TV IS A WASTE OF TIME

Yeah, right, and Alexander the Great was a lousy general.

There are few historical events that all historians agree on. But here is one: For twelve years, in the fourth century B.C., Alexander the Great kicked butt across most of the known world. He was only stopped when, at the Hyphasis River in India, his battle-weary army refused to march any further.

Such relentless domination is rarely seen in other fields. But, the marketing world has its own dominant force. It’s own Alexander. It’s called TV. This medium is not only the king of the marketing world, it is the queen, the prince, and the princess. TV is the whole royal court.

TV is the ultimate trump card with an almost impeccable winning streak. Quick, name any familiar consumer brand in any industry and the data will show that it is TV that is responsible for its fame. (They are exceptions to this but do you want to bet your law firm’s future on being the exception?)

You could start and stop any marketing strategy meeting with this simple directive, “Let’s double our marketing budget and put it all on TV.”

Okay, I just went too far. There are many of you who could double your marketing budget, put it all on TV and still not grow your practice. Why? Because, if you live in Memphis or Detroit or Pittsburgh or Buffalo or Las Vegas or several other markets, you are already missed the TV boat. It sailed a long time ago.

Many of you are already living in a post-apocalyptic world whether you know it or not. A seismic shift has occurred in the Plaintiff’s Bar.

What is that shift that has signaled the end of the Plaintiff’s bar as you knew it? It’s the successful advent of branding by several law firms around the country. And that branding has occurred, just like in most other industries, through the massive use of TV advertising.

I have written about branding before and let me give you two vivid examples of it - one market where branding has not occurred and one where it has.

UNBRANDED MARKET EXAMPLE: I conducted a random telephone survey in Oklahoma City, a mid-sized market that has seen an average amount of attorney TV advertising through the years. I asked one simple question, “Can you name any attorneys in town?”

Only three out of 10 could name a single attorney. (It is no surprise that the few people who could name an attorney almost always named one of the top three TV advertisers.) This means that the vast majority of people in Oklahoma City have no clue where to turn if they need legal help.

So, Oklahoma City is a market where no law firm has established a strong brand name. Since no firm is advertising at levels necessary to create a brand, this market is wide open for a takeover.

BRANDED MARKET EXAMPLE: A few years ago I spoke with a well-established law firm in Buffalo. This firm was spending large amounts of marketing dollars but seeing extremely poor results. Upon doing some basic research, the cause was clear. The Barnes firm in Buffalo had established a stranglehold on the market by spending massive amounts of money on TV. The Barnes firm had created a brand in Buffalo that was trumping other marketing efforts.

If you try to open a Plaintiff’s law firm in Buffalo, you have about as much chance of beating out Barnes as you would have opening a fast food hamburger chain and selling more burgers than McDonalds.

But, you may ask, why do I need to be the number #1 law firm in my market? Can’t I be content with a smaller practice?

Let me answer that question with asking you a question. When a large company, let’s say like Geico, starts spending massive amounts of money on TV advertising, who gets hurt most - the number #2 and #3 competitors or all the guys further down the list?

Here is the real life answer. When Geico started its massive TV campaign, there were numerous local and regional auto insurance carriers littering the U.S. landscape. Twenty years later, most of these companies had been driven out of business leaving only a handful of companies - Allstate, State Farm, Progressive, etc. - to fight over customers.

The law firm that establishes a strong brand drives down its acquisition costs. That is, it takes few marketing dollars to get a case. That is because some people are calling you because they already know your name and trust your brand. They don’t need to see a TV commercial or find your name in the yellow pages.

The number #2 and #3 guys usually enjoy a little bit of branding and also have the resources to compete. It is the rest of the bar that suffers the most.

So, what should you do if you don’t have the resources to compete and/or you live in a market that is already dominated? I’ll give you three suggestions:

See if one of your dominant competitors is looking to hire.

Become one of the “heavy lifter” law firms that is so good at an area of practice that you can attract referrals from the advertiser firms.

Pack your bags and, as the late great comedian Sam Kinnison said, “move to the food.”

Media Awards - The Best Scam Going

You may have received a notice that one of the leading attorney internet providers just received a "Webby" for its website. 

I hope you are a cynical as I am about industry awards. They are ususally a profit venture that has little, if nothing, to do with judging the quality of the entrants. 

I won't say more but, if you want to learn more about the Webbys, go here.

Should I "Rent" a Vanity Number?

I just received an email from a vendor who "rents" vanity telephone numbers from market to market. I am a big believer in vanity numbers but I have some issues with using a vanity number that you don't own. Here is my reply to his email:

Thanks for the note. I agree that vanity numbers are a great advantage, especially in TV campaigns and it looks like yours if a very good one.

The problem I have with "renting" numbers is that using a vanity number builds the "brand" of the number. If the firm ever wishes to go a different direction in their advertising, the brand number still has value for the next firm that may use it, value that the former firm built and paid for. It is the same problem that firms have when they use a celebrity, such as William Shatner, in their ads. The firm is at the mercy of the marketing company. The balance of power shifts from the client to the vendor - the tail wags the dog so to speak.

Unless there was a long-term contract in place and a non-compete clause, I would find it difficult to recommend renting a vanity number. 

