Rory MccGwire writes,
I’ve been asking this question a lot recently because it gets straight to the heart of the changes that we see unfolding in the legal services market.
I was gripped by the stream of vitriol on the Law Society Gazette website when it broke the exclusive on the QualitySolicitors (QS) launch last month. Under QS, firms rebrand themselves under the pink and black QS styling, or use the ‘QualitySolicitors firm’ tag in a bid to create a brand they hope will be the first ever household name for solicitors.
Anonymous postings poured a cup of cold sick over the scheme while support was quickly dismissed with “Well, you are obviously a QS firm, so you would say that!”
The debate, if it could be dignified as that, was centered on the question of whether the QS brand had meaning or validity.
But at least the forum was packed with lawyers who had begun to talk about their profession in terms of brands.
We’re all used to law firms who describe themselves in identikit terms as a leading regional/local firm, with City quality but not City prices, and so on. When ten out of ten firms trot out the same clichés, one can sympathise with the idea that the market is ripe for change.
And if you ask one of these firms’ clients what they think of their lawyers, they often come up with entirely different answers to show what they value. They’ll say “X is a nice guy”, “He’s easy to deal with”, or “She knows her stuff”, often followed by “but they are expensive” … with the last word muttered with regret or beamed with pride, depending on how rich they are feeling that day.
The fact is, brands WILL soon emerge in the legal services market. The interesting question is: which brands will prevail?
In a nutshell, the law’s winners will be good at delivery (aka keeping clients happy) and marketing (aka letting the world know that you exist and that your clients are happy).
Excuse the buzzwords – I’m a business publisher, it’s my job. Delivery means speed, reliability, consistency, friendliness and price. Marketing equals reach, evidence and familiarity. These are easy to list as objectives, but very difficult, and expensive, for a firm to achieve. Particularly under time pressure in cash-strapped times.
One obvious option is to piggyback on someone else’s brand. Hence the safety-in-numbers approach of QS. Craig Holt (the QS chief executive) should be able to achieve the marketing bit, but it is unclear at this stage exactly how more than 100 different law firms will deliver consistent quality.
Other firms are using a vehicle that has quality built in: The Law Donut website, which BHP, my publishing company, runs. I’d like to point out with unabashed pride that it took us several years to create the content – we launched last year with Google as a founding partner. You, indeed everyone, can see the quality for yourself. Link through to the massive legal resources on offer at the Andrew Jackson or Shulmans websites that you’ll find alongside the smiling faces of the fee earners.
My guess is that as well as QS rolling out a series of new innovations this year, other legal brands are already being lined up. Done well, brands can be extremely effective -
2011 will be interesting.
Rory MccGwire – Chief Executive, BHP Information Solutions
Rory MccGwire
Rory founded the business publisher BHP Information Solutions in 1991. As well as working on business websites with HSBC, Business Link and Yell.com, BHP recently launched three business advice websites in partnership with Google and others: MarketingDonut.co.uk, StartUpDonut.co.uk and LawDonut.co.uk. Local versions of these Donut websites are licensed by law firms, Chambers of Commerce, Enterprise Agencies and firms of accountants. Rory lives and works in Bristol.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Interesting post Rory. Unsurprisingly, I agree with much of what you say. Unusually (as those who have followed my posts to debates on Linkedin etc will testify!) I’m going to have to keep this comment brief due to pressures of time.
My views on brands in the legal market are pretty well known by now to anyone with an interest in the topic so I won’t repeat them here. Suffice to say I am firmly of the view that the impact of the likely entry into the legal market of the likes of Virgin, Tesco, M&S etc alongside the already present Co-op and Halifax is fatally underestimated by most. I found the LSG debate fascinating. I deliberately stayed out of it as it presented an almost unparalleled insight into the dichotomy between the innovators and the traditionalists (albeit the latter seemed to be dominated by one particular gentleman who was mortally affronted at being compared to lowly opticians and another who “didn’t go to University to have to work outside office hours” – wow!). However, lest that debate give the wrong impression about the appetite of the legal profession as a whole for innovation and change, since the launch of our first phase of branded firms on 20th May, QualitySolicitors has received a scarcely believable 750 enquiries from law firms wanting to learn more about becoming part of our brand. Hence the reason why my time is currently limited and I am trying to keep this brief…!
I did want to pick up on one point. You ask “how do you ensure consistent quality across 100 firms”. That is a good question. It is, however, perhaps not as hard as it seems: consistent quality, of course, is not the same as providing indentikit service which is neither achievable nor desirable. That is where the “Specsavers” analogy reaches its limits. Each QS firm will deliver their actual service in a slightly different way, just like individual lawyers within a firm also will. It will be tailored to their particular region and market. The key to the brand is in having a common set of brand values and core promises that pervade throughout the organisation. For us – at its heart – a message as simple as “making it easy and putting clients at ease”. Clients should come away from their experience with a QualitySolicitors firm feeling equally pleased with their experience wherever they are in the UK. That doesn’t, however, mean each lawyer has to have done things in precisely the same way to achieve that satisfaction.
