Despite Opportunities, Legal Technologists Struggle to Create Business Strategies
A new report from marketing group Baretz+Brunelle found that 97 percent of legal technology companies lack a “go to market” strategy.
April 26, 2018 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
|
A recent survey of over 100 e-discovery groups, alternative legal service providers and other legal technology companies found that 97 percent of those polled lacked a “go-to-market strategy,” essentially a plan to sell its services to the market.
Ken Gary, partner at marketing group Baretz+Brunelle and co-author of the report, said the marketing group went into the study expecting a fair amount of confusion from legal technology companies about how to best structure their business plans. The data they gathered, however, suggested that nearly all of the legal technology market is struggling to find a best market fit.
Baretz+Brunelle has extensive roots in the legal technology space. Both Gary and managing director Erin Harrison previously held executive positions at Legaltech News parent group ALM, and the company represents legal technology companies like Gavelytics and Casetext. Even so, Gary and his colleagues were surprised by the number of companies lacking a specific market strategy. “We didn't expect it to be quite that high,” he said.
The report found that only 44 percent of those polled both understood the value of their services and regularly surveyed their top clients for feedback.
“We've noticed that there is a general disconnect with sales and marketing and go-to-market strategy in this world,” Gary said of the legal technology space. Indeed, 55 percent of those polled reported misalignment between their sales and marketing teams.
The report found that many legal technology companies are catering their services to more than a few different legal industry players: 63 percent aimed to serve in-house counsel, 55 percent targeted corporate legal operations staff, 48 percent targeted law firms, 37 percent targeted law firm information governance staff, 37 percent targeted law firm executive staff, and 27 percent targeted corporate procurement departments, among others.
“The overall number of different people that companies are selling to is a little staggering,” Gary said of the findings. “It's almost as if some legal tech companies don't have a firm grasp of who to sell to yet,” he later added.
Gary credits some of this uncertainty to the period of transition the legal industry seems to be in as a whole. Law firms are under increasing pressure to update business practices to look more like corporate entities, while corporate legal departments are increasingly adopting operations processes and systems to reduce cost. This landscape creates a lot of potential opportunity for legal technologists to capitalize on, but it also creates a lot of confusion around where the best market opportunities exist.
There are a few key factors to consider in designing a go-to-market strategy, Gary noted. “Timing, testing a product, having a clear message and strategy around what that product is intended to do, and understanding who you're selling to. That seems from the survey results to be missing” for legal tech companies.
Gary has seen two broad approaches in legal technology to finding product-market fit. Some use a “shotgun approach,” pushing a product to market, tracking its successes or failures and iterating future product updates from there, while others rely more heavily on market research and testing prior to product launches. The latter, he said, seems to appear more “in the legal research applications and AI platforms, certainly on a lot of these dashboard products for corporate legal departments.”
Between the two strategies, Gary sees a clearly superior route. “I think sometime it makes sense to, rather than seize an immediate opportunity for a thing your company thinks it can do, to take a step back [and] hone a solid go-to-market strategy in advance of selling just because you can. I think the shotgun approach is no longer effective in the legal tech market,” he said.
“I do think that the more strategic, the more focused, those that understand their buyer personas, are going to win,” Gary added.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1AI: An Enhancement, Not a Replacement for Attorneys
- 2Fowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
- 3Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
- 4'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
- 5Call for Nominations: TLI's Pennsylvania Legal Awards 2025
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