That's my two cents. However, I am always open to changing my opinion since there is still much for me to learn in this field.

Should I make the leap of faith to TV?

I recently was speaking with a law firm that is considering advertising on TV for the first time in their local market. They were asking for some advice. Here is a paraphrase of some of my remarks:

As you know, I am a huge fan of TV marketing as a way to grow a practice. I think it is fair to say that in 5 years or less we will see the emergence of several dominant national firms that have built their empires on TV. If you are not on TV, it is unlikely you are building a practice that will hold much value for the next generation.

However, the switch from referral-based marketing to direct-to-client marketing is a big step. And, perhaps, your goals are limited to this generation of attorneys in your firm.

In addition, we may see the emergence of several large "heavy-lifter" firms, firms that eschew any direct marketing and focus their practice on taking cases through the litigation process, relieving the marketing firms from this task. These firms become essentially "white label" firms, firms that service the large "brand-name" marketing firms. If you've noticed, airlines have been doing this with commuter flights. The flight is listed as a "Delta" flight or an "American" flight but it is another non-branded airline company that owns and operates the aircraft.

(WHITE LABEL - A white label service is a service produced by one company, the producer, that other companies, the marketers, rebrand to make it appear as if they provided it.)

As an aside, this transformation of the plaintiffs' bar will require a role reversal and a reordering of egos. The firms that have enjoyed their status and prestige as top-notch litigation firms will now have to sublimate their egos and identities to the marketing firms. That wil be fun to watch.

You suggested that much of your current caseload comes from referrals. If that is correct, the first questions I would ask is how much money have you set aside to market for referrals and what grade would you give yourself, to date, on your efforts to fully exploit this pipeline?

I suggest taking a look at Leesfield and Leighton in Florida as an example of a firm that has been extremely aggressive in soliciting other firms around the country for referrals. Although their style may not suit you, the intensity of their referral efforts should provide a benchmark to compare against the intensity of your own efforts. (Has anyone else noticed that every newsletter they send out has a picture of someone from the firm standing next to former president Clinton?)

I’m sure you know some other referral-based marketing firms that could be looked at for comparison purposes.

You also mentioned that some marketing companies have been pitching TV to you. I hope that part of their pitch includes a thorough competitive analysis and a projection of how much you will need to spend on TV in order to compete. (A quick glance at the data in your market suggests that anything less than $X per year on TV is too low unless you have decided to do some kind of niche marketing.)

Historical Accident or Demographic Similarity?

Quick: Explain why Memphis, Las Vegas, Louisville, Jacksonville and Birmingham were the five most saturated markets for attorney TV advertising in 2007.

Was it race? Age? Income? (Before you settle too quickly on race, check the racial composition of the city of Las Vegas or Louisville.)

Was it the favorable tort laws and courts in Tennessee, Nevada, Kentucky, Florida and Alabama? (Before you settle too quickly on this reason, remember that some of these states have other markets that are much less saturated with attorney advertising.)

Or was it simply that the Plaintiff's bar is still a maturing category in terms of marketing and the differences from market to market are a result of certain innovative firms jumping out quickly?

I hear attorneys complain that some markets are more resistent to their marketing efforts. Is there a demographic reason for the difficulty or have the markets matured now so that any new marketing venture will take longer to turn a profit?

I read recently about the phenomenon of some cities having widely different rates of bankruptcy filings even though the relevant demographics are similar. The most compelling theory was that there is a "follow the pack" effect. If you know someone on your block who has declared bankruptcy, it makes it easier for you to contemplate doing the same. If you know two people on your block who have declared bankrupcy, you wonder what you are missing.

Perhaps there something similar going up with personal injury lawsuits. The pool of potential personal injury litigents has always been estimated to be vastly larger than the number who actually retain an attorney. Perhaps the law firms in the most saturated markets have simply done a better job removing the barriers to representation.

Write me and let me know your theory.

SIDEBAR: Perhaps, instead of scrutinizing and criticizing the attorneys who have aggressively marketed their services, we should be chiding the law firms in the less saturated markets who have not stepped up and spoken out.

Atlanta is Burning!

The battle for Atlanta appears to have heated up the first quarter of 2008. Market leader Montlick upped his TV weight. Gary Martin Hays made a huge push to move into 2nd position on TV. John Morgan upped his TV weight considerably. Ken Nugent held firm but this was not enough to keep him from slipping in the ranks, down to 3rd place.

Overall, the attorney broadcast TV advertising in Atlanta was up 100 TRPs (adults 25-54) per week over 2007. Given the cost of buying TV in Atlanta, that is a lot of extra money being thrown around in that town. It moves Atlanta back into the top 10 most saturated markets in the country for attorney broadcast TV advertising.

As I have written before, the battle for Atlanta has huge implications for the rest of the south and perhaps for the rest of the country as well. John Morgan, the behemoth from Florida, has made it very clear he has national ambitions. His entry into Atlanta in 2006 was a clear indication he was backing his words with aggressive actions. If Atlanta falls to him, there are very few markets in the south that are safe.

So far, the established firms in Atlanta appear to be fighting back successfully. But does anyone have an answer for the battlechest he has at his disposal and the Machiavellian strategy of shifting alliances that he employs?

