Buyers Say Legal Tech, ALSPs Losing Business by Not Understanding Their Problems
Legal tech and alternative legal service buyers want to know how a solution will solve their business's challenges. But a Baretz+Brunelle survey found that in today's market, that valuable information is hard to come by.
August 26, 2019 at 11:30 AM
3 minute read
Legal technology and alternative legal service providers (ALSPs) are largely missing the mark in explaining how their products and services solves problems, according to a new report by Baretz+Brunelle who offers communication and PR services to legal technology companies.
Released last week, "Feel Their Pain: The 2019 Selling Legal Tech Report," which surveyed 100 corporate legal department senior executives and Am Law 100 and 200 law firms, found that only 34% of respondents agree that legal tech or ALSPs understand their business challenges.
What's more, 46% of respondents also said that "uncertainty about whether the product would solve our problems" was the first or second largest reason why they didn't buy a product.
Still, around 90% indicated they are interested in knowing how tech products can solve their problems and said they are more likely to buy from a legal tech or alternative legal service provider that understands their business.
Baretz+Brunelle partner Kenneth Gary said the results weren't surprising, and they reflect how many legal tech companies are going to market without a clear understanding of the customer's needs. (Disclaimer: Gary previously worked at ALM Media.)
"It confirmed there is market confusion," Gary said. "A lot of it is legal tech companies aren't facing the pain of their customers."
Although 30% of respondents said they resent frequent legal tech and ALSP sales contact and hold it against sellers, Gary cautioned that it's the quality and not quantity of the pitches that greatly sour interactions.
"They need to tell a compelling story," he said. "They need to be able to articulate how and why their solutions can instantly help and empathize with their clients they are selling to." These pitches should include how the product makes the business more efficient and "align themselves as a partner and not as a full-on service," Gary added.
However, customers say legal tech and ALSPs' sales communications focus primarily on product features, according to the survey. Buyers do see solving their challenges as the second most-common message in legal tech and ALSP marketing, the survey found.
As legal tech companies and service providers continue to struggle to create and convey business solutions, a new era of legal operations managers is emerging in the legal industry. Instead of siting idly by, legal tech and ALSPs can partner with legal operation managers to improve efficiency and cost-savings, Gary said. But first, legal tech and service providers will need to have a product that addresses those problems.
"Successful legal service providers tell compelling stories," he explained. "They understand the problems their customers are facing. I think there needs to be adjustments: Some are doing a great job, but by and large many are not."
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
- 1Davis Polk Lands Spirit Chapter 11 Amid Bankruptcy Resurgence
- 2Construction Fall Nets $2.3 Million Settlement After Trial Begins
- 3By the Numbers: The 2024 LTN Law Firm Tech Survey
- 4Can The Threat of a Bar Complaint Be a Settlement Tool?
- 5Sentencing Commission Addresses Inconsistent Definitions of “Loss”
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