Hotel chains provide a reasonable analogy here. Often hotel chains are franchises of a sort. Best Western is one of the more well known of this model. The experience from hotel to hotel can be very different in terms of atmosphere, style etc depending on whether it is a city or country hotel, big or small etc. Even the pricing can be different – as with most hotel chains – to reflect the locations. There are however common values and certain uniformities in key areas.
It is much like this with QS where we have a 10 partner, over 100 staff, Legal 500 ranked firm such as QualitySolicitors Burroughs Day in Bristol and a small 2 partner firm in Preston, QualitySolicitors A D Varley. Different in approach and atmosphere but both of the highest quality, both with Lexcel and both commited to promoting the QS brand values.
Of course, that aside, one essential element lies in choosing the right firms in the first place and we take extremely great care before allowing a firm to brand as a QualitySolicitors firm. We then monitor that firm through collecting feedback on them from every client that uses them. We have a clear procedure in that respect and firms who fail to receive consistently positive feedback from the public will lose their status as a QualitySolicitors firm. In this way there will be consistency is the most important area of all – the level of satisfaction of the client!
Having said I was going to brief, I’ve managed not to be. I’ll just add, Rory, that I wish you well with your Law Donut project. I’m always excited to see new ideas and innovations in the legal market. There will be many to come from QS in the coming months…
Best wishes,
Craig
One other thing I meant to comment on was from Michael’s related post quoting “research published recently by Jures, a legal research consultancy that found out of 2,000 people polled, only 26% would shop for a legal service on the basis of a brand name”.
I really wouldn’t read much at all into that, although those looking for comfort to support inertia undoubtedly will!
Firstly the question itself:
We asked: Which, if any, of the following factors would be likely to influence your decision when purchasing legal services… fixed prices; convenience; speed of service; reassurance of a well-known brand; or cheapest price?
It doesn’t particularly invite a response towards the brand option. Ask the same essential question a different way however and you get a very different result; a survey by “Which?”, for example, found that 75% of people thought getting legal services through a bank or supermarket was a “good idea”.
It also should be remembered that this is the kind of question that is typically inaccurately answered. People like to tell others that they wouldn’t use Tesco instead of the local butcher but then go and use Tesco anyway.
In any event, lets say the statistic is between 25% and 75%. Wherever it falls in the spectrum, even at 25%, a reduction of that magnitude in the retail legal services market available for law firms – probably alongside a commensurate reduction in fees as firms compete more and more agressively for less and less work – would have a devatasting impact.
Sorry! That’s not a very cheery post for a Friday evening but I’ve seen that statistic used a few times in a reassuring type context. I think it is anything but reassuring for law firms.
I think the Quality Solicitors brand is a fantastic innovation and I really hope it succeeds. The great thing about it is that it allows the individual firms to be independent, and not be sucked into some huge megafirm.
Its great to see lawyers fighting back against the brands and holding their own in this way. Keep up the good work Craig!
As well as the universal ‘all singing all dancing’ brands, I think there is also great scope for ‘niche’ brands, which is what I am looking to do with my Landlord Law service http://www.landlordlaw.co.uk,. This delivers information and services to the private rented sector via the internet.
The model I am sure could be used by other niche areas of law, to build up a specialist service.
Who was the marketing guy who decided naming a law ‘franchise’ after an existing high street brand was a good idea? Surely QS (Quality Seconds), sold and now known as QS Stores already has good recognition.
Personally, when I want legal advice I want the best I can get.
With most legal case involving just two ‘entrants’ I don’t want to come second, regardless of the quality.
Thanks Craig, I now understand how you will build quality into your brand. As you say, there will be some weeding out along the way, but the customer/client will have the comfort of the QC system being in place from the outset.
Tessa, I agree that niches are a brilliant way to go. As soon as I came across your landlord website I forwarded it to my two close friends who are landlords and both were very grateful. Beat that for cost-effective marketing! It’s all in the name, and the focus. It takes nanoseconds to decide “Yes, Tessa is extremely likely to know what she is talking about.”
Thank you to everyone who has commented on Rory’s excellent article. Quality Solicitors has certainly stirred up a significant debate and from the lectures I have been doing on the LSA over recent weeks QS always provokes a lively debate. I should say I wish the initiative well but I have these concerns;
1. I understand the importance of brands to some sectors of the market – not all clients will want to go for a brand, in the same way that some people (if they have the choice) will shop at their local fishmonger and not their local supermarket – but how can QS compete with the brand conglomerates? Can QS achieve economies of scale? I don’t see how it can when it is, effectively, a franchise operation. The QS brand might attract clients in but can it offer a more competitive service than the brands? It is competing on the high street which is most price sensitive.
2. Is there a danger of confusing the market? I understand (although Craig will correct me if I’m wrong no doubt) that some of the firms that have re-branded as QS have only rebranded one office – I believe there is a firm in Wigan that has rebranded one of its offices as QS yet across the road it has left its other office as was. What should the client make of that? Where is the quality control there?
3. What will happen when QS is sold out (e.g. to a brand conglomerate) and is no longer run by lawyers?
I completely agree with Rory’s comment about Tessa’s practice and being niche. I regularly pass on Tessa’s details to clients and friends alike.