Since we are in an election year, perhaps we can anticipate that the combat will ease as the cost of TV escalates up to election day. We shall see.

M&L Seminar in Idaho

I will be one of the speakers at the upcoming M&L Marketing Seminar in Idaho in July. The law firm of Hughes & Coleman out of Bowling Green hosts this seminar that has been running now for some years.

Because all the firms in attendance share many of their own marketing ideas and strategies, there is a limit of one firm per market. I spoke with Micki Love, the cooridnator of the event, and she indicated that there is still some space at the seminar. You can contact her directly to determine if your market is still open - 270-782-6003 ext. 140.

I would love to see you. I will be tailoring my formal remarks for the participants and their markets and, since I will be there for the entire event, I should have time for informal conversations as well.

When Will Your Market Pass the 200 TRP Threshold?

I keep sorting through the 2007 TV data to look for signs of how quickly the trends are developing.

Here's one:

In 2002 there were eight TV markets where the top attorney TV advertiser was averaging over 200 TRPs (adults 25-54) a week on broadcast TV. Five years later, in 2007, there were 21 TV markets where the top attorney TV advertisver was averaging over 200 TRPs (adults 25-54) a week. That's a 163% increase!

As I have mentioned before, the real action is mostly occuring east of the Mississippi. Only three of the 21 markets - Phoenix, Las Vegas & San Antonio, were west of the big river.

(If you want the entire list, send me an email at scott@trostreport.com)

Since we know that firms are making profits advertising at 400+ TRPs per week in many markets, I think it is safe to predict that most markets will see a 200+ TRPs per week attorney advertiser in the next five years.

If you are not at the 200 TRPs per week threshold yet, you can plan on needing to be there in the near future to compete.

P.S. I apologize for the TV jargon - TRPs. It means "target rating points." In the entry above, the target I am using is adults aged 25-54. One rating point equals one percent of the target audience in that market. That means that one rating point in Los Angeles represents a lot more people than one rating point in Tulsa, OK. If you are doing your math, you might be wondering how a firm that is averaging 200 TRPs per week could be reaching 200% of the adults 25-54. What that means is that quite a few people saw the law firm's commercials more than once in a week.

In case you really want to work on your media math, try this equation: Total Impressions = Reach X Freqency. Although all this math may remind you why you went to law school, this equation may be one of the most critical ones for an advertiser to know and understand. In fact, the fatal flaw of many firm's current media buying strategy is their sacrifice of reach in favor of frequency.

Send me an email if you want a more detailed explanation.

How Much Should I Spend on Creative?

I just got asked this question: How much of my TV marketing budget should I spend on creative?

When I say "creative" I mean the costs for producing the commmercials you will air.

Here's the short answer: In many industries, TV advertisers will spend 5-10% of their budget on creative.

If you spend less than this, the poor quality of your message could undercut your media buy.

Attorneys have gotten used to spending very little on creative. However, as the quality of the competition has increased, the penny-wise attorneys are feeling the results of their "parsimony" (to use an old-fashioned word).

For many reasons, it is time to ante up.

The Devil is in the Detail - Key Metrics You Better be Watching

Someone asked me, "When you advertise on TV, what metrics do you get from your marketing partners and how often do you get them?"

This is a great question.

HOW OFTEN DO I GET TV REPORTS? - I expect to get a report every month. However, I make sure my marketing partner is tracking my TV internally on a weekly basis and giving the TV stations a weekly report card of how they are doing.

WHAT METRICS DO I GET? - I expect the following basics:

• Audience delivery - Number of spots and number of TRPs, which stands for target rating points (I like the target of adults 25-54).
  
• Expenditure - How much of my money they spent.
  
• Cost per Point - Number of TRPs divided by money spent.
  
• Cost per 1000 and Cost per Impression - These give me handy tools to compare markets.
• Share-of-Voice - I just wrote about this critical metric. If you are not gettting this metric, you are shooting in the dark. If I don't have the #1 or #2 largest share of voice, I am probably not getting my fair share of cases.
  
• Other Competitive - I want to know the TRPs and the reported spend of the top 10 attorney TV advertisers in my market.
  
• Daypart Mix - I expect at least 25% of my weight to fall in early & late fringe and 25% to fall in prime and news. Any less than this and I will not be reaching the full audience of television. Those of you who believe in daytime-only TV advertising are idiots. (Okay, perhaps that was too strong a word. You're not idiots, just ignorant fools.)
• Reach & Frequency - I want to be reaching 80-90% of the available audience each month as frequently as possible. A correct daypart mix ensures this.
  
• Fair Market Value Index - THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL METRICS! I want to know how efficiently my TV is being bought. The best way to measure this is by indexing against the fair market value of my buy. I am not happy unless one of my dollars gets at least two dollars of fair market value. In many markets, I can now get $3 of value for every dollar spent. What this means is that most of my competitors are having to spend twice or three times as much as me just to keep pace.
• Highlights - I expect my marketing partner to sketch out a few notes of any notable/emerging trends. These notes can be very important. I recently witnessed the firing of an in-house marketing director because of the failure of the marketing director to inform senior management that several key competitors had recently ramped up their marketing campaigns.

