Law Journal Newsletters

An ALM Website

The Red Zone

Client Retention - A Gap in Attorney Marketing

By allan colman

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article

CLIENT RETENTION - A Gap in Attorney Marketing

Why is it that lawyers are so resistant to marketing and business development? According to our recent U.S./Canada Client Retention Survey, the most frequent answers were:

* No training; * Failed once - why try again; * Fear of the process; * No time: * Not compensated.

The approach we utilize is to teach professionals to sell using tools that are relevant for the legal profession, listen to and solve their sales problems,and add innovations where appropriate.

But there is only one way to succeed -- get out there!

Comments

Be the first to comment on this post using the section below.

Add your comments

Log In

You must be logged in to comment

Register

Enter your information below to begin your FREE registration

From Our Blogs

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STRATEGIST

A Blurry Distinction with a Huge Difference: Commercial vs. Non-Commercial Speech

Imagine the following two scenarios, and try to figure out what the real difference is. First, your competitor blatantly lies in its advertising about the effectiveness of its products; second, your competitor blatantly lies to a reporter about the effectiveness of its products, and the reporter publishes the lies in an article or in a magazine. It seems like the same situation, but it is not. With the first, you could sue for false advertising because the advertisement is “commercial” speech, whereas with the second, you cannot because the magazine article is “non-commercial” speech. A similar difference is presented if a newspaper uses a picture of a celebrity without the celebrity’s consent to highlight a news article, as opposed to a company using the same celebrity picture in a print advertisement, in the same newspaper, to promote the company. A breach of the celebrity’s right of publicity claim is not available against the newspaper because the news article is “non-commercial,” but is available against the company because the print advertisement is “commercial.” The rationale for both is that while the First Amendment fully protects “non-commercial” speech, it protects “commercial’ speech in a significantly limited way.

Tweets