What types of content do you create to drive new business opportunities?
Law firms, in general, invest heavily in content production, usually with a more technical/legal slant, combined with some business perspective. This content, in turn, takes on a wide variety of formats when disseminated to the market, regardless of the platform used: articles, books (or chapters), media interviews, client alerts, newsletters, events (in-person and virtual), podcasts, videos and much more.
I understand that the main objective behind all this intense production is, in some way, to facilitate the generation of future business opportunities. On the other hand, it is a fact that the results obtained have been disappointing, especially if we consider that much of the content tends to be generic/comprehensive – in terms of approach and contextualization to the realities of current and potential clients – and is disseminated generally, with little or no targeting of specific industries.
In summary, there is a clear and historical misalignment between what partners and other lawyers create in terms of content compared to what corporate clients expect – they are increasingly demanding, but equally open to original and creative ideas that help them with their constant business challenges.
This misalignment is directly related to the often-confusing relationship between (legal) marketing and business development (BD) within law firms. While marketing seeks to establish a regular dialogue with the market, circulating more comprehensive content through different initiatives and platforms, following a predominantly “one-to-many” distribution scheme, BD prioritizes “one-to-one” or “one-to-few” conversations with relevant contacts, ideally supported by more specialized content.
I would highlight two problems in the relationship between these disciplines. The first lies in the vast production of generic/comprehensive content, ideal for dissemination through marketing actions, but with expectations heavily focused on results characteristic of BD actions. The second issue is that the production of specialized content, which is much more laborious but essential to BD actions, is not prioritized.
These two problems reflect the strong imbalance between the two disciplines, especially exacerbated by the “discovery” of digital marketing by law firms during the pandemic. What followed was mimetic behavior largely devoid of strategic questioning: firms simply began copying each other, multiplying generic content in abundance. The result of this uninterrupted transmission of generalities is the propagation of noise instead of value. As legal managers often warn, this noise distracts, irritates and hinders the possibility of new business.
In this context, the frustration of partners and firm leaders is entirely understandable. Likes, shares and similar metrics may feed the ego, but they rarely do much more – the impact on revenue demands that one goes further. This is precisely where the urgent need arises to find the ideal balance between marketing and BD in content production, regardless of the final format – depending on what we want to say and to whom, a simple email or WhatsApp message may be sufficient.
And the best way to achieve this balance is to invest in the broad spectrum of possible marketing and BD content. That is, to rebalance content production to encompass everything from the most generic/comprehensive content – which is already abundant – to highly specialized content – which is lacking – and whatever makes the most sense in between, understanding that each content profile may better serve marketing, business development or perhaps both disciplines simultaneously, albeit through distinct actions.
An excellent way to achieve the suggested rebalancing, respecting the role played by each content profile, is to consider the structure proposed in the excellent book The Challenger Customer: Selling to the Hidden Influencer Who Can Multiply Your Results, composed of five layers:
1. General Information (outermost layer)
2. Accepted Information
3. Thought Leadership
4. Insights
5. Commercial Insights (innermost layer)
In general terms, the more external, the more generic/comprehensive the content produced and any associated actions – “one-to-many,” emphasis on marketing. On the other hand, the more internal, the more specialized the content produced and associated actions – “one-to-one,” emphasis on BD. This is a quick way to understand the proposed structure on the surface, but the differences between the layers are profound.
To understand the differences, I share a summary of each layer:
1. General Information
Basically, the daily offering of varied information on every possible subject, which is a tremendous amount of work to process and filter on a daily basis. It is possible to consider this information overload in a broader context or to already perform some filtering, considering the reality of a firm lawyer who regularly interacts with specific types of companies and industries.
In one way or another, it is quite a lot of work, both for us and our clients, to process this infinitely renewable mass of information.
2. Accepted Information
The difference to the previous layer is basically the application of some level of filtering and curation to the mass of information, with the possible addition of relevant comments, to provide a minimum of direction for the audience.