You ask, "What is my market share?" I ask, "What is your media share?"

One attorney sent me these questions:

How can I find out what my market share is in my market? How can I increase it?

Those are great questions. The first question, what is my market share, is a question that is standard in most other businesses. That is to say, other business owners religiously keep track of the answer to this question and fret over whether their market share is rising or falling.

"Market share" for the plaintiff's bar simply means, what is each firm's percentage (or share) of cases in comparison to all the cases that were handled by plaintiff's firms in the market. EXAMPLE: If you handled 10% of all the plaintiff's cases that were handled in your market in 2007, then your firm had a 10% market share for 2007. (Obviously, you could also express market share in terms of revenue rather than the number of cases.)

The plaintiff's bar has been very slow to understand the importance of market share. In fact, I've yet to see any firm that has developed the measurement tools to answer this question very accurately. Most still use crude measures, such as cocktail hour bravado & gossip, comparing the size, location & furnishings of each respective law office or counting the number of attorneys in each firm. Although these measures have entertainment value, they are hardly the tools that should be used to make strategic marketing decisions.

One simple tool that is used in most industries, and I would encourage the use of it in ours, is a measurement of "media" share. This is a measurement of each firm's percentage (or share) of the overall advertising that is being done by all the firms in your market.

To illustrate this point, let's pick a market that I think is one of the more important markets for the plaintiff's bar - Atlanta. I'm going to use a pie chart to show what the broadcast TV share of media was in 2007.

This is the landscape of Atlanta attorneys advertising on broadcast TV in 2007 (as it looked to adults 25-54). I used a certain set of metrics to generate this pie chart. There may be other metrics that would draw the pie chart a little differently but I'm guessing this is a pretty accurate picture.

We can see from the pie chart that Montlick and Nugent were the two dominant players in Altanta in 2007. There were some challenger brands - Hays, Morgan, and Ellis. And then there was everyone else.

Although this is not a full measure of share of media (since it does not include local cable, billboard, radio, print and the search mediums, such as yellow pages and the internet), it gives us a hint of what the market share was for each of these firms in Atlanta in 2007. What I mean is that, based upon their dominant share of media on broadcast TV, you can probably guess that the two firms that received the largest share of new cases in 2007 were Montlick and Nugent.

It also gives you a benchmark to measure changes in the competitive environment. For, example, let's go back to 2006 and look at the same pie chart.

Looking at the two pie charts, a few big things jump out at me.

First, Ellis has gone from a 11% share of broadcast TV to a 5%. Is this firm shifting to other mediums or is this a sign of cutting back?

Second, the "other" category has jumped from 30% to 37%. This is significant to me because 2006 was Morgan's first year in Atlanta on TV. I might have predicted just the opposite, that the smaller advertisers would have cut back in response to a new challenger in the marketplace. If I was going to fully analysize this market, I would probably take a closer look to see who is stepping up in the "other" category and look at what they are doing in the first quarter of this year.

Third, although Nugent has slipped a bit, both Nugent and Montlick seem to have held their dominant positions in 2007. For a fuller analysis, I would take a look a look a their actual schedules and at the ads they ran to see if there any significant changes and I would want to see what, if any, changes have occured in the first quarter of this year.

I hope you see already that taking share of media measurements begins to give you more accurate pictures of what is happening in your marketplace and how it can help you begin answering the critical question of market share.

Now, as to question #2, how to increase market share, that question involves every aspect of your marketing plan - strategy, branding, budget, measurement and media. Or, to put it another way, there are several roads to reaching increased market share. The more roads you go down, the better chances you will have.

Unfortunately, very few firms have the tools in place to measure each aspect, evaluate each aspect, and improve each aspect of their marketing plan (and, for many of us, we have to confess that we don't even have a marketing plan). For most firms the process is helter skelter. That means that whether you increase market share or lose market share is left up to whim and chance - not the best way to run a business.

TV Continues to Dominate

Sometimes we are so focused on anticipating the next trend that we forget what is working best right now.

And what is working best right now, as far as mediums go, is TV.

Here are results for adults 25-54 from a survey of 1,246 people conducted just this January:

MORE HOURS PER WEEK This group is spending about 26 hours a week in front of the TV. That compares to 12 hours listening to the radio, 11 hours on the internet, 2.5 hours reading the newspaper, and 1.7 hours reading magazines. (Notice that the time watching TV exceeds all the other mediums combined.)

MORE REACH EVERY DAY Each day, over 90% of this group watches TV. 80% listen to the radio every day, 72% go onto the internet each day, 59% read the newspaper each day, and 48% read a magazine.

MORE ADVERTISING IMPACT When this group is asked which medium carries the most influential advertising, 81% will say TV, 7% will say the internet, 6% will say the newspaper, 4% will say the radio, and 2% will say newspapers.

MOST PERSUASIVE ADVERTISING When this group is asked which medium has the persuasive advertising, 70% say TV, 10% says newspapers, 8% say magazines, 7% say radio, and just 5% say the internet.

MOST EDUCATIONAL ADVERTISING When this group is asked where they are most likely to learn about products or services they might try or buy, 55% say TV, 19% say the internet, 15% say magazines, 7% say newspapers, and 4% say radio.

