The Business of Branding: Are You an 'Innie' or an 'Outie'?

There's an interesting discussion that's been going back and forth lately on LinkedIn. The topic being discussed is whether or not there is a trend among law firms to move their marketing and creative in-house and ' more important ' if it's a good idea. The topic has garnered a lot of discussion, both pro and con.

There are usually three main reasons why businesses ' and let's just say that for the sake of this article we're talking about law firms ' take their marketing in-house: cost, control and time. The argument goes that firms which take their marketing in-house will save a substantial amount of money, have greater control over their messaging and marketing approach, and be able to produce marketing materials and react to new opportunities faster. These are all great goals for law firms to have, but whether or not they can be achieved by taking marketing in-house is something that merits further examination.

Cost

Copywriter = $64,000; Art Director = $72,000; Web Designer/Developer = $68,000; Marketing Manager = $73,000. Cost of starting an in-house marketing and creative unit = Pricey.

Granted, the above salaries are averages and they could be higher or lower depending on locale. But regardless of where you're located, those figures don't include the cost of any support help like production managers and assistants and the outlay of capital toward additional health and benefits packages, not to mention the investment in the necessary equipment, materials and graphic-design software needed to operate.

Done properly, in-house marketing communications departments require a significant financial commitment. It could be argued that staffing in-house could be less expensive in the long run, with firms not having to pay an agency for every project down the line. But when you factor in all the expenses involved in recruiting, hiring and maintaining an in-house marketing communications department, there are rarely any significant savings over an outside marketing firm.

Control

There's no denying that law firms that take their marketing in-house will have greater control over what they say and how they want to say it than they could ever hope to have with an outside marketing firm. If you have someone working for you, you can pretty much get him to do exactly what you want because you pay his salary.

Such control is undeniable, but is it desirable? While there may be a great deal of truth to the premise that you know your firm and its vision better than any outsider, that internal vision often can be focused so far inward that it loses sight of the audience on the outside. What's important to you may not resonate as much with potential clients.

A big advantage that an outside marketing firm offers is perspective ' an objective way of looking at marketing and communications problems and solutions that may be impossible for those inside the firm to see. It's the kind of perspective attorneys offer their clients, who are often too close to the problems to see the answers. Marketing firms attempt to help their clients see that objective viewpoint. We make recommendations based on our experience and on our knowledge of what the audience ' although not necessarily the law firm ' wants, which clients are free to ignore or follow.

This raises another issue regarding control. Quite often, businesses and law firms approach their in-house marketing and creative units with a “just get it done” attitude. What it means is that the higher-ups in the firm are less interested in hearing the marketing recommendations of their in-house people and are instead more focused on having them execute the marketing ideas of management. It's a relationship that's akin to the old adage, “You don't coach your spouse.”

For example ' in a past life, I was a personal trainer. I was accredited by the National Strength and Conditioning Association ' which is the “gold standard” for trainers ' as a Personal Trainer and a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist. It's the kind of credentials you get if you want to be a trainer at the Olympic Training Center. So you could say I knew my stuff. People paid me well to make them hurt.

My wife, who had been working with a different personal trainer, decided she wanted to start working with me. Why outsource for all that training when she had me right there, right? The only problem was, she never listened to anything I told her to do. Instead, she would dictate to me the exercises she wanted to do and my only job was to ensure that she was maintaining correct form. It didn't matter that I could show her better routines to get the results she wanted faster. She just wanted a spotter. I “trained” her for three days before I called it quits.

The point here is that if a firm is thinking about moving its marketing in house, at least it should follow the recommendations of the in-house marketing people. It will save a lot of frustration.

Time

It takes a great deal of time and energy to develop and train an in-house marketing communications department. Once it's up and running, can the in-house department produce marketing materials as fast or faster than an outside firm? If your firm operates like a well-oiled machine and decisions are made quickly, then the answer is yes. I worked as the in-house Creative Director and Marketing Manager for a technology firm in the dot-com heyday of the early 2000s. The CEO liked to brag to clients that the firm worked at “Internet speed.” And we did. We were able to produce marketing materials twice as fast, just as good and at less the cost as the outside agency from where I'd been plucked.

However, if your firm moves at a glacial pace because it's hard to corral the decision-makers or everything must be done by committee, then the answer is no. I also worked in-house for a large commercial real estate information company. Everything had to go through four layers of management before it was seen by the CEO. It took us six months to produce a direct mail piece promoting a new service that had been launched eight months before.

Is there a right answer to the debate whether law firms should take their marketing communications in house or hire an outside agency? One could argue that the answer depends on a firm's goals, marketing capabilities, budget and how nimble it is in making decisions.

However, it may be more important to address the question of in-house versus outsource by pondering the following: People hire mechanics to work on their cars because they don't know anything about engines, lawyers because they have a better grasp of the law and legal system, and accountants because they don't want to be audited by the IRS. If I ran a company or a law firm, I'd hire a marketing firm for the same reasons. Perhaps the issue of marketing communications should be addressed the same way.

Sean Leenaerts is a Senior Brand Strategist at Moir' Marketing Partners. You can reach him at [email protected] and connect with him on LinkedIn and Twitter (@SeanLeenaerts).

