Removing the human interference
Do you want to know how your customer relationship management (CRM) database could do much of your marketing admin for you, as well as automatically ensure you target the right people with the right information at the right time and in the right way? Let's take a look at one contact in your CRM database. James is a good contact - he is in a position to instruct your firm, so he's someone you communicate with regularly.
July 30, 2009 at 06:41 AM
5 minute read
There is a chance your customer relationship management database could be doing a lot more of the leg work for you. Simon McNidder says technology should be doing far more for law firms than it is
Do you want to know how your customer relationship management (CRM) database could do much of your marketing admin for you, as well as automatically ensure you target the right people with the right information at the right time and in the right way?
Let's take a look at one contact in your CRM database. James is a good contact – he is in a position to instruct your firm, so he's someone you communicate with regularly.
Picture, then, when James finishes work. He pops into his local supermarket to get the family shopping. He has had some discount vouchers sent to him – roughly for what he usually buys, plus some complementary stuff that sounds tempting enough to try. After dinner, James sits down to watch TV – it is so important to him that he pays extra for the feature that automatically records all the programmes he likes. So he scrolls through his favourite shows and picks one. James is never going to swap his favourite supermarket or TV supplier. Don't law firms also aim for this status?
Why, then, do most law firms still undertake old fashioned, labour intensive marketing which tells your prospects what they should hear?
Take the average law firm. Most simply bombard their clients and prospects with one bit of news (or a seminar invite) at a time, when they hear about it – or when they have time to fit in a bit of marketing. This means that some contacts can get hundreds of marketing communications a year from the same firm. And some contacts are missed off the radar completely. But why? I often hear: 'It is because we know what is best for them/what they want/don't want'.
Then why are read rates, response rates and conversion to a work instruction rates so low? Humans. If we take the said scenario, it is not that James' supermarket and TV supplier do not have any. It is just that their marketing databases do not let humans interfere. Their technology automatically processes the customer's purchasing behaviour and then tailors the services to the customer's needs. Once you let a human get involved, all sorts of illogical behaviour gets in the way. It is natural.
Letting the individual and your CRM database take control is a very brave step, but well worth it. Imagine if your database knew what James bought from you (taken from your billing system). Imagine if it knew what he was interested in (taken from your marketing systems – visited website pages, events attended, email links clicked on). And imagine it knew who knows him and meets him (taken from your email and calendar systems). It could then tailor your marketing communications to his needs. Just like James' supermarket, all without any admin burden to your lawyers or business development staff.
But think about it – how many hours do lawyers spend going through mailing lists, finalising them and then getting the mailings sent? I will bet it takes hours of work, plus days of lead time (if not weeks) just to get one mailing out the door. Think what could be done with all the extra lawyer hours. And because you can now do more marketing, how many more work leads would be generated?
Imagine a scenario where there are no mailing lists to maintain at all. One where your firm produces some legal advice, or seminar invite, and you simply put it into your CRM database. That is all you have to do. Your CRM database then simply sends the mailshot to a selection of your contacts who fit a profile that matches the piece of news you wanted to promote, in the way each individual likes it.
So, for instance, some contacts may want to be told about it right away – via a breaking news email, SMS alert, letter or tweet. Some would prefer a weekly e-newsletter summarising the content that is relevant to them (or hard copy personalised newsletter). Even snail mail can be sent without a human intervening these days. Some may also want a bleep bleep on their phone, RSS feed update, or simply to access their personalised homepage on your website. If you were promoting a seminar, your contacts would simply book via that email – straight into your system without any burden for your event organiser.
This is not rocket science. The technology is here. You do not need deep pockets, either. Putting the client in control of their marketing communications simply involves a few tweaks to your CRM database and a way to process the extra work leads.
Technology should be doing 90% of your email and postal marketing administration. Business development managers, secretaries and lawyers are far better utilised converting the work leads into work instructions, managing client relationships, cross-selling services and doing billable hours than looking through a mailing list.
Simon McNidder is CRM database manager at Pinsent Masons.
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 AllTrump and Latin America: Lawyers Brace for Hard-Line Approach to Region
BCLP Mulls Merger Prospects as Profitability Lags, Partnership Shrinks
Trending Stories
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