The impact of the internet continues to grow but it is nowhere close to displacing TV.

I will sometimes tell attorneys that if they have no ambition other than to make a living for themselves & their families and leave no legacy behind, the internet should work just fine. But, if they have more ambition than that, they need to find the resources to be a player on TV. That advice is likely to change in our lifetimes but I suspect that for today, it is still solid advice.

Here is what my own research tells me about attorney advertising. Almost without exception, the top two attorney TV advertisers in each market are capturing the lion’s share of new cases.

Jason's Head-to-Head Challenge to the SEO Club

I just talked to one of my internet gurus - Jason. Here was his response to my questions about our internet vendors' current obsession with SEO (search engine optimization).

If you hire one of your best vendors to do SEO, how much would he charge you? (I replied: about $8,000 per month.)

Alright, you spend $8,000 a month on SEO with this vendor for a year. I'll spend $8,000 a month on a pay-per-click campaign (and/or on TV) in the same market. At the end of the year, let's see who has generated the most cases.

I told Jason that many of our vendors preach patience and claim that the real returns on SEO come in year two. Jason laughed and replied: Show me the person who can wait until year two for results on a marketing campaign and I'll show you the person who doesn't depend upon his business to feed his family.

NOTE: I know that some of you are shaking your heads because you are confused about the terms that I am throwing around - SEO, pay-per-click, etc. It is one of the challenges of marketing on the internet (and why it is so easy for the vendors to impress us with gobbledy-goop). I will try to write an entry in the near future that explains in plain English what these terms mean.

Push Back on My Critique of Internet Vendors

My last blog entry has generated more than the usual amount of responses. Here is one:

I think that your comments in your article are somewhat inaccurate, in my opinion. The question was specifically dealing with one vendor in the industry and it was VERY UNANIMOUS that that vendor is a - desciption deleted - and does not add value to its customers efforts to gain more business via the internet. However, my memory is that there were some clear comments that some have had success in internet marketing with a good and honest vendor that provides those services.

Here is my response back:

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my article. I did not mean to give the impression that the lawyers in the room were unloading on the entire group of internet vendors. You are right. Some had very positive things to say about other internet vendors.

However, I was expressing my own personal disappointment with the internet vendors as a whole.

Depending upon which ones you speak about they suffer from lack of expertise, lack of initiative, lack of perspective. And I don’t know any of them that can claim to be free of conflicts of interest - even vendors that serve only one client per “market.” What happens the first time that two of these “single-market” clients want to use the internet to look for the same mass tort cases in multiple markets?

Most of the internet vendors brag that they serve only the legal profession. I am not convinced that the best internet vendor for your firm is one that serves only our profession.

Part of that comment is simply common sense. Our profession spends a miniscule amount of money on the internet compared to other industries. If you are looking for the most advanced, the most sophisticated, the most experienced vendors, the safest thing to do is to follow the money. That rule would dictate that we look at internet vendors that have earned their chops in larger internet industries.

There are always exceptions to this rule but our entire profession seems to have skipped over the rule to the exception without a second thought.

I agree with you that the internet is a place you should be looking for cases, TODAY. And I think some of the vendors will give you a return on your investment.

I just think there is a lot of room for improvement.

No One Raised their Hand - Life in the Jungle

I usually call the internet the "wild west" but I may start using a new methaphor - the "jungle." Let me illustrate.

Last week, I was in a room full of about 40+ plaintiff's attorneys from across the country. The discussion was the internet and how to determine the best internet vendors. The speaker suggested getting a list of 30-40 current clients from the vendor and do a random call check. Happy or unhappy clients should be a pretty reliable way to judge a company.

Some one asked about a particular internet vendor, one of the larger ones that serves our profession. The speaker asked for a show of hands of attorneys in the room who were currently using that vendor. About a dozen hands went up. I was impressed with the market share this vendor appears to have.

Then the speaker asked for a show of hands of how many of these clients were satisfied with this vendor.

No one raised their hand. Not...one....person.

This is a bad joke. It is no wonder that so many law firms are taking their internet activities in-house. They have gotten burned by opportunists who preyed on our naivete.

I have complained in the past about the current vendors' obsession with SEO (search engine optimization) and lack of strategic vision. Now I will add to the list a lack of tangible results and a complete breakdown in customer service.

To be fair, some vendors are doing a better job than others. But, as a whole, I give this group a grade of D minus.

P.S. If you are curious about who the vendor was that got such bad reviews, send me an email - scott@trostreport.com.

I'm picking up my March 31st entry, The Rich Get Richer in 2007 - Are You a Million Dollar Advertiser?

I left off at the list of attorney advertisers who, according to various sources, spent between $2-3 million last year on television. Here is the list:

NOTES: There are a couple of Las Vegas advertisers, Golightly and Kutner, in this group. As I've written before, Las Vegas is one of the most saturated markets west of the Mississippi. These two are slugging it out with Glen Lerner for market share, which must leave very little room for anyone else.

Burnetti, Colling Gilbert, Harrell & Harrell and Newlin are all Florida firms, although only Burnetti has a significant presence in multiple markets. These firms have to spend this kind of money if they want to keep up in such a competitive state. (I have coined a term for these states where the future of the plaintiff's bar is likely to be determined. I call these "ground zero" states.)

