3. Lawyers, when you have a client coming to your office, inform your receptionist so your client can be warmly greeted by name. The fact that your client is arriving at your office at the time your appointment is scheduled shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
4. Be insightful. Look beyond the obvious. It's the most critical thing you can do, Kane says.
5. Be proactive. Don't confuse being courteous with proactivity. Do something that your client never thought he needed. Here is an example: A man who forgot his mother's birthday went into a flower shop. Sheepish, he needed to place a rush order. The flowers were delivered and mother was happy. That was the flower shop doing its job - and being courteous.
   
   Eleven months later, the forgetful man received a postcard from the florist reminding him of his mother's birthday in a few days. That was proactive.
6. Identity. This especially resonates with me. Share things about yourself, and your listeners will find something in you that they like (because it's familiar to them).
   
   Kane started his presentation with a fast-paced series of declarative statements about himself, illustrated with pictures, logos and such. It was stunningly effective and funny, and the audience, one-by-one, bought into Jim Kane because each of us connected to something that he said. He revealed a lot about his childhood, background, sensibilities, likes and dislikes - it felt like the discharge of an automatic weapon in its rapid fire.
   
   He said that if he took an MRI of our brains before he started that introduction, it would look like a flat-line. After it, the MRI would look entirely different -- it would light up like a Christmas tree because of the various hormones that were activated in our brain chemistry. Because we were connecting with him.

The short description on his home page best synthesizes what he does:

Merging the worlds of business, neuroscience, and behavioral psychology, James Kane has been recognized as one of the leading researchers and consultants in the science of loyalty and the role it plays in human relationships and the communities we form.

He has two books: The Loyalty Switch, and a new one, Virtually Loyal (the secret to making your digital relationships loyal). I am buying both.

The Elephant in the Room: Marketing Technology Trends you can't Afford to Ignore

That's the title of our ILTA/LMA panel at the Legal Marketing Association's pre-conference CMO session tomorrow. (This is the first formal joint venture between LMA and ILTA - the first of many, I hope.) Starting at 11 CT, Kate Cain, the new Director of Market Intelligence at Sidley, will kick off our session as moderator. Panelists are Joe Calve, CMO at Morrison & Foerster; Mark Greene, Chief Business Development Officer at Waller; Bob Robertson, Chief Marketing Officer at Greenberg Traurig; and me.

We had attendees complete a two-minute survey in advance of our session so we could tailor our remarks to their interests. The hottest button issues of this CMO audience are: CRM, experience databases and proposal centers, websites and social media. And we are covering all these topics, sharing trends, then discussing our real-world experiences to make the planning, process and implementations successful. All of us have a business focus - a use-case focus, rather than climbing into the features of the technology tools. We all believe this is where success begins.

If you are interested in receiving a copy of our handouts after tomorrow, please email me at mcmurray@contentpilot.net.

I hope to see you at the conference! (If you are at LMA, please stop by the Content Pilot booth - #316 - and say hi.)