To see more of Hugh MacLeod's art and ideas, just click the image.
So, a good day yesterday for Craig Holt and well done him I say. Now, before you think this is going to deteriorate into the Craig Holt Appreciation Society, (which judging by some of the Tweets, blog comments etc may be a small community) I should say that I have never actually met Craig. But where I connect with him is in his passion and desire that the delivery of legal services could be better. I connect with him too because he and I are both travelling along the long and lonely road of helping lawyers and law firms change for the better.
Just to emphasise that point again…helping.
Along the way we may get a kicking, we may get ignored but we are both driven because we both believe passionately in what we are doing.
Rachel Rothwell has written a piece on QS/WHS which hits the nail square on the head. It is not about being a good lawyer (that is taken for granted) but it is about making law accessible and approachable. You may scoff at the whole idea, but Mr & Mrs Jones (who one hopes still have a thing going on), may be more likely to start engaging in a shop than some intimidating lawyers office.
And that’s the key; that’s where lawyers are getting this QS deal all wrong. Where it begins is critical. That is where the human to human social connection happens, the validation. From there Mr & Mrs Jones’ need for legal engagement will probably migrate to the law firm office but critically the social validation has happened. Social validation is stuff like
“I like you, you talk sense I want to explore this further because I like you and you talk sense.”
Next, just to be very clear, what lawyers think about this tie up means zilch. What consumers think is everything. I presume many of you do realise that doing nothing is slowly disenfranchising you?
What also interests me is what other brands may think. Apparently QS have a 5 year deal with W H Smith. Good deal. Time to build, time to experiment, time to get the model to work. Where will your firm be in 5 years time? Other brands will look at this and in time QS will be able to show a model that works. I worked for 6 years in major brand outsourcing at Capita. Trust me, brands go where proven suppliers deliver.
I also picked up a number of Tweets yesterday that said QS might lose out because they are first and second wave networks will move in. Maybe. But I don’t see that. In my role I deal with a heck of a lot of networks. There is lot of overpromising and under delivering going on. A lot of cutting and pasting, make it up as they go along. What they lack and what QS has in abundance, is a vision and a passion…and they have their members totally onboard. They are joined up.
I meet a lot of law firms, a heck of a lot. There is confusion, there is fear. But I can also tell you there is hope and there is opportunity. Your success or failure will be entirely dependent upon how long you choose to ignore the inevitable. The inevitable is not QS. The inevitable is the deployment of technology, which is ultimately about the cost to serve. Cost to serve is ultimately the battlefield that matters. Marketing is all about getting you to the battlefield.The irony of all of this technology is that it exists to help you, make you better, more convenient, making you more profit, keep you at the centre. Technology is your friend.
Technology cannot eliminate your intellectual value but it can destroy inefficient process, which ultimately will determine your success.
More interesting…the conversations I am having with law firms about how such technology can be deployed are culturally interesting. You would think these conversations would be with the switched on, shiny social media savvy law firms. Absolutely not. They are backwater, high street firms. They are ‘older’ lawyers doing the ‘up and down’ legal delivery. They want a conversation, they have pride in their business and it’s my job to get them to dry land.
“I like you, you talk sense I want to explore this further because I like you and you talk sense.”
This jumped off the page (screen) at me because it is almost word for word what an employment lawyer in a boutique firm reported that people had started saying to him after he changed his approach in handling telephone enquiries.
When he started working with us, he tended to be rather guarded and suspicious that potential clients would glean as much information from him as possible at no cost. Now initial discussions are (mostly) a pleasurable and positive experience in which he still feels in charge.
I make this point because it underlines that it is possible to present a much more client-friendly approach without in the least compromising professional status or standards of conduct.
Hi Malcolm
Thanks for the comment, I am glad you enjoyed the post.
As I wrote I think that point of contact is vitally important but in the context of QS it has moved on to an environment that is more comfortable for the consumer. I am envisaging this as a quick conversation which may become “Yes I think we can help you with x and this is what I think we should do next.”
The funny thing is it seems everyone is trying to over analyse and make a science over a very basic thing…engaging through informal conversation. I am not sure there is a right or wrong way to do this as there is not typical client, plus you can always refine it, look to improve…learn.
Jon
Hiya Jon. Awesome post. Love it
Is it the right or wrong way?… Yes, No, Maybe, Whatever. The point is at least QS and Craig have the c-c-c-courage to try and they will be PRESENT, AVAILABLE, ACCESSIBLE and APPROACHABLE for the consumer who will be made to feel comfortable, engaged, involved and listened to. At least QS are innovating and giving it a shot.
Here’s my 2 pennies worth as to why I reckon QS will do well…
3 little words… plus LOYALTY…
LATENT LEGAL MARKET. QS and Craig Holt, love ‘em or loath ‘em, have stolen a march on what Susskind crystal-ball gazed more than a decade ago. Slowly, slowly they’ve caught a nichey.
Bright spark first mover advantage, I reckon, regardless of how long QS and Craig will reign. For, let’s face it, the deal wouldn’t have happened had the pilot study between QS and WHSmith not been successful. Which tells us that there is POTENTIAL CLIENT NEED which has gone untapped (arguably for far too long) and is now ripe for plugging.
It is no co-incidence that Craig and QS have played the footfall ‘loyalty’ card. I suspect they’re honing in on what we lawyers have traditionally been so very shoddy at. Genuinely showing an interest in the potential and existing client from cradle to grave in the entire marketing, lead generation, sales and client care/service process. You don’t achieve customer/client loyalty and brand loyalty through infrequent communication and lack of presence. One has to be present and available, both offline and online, and be truly receiver orientated.
If you’re a legal dinosaur doubting Thomas, keep doubting. Craig, his backers and QS troopers would not have sling-shotted themselves into a dead duck deal where supply would outstrip demand. They’ve obviously put their money where their mouth is after market research due-diligence of value. IMHO they are now sat pretty to ‘go to town’ (pardon the pun) in the latent legal market as well as pinch a hefty slice of Tier 2 market share (the predicted growth market this decade) along the way…
Hats off to QS and Craig, I reckon. Do you?
Thanks Chrissie. Currently on hols hence no detailed reply.
I have three main problems with this tie up, as follows:
i) WH Smith is likely to go the same way as Woolworths, almost definitely IMHO within the next 5 years. This will impact negativley on the QS brand and branded firms.
ii) Yes, you will be able to meet and chat to potential clients, but you will probably be wasting time developing relationships that you would otherwise choose not to. I have experience of doing similar selling exercises on a temporary basis at general trade fairs which has resulted in us growing our database, but getting few quality instructions from the effort. My best and most profitable new clients come from a combination of going to targeted networking events and developing relationships with influential individuals through facebook, twitter and linkedin (in that order).
iii) There is a disconnect between the franchisor and the franchisees. I imagine the franchisees pay QS a sizeable sum to assume all marketing responsiblity without having any real control over how that is spent, while at the same time being tied in to a long term contract. This creates the potential for inefficiencies, a bit like a government spending taxpayers’ money. I don’t see or hear of any profitable and successfully run non-QS branded firms clamouring for a similar tie up.