Gorberg is the Lemon Law guy from Philadelphia. Given his long history, he has obviously cracked the code on developing a profitable niche practice. Korn & Stern, better known for its brand - 4AnyChild - is another good example, as is Roni Deutch, the tax attorney.

Elk & Elk cover multiple markets across the state of Ohio, although their advertising weight in these markets could be beefed up to discourage outside competition. (Witness John Morgan announcing at Mass Torts Made Perfect his intention to move into Cleveland - April 15 Earthquakes in Vegas.)

Some firms show up on this list that market for mass tort cases - Ferrer Poirot, Goldwater, and Angelos. These three firms distribute their advertising dollars between network cable and various local markets.

Franklin Azar is the king of Colorado but does not advertise at levels that would discourage competition.

George Sink covers several very competitive markets in South Carolina. This is one of those states that requires serious money to compete.

Lee Steinberg would be a dominant advertiser in just about any other state. But, in Michigan, he has to face the 800lb. gorilla - Sam Bernstein. It must be doubly depressing that Sam has several of his children involved in the practice and they appear capable of carrying the brand into the next generation.

Some big city single-market firms on this list include Perry Ellis in Atlanta, Smith & Hassler in Houston, and Wilens & Baker and Yankowitz in New York City (Yankowitz appears to spend some advertising money in Philadelphia). I have my concerns about a single-market strategy but these firms seem comfortable with it.

Wayne Wright covers three big markets in Texas - San Antonio, Houston and Austin. Like Jim Adler, he has been around on TV for awhile, which helps with building brand awareness (brand awareness = lower acquisition cost per case).

TV Media Dollar Deflation Revisited

I have had several inquiries about my earlier entry regarding media dollar deflation. (March 13 - Why is No One Telling You About Media Dollar Deflation?)

I prepared a chart below to clarify the issues. Anyone who buys TV should pay careful attention. The cost of ignorance could be lost millions, decreased growth, and an asset, your law firm, that has little value for the next generation.

The key point is that a TV media dollar today, if spent traditionally, is buying far fewer "impressions" (translate - people seeing your commercials) than just a few years ago. So, on average, a dollar in 2000 bought 69 impressions. Today it is buying you about 45 impressions - a 35% drop!

Someone asked me if inflation accounted for this drop. Yes, to some degree. Inflation accounts for a little less than half that precipitous drop. But you will notice in the graph that, if your media dollar had lost value simply due to inflation, it would be buying 59 impressions, a 31% boost over what it is buying.

I also spoke about some of the advanced buying systems that have been developed in other industries. These systems have actually performed better than inflation. A TV media dollar in 2000, using advanced systems, bought 125 impressions. Today, it is buying about 118 impressions, only a .06% drop.

You will also notice how this difference has widened the gap between traditional systems of buying and advanced systems. In 2000, the advanced systems gave the advertiser 81% more value. Now that value has increased to 161%!

Someone asked how to tell if their system of buying was traditional or advanced. If you are buying it yourself, the chances are pretty good that you are doing worse than even traditional methods. If you have someone buying for you, ask them these simple questions:

• How many impressions are you able to buy with my TV dollar?
• How many impressions were you able to buy with a TV dollar in 2000?
• EXTRA CREDIT - Are you able to buy the same number of impressions per dollar spent in daytime vs. fringe vs. primetime? (If you are confused about this question, call me and I will explain what it means and why it is important - 210-260-4852.)

If your media buyer can't answer these questions, there is a good chance that they are way behind the curve and are wasting your valuable marketing dollars.

Earthquakes in Vegas - Mass Torts Made Perfect Conference

I attended the Mass Torts Made Perfect in Las Vegas last week. All I can say is “wow!” Here are four signs from the conference that suggest events in the Plaintiff’s bar are moving at a faster pace than even I predicted:

1. Keith Givens announces at the opening bell the formation of an invitation-only trial lawyer organization. Invitations will be extended to the top 100 civil & criminal trial lawyers in each state as exemplified by “leadership, reputation, influence, stature, and profile.” Several highly-respected attorneys are already on board. Givens says the Plaintiff’s bar needs a “battleship” to complement the “aircraft carrier” we know as AAJ. In my view this looks like the mother of all battleships.
2. The Cochran Firm hands out branded “Cochran” shirts for all its attorneys at the conference. Although you could argue about the style, there is no escaping that the branding game has just been taken to the next level. In every other industry, the company that wins the internal and external branding game, that company wins the war, period. Game over.
3. John Morgan announces that he is looking to move into Philadelphia and Cleveland, two very large unsaturated TV markets. For anyone following my military analogies, this takes him from Civil War strategy (where I have been comparing his strategy to Sherman’s march) to WWII and General MacArthur, the genius who realized that you could just skip around well-defended islands and move on to easier campaigns.
4. Mike Skoler, from Jim Sokolove’s office, gives a talk advocating the relaxation of rules to allow non-attorney ownership of law firms in the U.S. (This is already happening in Australia and England.) When this occurs (notice that I am not saying “if”), when this occurs we can expect a billion dollars or more of new investment in the Plaintiff’s bar and a complete transformation of the way we practice. (Just talk to any doctor who works for an HMO or a managed healthcare company to get some sense of what I am saying.)
   