Much of the generic/comprehensive content that law firms produce is scattered between the first and second layers, but the impact tends to be quite limited, as all the other firms are doing precisely the same thing.
From the recipients’ point of view, all this content offers nothing new and only confirms or validates what they already know, either through their own means or due to the uninterrupted transmission of information from other firms, without any relevant impact or concrete action.
From the law firms’ point of view, the result is a kind of “cursed combo,” mixing positive feelings with mimetic decisions, under the perception that the return does not justify the time and money invested, but that they definitely “cannot fall behind” in the eyes of the market.
3. Thought Leadership
There was a time, more than a decade ago, probably much longer, when this type of content was quite rare in the legal market. Since then, the production of thought leadership has only increased, which is commendable, as it reflects the growing pursuit by law firms for segmentation and specialization of their themes, audiences and such. This content certainly helps a lot in BD actions, but it will hardly deliver the specificity expected by clients.
Ultimately, as in the previous layer, other firms are producing precisely the same content, minimizing any impact or value it might have. Even so, thought leadership can present something potentially new to recipients, such as educating them on topics that deserve more attention or complementing previous knowledge.
In one way or another, if the content offered is of high quality, it will certainly benefit its recipients. Furthermore, it may help confirm how well-informed and up-to-date the firm’s lawyers are regarding the topics discussed, but not much more.
What is unlikely to happen is for thought leadership to provoke any more decisive action from the recipients. From their point of view, this tends to be rare. From the firms’ point of view, it will depend heavily on the quality of the content and how it reaches each recipient. Simply posting on social media and circulating the material via email marketing, for example, is far from sufficient – at a minimum, “one-to-one” or “one-to-few” interactions will need to be considered.
4. Insights
The concept of insight should be understood broadly, at least initially. That is, it is valid to consider everything from short, objective insights – quick to think of, develop and circulate – to more elaborate, complex insights that require more time to develop and, consequently, the participation of more professionals.
More than confirming existing knowledge (layers 1 and 2) or teaching something new (layer 3), the objective of an insight should be to “plant a seed of doubt” in a few recipients or, depending on the case, just one.
An insight with these characteristics should be designed to “break” the recipient’s expectations, literally turning their status quo upside down, revealing alternative paths and, above all, provoking concrete action – always with due respect and sensitivity to the person on the other side of the table.
The development of truly differentiated insights usually takes time, and the investment tends to be proportionally higher, as they do not aim for the “one-to-many” distribution of marketing, which would be a waste. Insights of this nature are created to support “one-to-one” type BD actions – for a specific client, for example – or “one-to-few” actions – for a specific industry, a particular geography or even a legal issue that cuts across several industries, for example. It takes a great deal of effort, but that is the price of achieving differentiated results!
5. Commercial Insights
A pure, non-commercial insight is one that, when shared with a potential client, or even a current client, usually in a meeting/conversation, runs the risk of being formally declined, but then taken to be implemented by another firm of their preference.
A commercial insight, in turn, is one that meets all the criteria described in the previous layer but is, to some degree, “tied” to the professional or team that created it. That is, when developing an insight, the partner – alone or together with other partners and lawyers – does so in a way that aligns the proposed idea with the firm’s unique technical capabilities.
It is worth noting that every unique, unprecedented capability has an expiration date, but while it is recent, not widely disseminated and consequently less likely to be copied by a competitor, it should be exploited to the fullest. If this is combined with the production of associated (commercial) insights, even better!
The structure proposed above reinforces that, at the end of the day, law firms should prioritize the production of a broad and balanced range of marketing and business development content, understanding that the performance of each content profile is directly linked to the distribution context and respective target audience.
With all this in mind, what types of content will you prioritize to drive new business opportunities?
Marco Antonio Gonçalves is founding partner of Betwixt Conhecimento & Consultoria and Managing Director of DCM Insights for Brazil and Latin America
