Familiar ALSPs Are Risking Unfamiliarity With Name Changes. So Why Rebrand?
Legal service providers can benefit from updating their brand name to reflect the opportunities and problems that dominate an ever-changing legal market, but leaving behind an established brand will always have its risks.
February 18, 2020 at 01:00 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
It can be hard to remember all the different brands floating around the legal market, especially when they keep changing. While some alternative legal service providers may be moving away from that moniker altogether, others have taken what might be considered an even greater leap and rebranded not only the descriptor they ascribe to, but the name above the door.
Take the company formerly know as Axiom Managed Services, which officially rechristened itself as Factor in January. Conduent, a tech-led business process services company that some may remember as Xerox's legal and business services arm, underwent a similar identity swap after splitting with its parent company back in 2017.
But is printing all of those new business cards worth it? The answer may depend entirely on the company in question. For some, a fresh name is the chance to reestablish solid footing in an industry where the technology, needs and expectations of clients have shifted rapidly over the last several years. Meanwhile, others could be jeopardizing invaluable brand recognition for a name that sounds good but ultimately doesn't do much heavy lifting.
"There is an increase in providers and a more crowded market space, so within that framework having a name that kind of helps identify where you fit and how you might be able to help is helpful," said Jason Brennan, Luminance's president of the Americas.
Standing out, for instance, was important for Chris DeConti, head of strategy at Factor. "It's always been true that we have this unique niche. I think one of the things our recent rebranding just allowed us to think about is how to articulate it in as straightforward [a] way as possible."
However, changing a brand is not a decision that companies may be able to make lightly, or without a great deal of market research. A clean slate is also a blank one, potentially wiping away any progress that companies have made in getting its name into the ears of potential customers.
DeConti said that ahead of the Factor rebrand, the company spent a lot of time on a communication plan to help get the word out about the name change, redoubling efforts with media and publicity and working their way through a database of close to 10,000 historical client contacts. "In some cases it was in-person meetings, in some cases it was phone calls, in some cases it was email, looking to reinforced [the new name] in various ways," he said.
Per Brennan, the risk a company takes with regards to a name change may depend on just how well-known its brand is in the first place.
"You probably wouldn't see Luminance changing its name now just because we feel that we've put a lot of effort into the brand on a global basis. People know it. People know what we do."
But Luminance also has the advantage of being a relatively young company, having launched in September 2016. Other brand names circulating in legal may have accrued a bit more mileage, finding themselves saddled with a name that no longer accurately reflects their business model or services.
"We've seen a lot of firms or organizations that were traditionally in a specific service area such as litigation that are now seeing that there's evolution in the market and they don't want to be left behind," Brennan said.
Joey Seeber, CEO of Level 2 Legal Services, indicated that when the company first launched 11 years ago as Level 2 Review, there were very few businesses specializing in document review on the market. As that service became more common and the company increased its own portfolio of offerings, a midlife rebranding began to make sense.
"Because we were performing more value-added services for our clients, we thought, 'Well, [Level 2 Review] really limits us and its not very descriptive,'" Seeber said.
He recommended that companies who are considering taking on a new name give careful thought to their brand equity. For example, a company that has recently gained a new service or offering as the result of a major acquisition could stand to benefit from an identity that calls attention to its enhanced scope.
Seeber expects to see more company name embellishments on the horizon, even if it's just pivoting away from hyper-specific descriptors such as Legal 2 Review.
"With the consolidation that we're seeing and the clients who have begun to call upon us to do more, then yes, you'll see changes in the way that is described," Seeber said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
Jones Day Client Seeks Indemnification for $7.2M Privacy Settlement, Plus Defense Costs
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250