I feel like I was standing on the San Andreas fault as four major shifts of the tectonic plates took place, generating 7.0+ quakes. And that was just the stuff that was for public consumption. Who knows what else took place behind closed doors.

There is a great story about the release of the Beatles album, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. I don't know if it is true or not but here it is. The story goes that when Mick Jagger and Keith Richard of the Rolling Stones heard the Beatles new ground-breaking album, they scrapped everything they were working on. They knew that this album had changed rock & roll forever.

I wonder if we have just witnessed a similar moment for the Plaintiff's bar. (I know I am getting overdramatic here but I just had to work that Beatles story in.)

Bad Attorney Advertising Strikes a Chord

I received a great response to my March 24 entry - Help Me Put an End to Bad Attorney Advertising. The email is from Mike Tyre, CEO of Guest Relations Marketing, based in Atlanta (www.guestrelationsmarketing.com). I have reprinted the email below:

You struck a chord about ads that build trust. I'm a veteran of the ad agency world. My mission is to leave the world with at least a few examples of credible work that got results for the client and doesn't pander to the lowest common denominator.

The ad archives are full of provocative, shrill ads that get attention, may even get some action one time and then a couple of years later that brand (and that agency) are not heard from.

Ads are merely one point - often an introductory point for brands. Smart marketers match the reality/delivery of the brand to the messaging. Apple has done a terrific job through the years of being interesting, fresh and competitive, yet really understanding their core target mindset and most importantly, paying it off at point of sale.

So for those companies that want those "in your face" show me the money ads - are they delivering? They may fool some people one time, but the world is increasingly wise to such practices.

It is a human trait to aspire to more ... why wouldn't I want to engage a lawyer who demonstrates a similar trait in messaging, in attitude and in deed?

Thanks for the encouragement, Mike!

The Rich Get Richer in 2007 - Are You a Million Dollar Advertiser?

Some attorneys obsess over who has joined the Million Dollar Advocates Forum. Here is a Million Dollar club that may not tell you much about the attorney's courtroom skills but will be a better indicator of law firm growth - the Million Dollar Attorney TV Advertising Spenders.

Guess how many law firms spent over $1 million on network cable and/or local broadcast TV in 2007 (according to the best estimates)? If you guessed anywhere near 100, then you are close. By my count, there were 99 firms in 2007 that spent $1 million plus on network cable and/or broadcast TV.

To give you some perspective, five years ago, there were 40 firms that spent over $1 million. That's a 147% increase.

Now, look at some of these percentage increases:

In 2007, there were 43 firms that spent over $2 million - a 185% increase from 5 years earlier.

There were 21 firms that spent more than $3 million - a 405% increase!

There were 16 firms that spent more than $4 million - a 433% increase!!

There were 12 firms that spent more than $5 million - a 600% increase!!!

How do those percentages compare to the total increase in attorney TV advertising? Over that same 5-year period, total attorney advertising, on cable network & broadcast TV, has increased 47% (to a little over $500 million).

These extreme disparities in “percentage increase” show that the wealth is accumulating at the top.

We even have an elite $10 Million group of four. (Five years ago there was no attorney who was spending at this level.) Actually, there is a $20 Million group but it is a group of one - James Sokolove.

Here are members of the $10 Million Dollar group and the markets they are in*:

*Disclaimer - These spending levels are estimates only and do not include spending on local cable TV or other types of advertising, such as outdoor, internet, direct mail, etc. Also, as I have written before, sometimes the data falsely shows that an attorney advertised in a particular market. For example, the data shows that in 2007 I spent more than $40,000 in a market that I have never advertised in. Finally, it is very difficult to get accurate spending figures from the very small TV markets.

NOTES ON $10 MILLION GROUP: I was a little slow in realizing that Phillips & Associates in Phoenix also owned the Pacific Law Group in San Diego. The spending of those two firms vaults this firm into rarified air. Sokolove is beginning to show up at significant spending levels in many more local markets. This change in buying strategy suggests a more sophisticated marketing strategy. The last time I looked I was not too impressed with how this local Sokolove money was being spent. I'll try to find some time to run Sokolove's schedule in a couple of markets to see if he has improved in this regard as well.

$5 MILLION ATTORNEY TV ADVERTISING SPENDERS - 2007

NOTES ON $5 MILLION GROUP: The Cochran Firm continues to spread out (although it shows inconsistent spending from market to market). I know the founder, Johnny Cochran, is deceased but Henry Ford died a long time ago and that didn't seem to slow down Ford Motor Company. Ken Nugent and Montlick & Ass. are holding their ground against John Morgan in Atlanta. I still think this big-city market is one of the key battlegrounds. I know that LegalZoom primarily sells legal documents but just remember that every document sold is one less case for an attorney. I also know that Jacoby & Meyers firm was split in two some years ago but the two firms continue to build the same brand. Trolman Glaser & Lichtman is the big gorilla in the biggest market in the country - New York City. But there is still plenty of room for competition in that market and one wonders about Trolman's strategy of putting most of its advertising eggs in one basket. Jim Adler continues to wield a big stick in Texas but tort reform has denied access to so many aggrieved victims in that state. The cost of case aquisition in Texas has risen for most advertisers.