There's an interesting discussion that's been going back and forth lately on LinkedIn. The topic being discussed is whether or not there is a trend among law firms to move their marketing and creative in-house and ' more important ' if it's a good idea. The topic has garnered a lot of discussion, both pro and con.

There are usually three main reasons why businesses ' and let's just say that for the sake of this article we're talking about law firms ' take their marketing in-house: cost, control and time. The argument goes that firms which take their marketing in-house will save a substantial amount of money, have greater control over their messaging and marketing approach, and be able to produce marketing materials and react to new opportunities faster. These are all great goals for law firms to have, but whether or not they can be achieved by taking marketing in-house is something that merits further examination.

Cost

Copywriter = $64,000; Art Director = $72,000; Web Designer/Developer = $68,000; Marketing Manager = $73,000. Cost of starting an in-house marketing and creative unit = Pricey.

Granted, the above salaries are averages and they could be higher or lower depending on locale. But regardless of where you're located, those figures don't include the cost of any support help like production managers and assistants and the outlay of capital toward additional health and benefits packages, not to mention the investment in the necessary equipment, materials and graphic-design software needed to operate.

Done properly, in-house marketing communications departments require a significant financial commitment. It could be argued that staffing in-house could be less expensive in the long run, with firms not having to pay an agency for every project down the line. But when you factor in all the expenses involved in recruiting, hiring and maintaining an in-house marketing communications department, there are rarely any significant savings over an outside marketing firm.

Control

There's no denying that law firms that take their marketing in-house will have greater control over what they say and how they want to say it than they could ever hope to have with an outside marketing firm. If you have someone working for you, you can pretty much get him to do exactly what you want because you pay his salary.

Such control is undeniable, but is it desirable? While there may be a great deal of truth to the premise that you know your firm and its vision better than any outsider, that internal vision often can be focused so far inward that it loses sight of the audience on the outside. What's important to you may not resonate as much with potential clients.

A big advantage that an outside marketing firm offers is perspective ' an objective way of looking at marketing and communications problems and solutions that may be impossible for those inside the firm to see. It's the kind of perspective attorneys offer their clients, who are often too close to the problems to see the answers. Marketing firms attempt to help their clients see that objective viewpoint. We make recommendations based on our experience and on our knowledge of what the audience ' although not necessarily the law firm ' wants, which clients are free to ignore or follow.

This raises another issue regarding control. Quite often, businesses and law firms approach their in-house marketing and creative units with a “just get it done” attitude. What it means is that the higher-ups in the firm are less interested in hearing the marketing recommendations of their in-house people and are instead more focused on having them execute the marketing ideas of management. It's a relationship that's akin to the old adage, “You don't coach your spouse.”

For example ' in a past life, I was a personal trainer. I was accredited by the National Strength and Conditioning Association ' which is the “gold standard” for trainers ' as a Personal Trainer and a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist. It's the kind of credentials you get if you want to be a trainer at the Olympic Training Center. So you could say I knew my stuff. People paid me well to make them hurt.

My wife, who had been working with a different personal trainer, decided she wanted to start working with me. Why outsource for all that training when she had me right there, right? The only problem was, she never listened to anything I told her to do. Instead, she would dictate to me the exercises she wanted to do and my only job was to ensure that she was maintaining correct form. It didn't matter that I could show her better routines to get the results she wanted faster. She just wanted a spotter. I “trained” her for three days before I called it quits.

The point here is that if a firm is thinking about moving its marketing in house, at least it should follow the recommendations of the in-house marketing people. It will save a lot of frustration.

Time

It takes a great deal of time and energy to develop and train an in-house marketing communications department. Once it's up and running, can the in-house department produce marketing materials as fast or faster than an outside firm? If your firm operates like a well-oiled machine and decisions are made quickly, then the answer is yes. I worked as the in-house Creative Director and Marketing Manager for a technology firm in the dot-com heyday of the early 2000s. The CEO liked to brag to clients that the firm worked at “Internet speed.” And we did. We were able to produce marketing materials twice as fast, just as good and at less the cost as the outside agency from where I'd been plucked.

However, if your firm moves at a glacial pace because it's hard to corral the decision-makers or everything must be done by committee, then the answer is no. I also worked in-house for a large commercial real estate information company. Everything had to go through four layers of management before it was seen by the CEO. It took us six months to produce a direct mail piece promoting a new service that had been launched eight months before.

Is there a right answer to the debate whether law firms should take their marketing communications in house or hire an outside agency? One could argue that the answer depends on a firm's goals, marketing capabilities, budget and how nimble it is in making decisions.

However, it may be more important to address the question of in-house versus outsource by pondering the following: People hire mechanics to work on their cars because they don't know anything about engines, lawyers because they have a better grasp of the law and legal system, and accountants because they don't want to be audited by the IRS. If I ran a company or a law firm, I'd hire a marketing firm for the same reasons. Perhaps the issue of marketing communications should be addressed the same way.

Sean Leenaerts is a Senior Brand Strategist at Moir' Marketing Partners. You can reach him at [email protected] and connect with him on LinkedIn and Twitter (@SeanLeenaerts).