$3-4 MILLION ATTORNEY TV ADVERTISING SPENDERS - 2007

NOTES ON $3-4 MILLION GROUP: I have written before about the Barnes Firm and Edgar Snyder. These two firms have experimented with taking very dominant positions in a market and are poised to expand if they choose to. Loncar is another long-time Texas advertiser who could use some legislative help. It looks like Gary Martin Hays spends most of his marketing money guess where - Altanta? I don't envy his position. Kirk Saiontz is one of the big spenders in the mid-Atlantic area. Someone needs to break out of the pack there unless they want interlopers from the north or the south. Glen Lerner is in two of the hottest markets in the West - Las Vegas and Phoenix. There is plently of attractive real estate nearby. Larry Parker is the anchor advertiser in the other huge market - LA. Although his spending is high, his point level is low, which could invite competition from anyone with big pockets. Peter Geraci is a bankruptcy guy who dominates Chicago. Can you name me the other big city whose #1 TV advertiser is a niche player? (Hint - The AAJ is holding its summer conference in this city.) Weitz & Luxenberg back their TV spending up with what appears to very a very aggressive internet strategy.

MORE TO COME: I am running out of steam. I will post the $1-2 million firms shortly.

Even Priceline Has Been Bested

A quick followup to my last entry. I find it fascinating how innovation breeds more innovation. I recently found a website, www.biddingfortravel.com. that has a system in place to outsmart Priceline's system and get even better hotel rates. I know it gets better rates because I have used it.

So, even if you were sitting there reading my last entry thinking, "Well, none of this is news to me. I already knew about and use Priceline and I hired a marketing director who has come straight from the stations and knows and uses all the latest tricks of TV buying." just remember that there is probably someone out there who is already one step ahead of you.

The lawyer who controls his arrogance and continues to look for better systems of marketing has the best chance to outlast his competition.

What William Shatner is Not Telling You About TV Advertising Buying

My remarks about new systems of buying TV advertising have generated some lively conversations. Here is a typical email:

I read with interest your entry about new systems of buying TV time that outperform most attorney advertisers by double or even triple. I have bought TV in ________ for several years and I think I get as good a rate as anyone else. Is someone using this system in my market? I asked my station reps and they said they had never heard of anything like this.

The one system I was referring to (there are several) has been used with consistent results in 70+ markets around the country. Most of these markets have been in the top 100 largest markets. I can’t tell you which specific markets because the stations insist on confidentiality agreements before agreeing to such deals. The last thing the stations want is angry advertisers calling them, demanding to know why someone has gotten a better deal than them.

One of the unique features of this particular system is that it taps into a type of inventory that most advertisers don’t even know about. (When I say “inventory”, I mean the available commercial time slots in the broadcast day of any TV or cable station.)

A good way to think about this is to think about Priceline.com. Anyone who is familiar with Priceline knows that they have found a way to buy a certain number of hotel rooms at extreme discounts from various hotels around the world, from 1-star to 5-star properties. Before Priceline came along, no one had tapped into this “inventory” of rooms.

And, before anyone knew about Priceline, I am sure your travel agent would claim that he or she had gotten you the best deal at a hotel. If you asked your hotel representative, he or she would also reassure you that you had gotten the best deal.

So you can easily predict the response when you ask your advertising agency (or in-house marketing staff) or the TV stations if anyone is buying TV time in your market at half the cost as you.

Although there have always been last-minute junk inventory sold by wholesalers in the travel industry (and in the TV advertising world as well – called DR, broad rotators, etc.), Priceline found high-class inventory that could be guaranteed far in advance. The same advances have occurred in TV advertising. The only difference is that you don’t see William Shatner bragging about it.

When you travel on an airplane you know that some people on that plane have bought their tickets at a fraction of the cost as you. When you stay in a hotel, you now know that some people are staying there at a fraction of the cost as you. And, when you watch TV commercials, you should realize that some of those advertisers (not always the biggest ones) are buying TV at a fraction of the cost as you.

Anyone who denies it is either ignorant or lying.

Announcing the Voices for Justice TV Project

I have been approached by a production company in LA to help put together a TV show called Voices for Justice.

Each show will feature stories from the case files of the Plaintiff’s bar.

The idea is to create a show similar to America’s Most Wanted, except in this show the bad guys are the corporate wrongdoers (or, in some cases, the tort reformers) and the good guys are the attorneys from the Plaintiff’s bar who hold these companies accountable for their wrongdoing. Each show will end with a call to action for viewers to get involved.

The first phase of the project calls for me to conduct taped interviews with law firms around the country. These interviews will be posted on the Voices for Justice website (under construction) and also be offered to the firms to post on their own websites.

I am very excited about this project and am traveling next week to Grand Rapids, Michigan, to tape the first set of interviews. If your firm would like to be involved, please contact me as soon as possible. trostlaw@gmail.com or 210-260-4852

My Video Manifesto

I was interviewed recently (a dangerous proposition given my background) about the state of the Plaintiff's Bar. This is my best shot at where we stand. Enjoy.