Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
If you focus your strategy, you can focus your spending. This basic business premise directs law firm leaders to invest resources only in those projects and programs that get them closer to their stated goals — and suggests that they should eliminate the practice of throwing dollars at anything that doesn’t. If it’s this simple, then why do law firms continue to invest time and money in initiatives that have no hope of returning a single dollar? There are dozens of reasons for this spending behavior, but these expenditures generally fall into two major categories: (1) sacred cows and ego-driven outlays, and (2) not understanding which marketing initiatives actually move a firm closer to its goals and how to budget for them In today’s uncertain financial climate, many firms are trimming costs by engaging in wholesale cost-cutting — slashing percentages across the board. While this approach is popular, it isn’t a wise business practice. Instead, firms should hunt and slay sacred cows — those costly items that aren’t providing value — and eliminate ego-driven spending. This approach is tough because it requires senior lawyers to reconsider the value of their own pet projects. To identify the sacred cows and ego-driven activities, look for the lollapalooza events that make the lawyers feel good, as well as copycat initiatives. The strategy of another lawyer or firm should not be driving your choices and spending. Significant money can be saved by starting here. Then reallocate the rest of your marketing money more strategically. THE RIGHT BUDGET FORMAT Much has been written about the marketing initiatives that can add to your firm’s bottom line and top line, such as client loyalty programs, client and industry teams, positioning strategy, strategic PR, etc. But little attention has been devoted to the marketing budget as a planning tool and the significant role it can play in guiding and supporting firm strategy. A fundamental rule of marketing budgeting is that it must be originated by your senior marketing leadership, not your accounting department. Law firms use several budget formats — each has advantages and disadvantages. • Centralized firmwide budget. This type of budget works well for firms of all sizes. Managing your money in one place has obvious advantages. The marketing department has more control and guidance over where the money is spent; therefore, it ultimately has more responsibility and accountability. In addition, a centralized budget makes it easier to track and build spending trend reports by activity, as well as by client, lawyer, practice or industry, and office. When you can track client growth and contraction, you can identify which marketing investments are working and which aren’t. Disadvantages: If spending discipline historically has been lacking, lawyers may object to a firmwide budget that operates outside their control. Practice leaders and office managing partners want the freedom to control the money that they believe is allocated to their offices and practices. Lawyers also may regard the centralized budget system as a form of policing their marketing choices (and it is). Finally, managing a budget in the multimillions could be close to a full-time job for a senior marketing manager. • Budget by office, practice, or industry. Large, multi-office firms with international operations often prefer to manage marketing dollars this way. Practice leaders and office managing partners have greater spending control, and the cost and success of initiatives can be directly tied to the groups that sponsored them. Forward-thinking firms allocate extra marketing dollars to the most profitable practice or industry groups or to those with the greatest long-term potential. Disadvantages: Allocation is a political hot potato in this structure. Since the most profitable groups have an opportunity for greater reward, the partners in the offices and practices viewed as “less equal” can feel disenfranchised. These partners may argue they aren’t as profitable because they don’t enjoy the same resources as the “more equal” groups. To avoid this us-and-them distinction, some firms allocate the same money to each group, regardless of profitability, relevance to firm clients, or potential growth. While, in the short-term, equality may keep your partners happy, over time this egalitarian approach simply dilutes the effectiveness of your overall marketing investment. In this budget structure, the outcomes are harder for the marketing department to manage and measure. Unless there is a capable marketer in each office (or assigned to each practice group), it’s difficult for the often long-distance CMO or marketing director to track the results of various initiatives. Presumably, at the end of the year, the senior marketer is still accountable and responsible for marketing results. Yet being held accountable without the opportunity to control the process and choices that lawyers make is frustrating and defeating. Finally, and perhaps most important, allocating money this way can diffuse firm strategy. The result is that spending choices are made that don’t get a firm closer to its goals. This failure must be acknowledged when, at the end of the fiscal year, firm leaders ask: How have we done? • Zero-based, strategy-driven budget. In its simplest form, this is a budget that starts with zero and ends with a dollar number tied to initiatives that support specific strategic goals. This approach works best for top-down firms, rather than those that manage by consensus, because it starts with the objectives of your leadership team. As priorities change from year to year, so do the spending patterns and choices. A zero-based approach ends perpetuity and entitlement spending. The categories soaking up these dollars and their mythical returns are simply eliminated. Every major initiative of a client team, an industry team, an office, or practice group requires planning. The team establishes its business case, outlines the hoped-for firm and client benefits, discusses the follow-up plan, and projects the return on investment. Only after the plan is reviewed and approved by the senior marketing staff and/or firm leaders, does the request receive funding. After the event or project is completed, and also at year end, results are analyzed, adjustments made, and a determination is made to continue or discontinue funding in future years. If firms want their marketing leadership to lead, it’s important that the senior marketers have permission to say no to lawyer requests that don’t support firm strategy. Zero-based budgeting offers a basis for this analysis. If a request for marketing money doesn’t get the firm closer to its strategic goals, even if it’s a swell idea, firm marketers and leaders should say no. Finally, this budget structure invites periodic, if not continual, review of the firm’s strategic plan and goals. This disciplined review is necessary as the economic climate and your clients’ businesses change. Few firms build this evaluation into their day-to-day operations. The strategic plan should be a living, breathing guide that is always current. Disadvantages: Zero-based budgeting requires marketers and firm leaders to be 100 percent disciplined. Simply put, without a strategy and plan, projects don’t get funded. To accommodate the wacky and spontaneous yet brilliant idea, add a budget line item called “the bucket.” This smallish number funds last-minute, urgent projects that are worth doing or that may have a client-invoked priority. Many senior lawyers and rainmakers are used to having large pots of money to spend as they please. If the marketing staff is perceived as taking this freedom away, they will become the fall guys. They will need leadership intervention and support to persevere and thrive in this new, business-oriented way of managing marketing dollars. Finally, the marketing staff must become adept at strategy, planning, and analyzing marketing metrics. But note that this role belongs not just to the CMO or marketing director, but also to all marketing managers of groups, projects, and campaigns. THE PERFECT STRUCTURE Picture a pyramid. Strategic plan with vision and goals is in the top level. In the second level, we have the strategic marketing plan, which identifies targets, new markets, positioning strategy, and key messages. Next is the marketing operations plan, which identifies action items and ways to get there with dollars, timing, and responsibility defined. Finally, at the fourth level is the marketing budget. When strategy drives budget setting, it’s easy to spot trends, track results, and adjust when priorities shift. According to the Legal Marketing Association’s 2001 research study, firms spent an average of 2.4 percent of gross revenue on marketing. What’s included in this number varies dramatically from firm to firm. Anecdotal evidence suggests that firms pared down their marketing budgets in 2002, and many firms are cutting back even further this year. Instead of cutting costs across the board, wise firm leaders will carefully articulate firm goals and allocate the appropriate dollars to meet them. At the end of 2003, firm leaders will ask: How has marketing gotten us closer to the goals stated in the strategic plan? If the marketing department and its budget are properly organized, the department can track increased revenue, higher profits, greater client share and market share, and reduced frivolous spending. Most firms with sophisticated accounting systems have the ability to track such data. But unless spending is tied to strategy, the data is meaningless. Deborah McMurray is a strategic marketing consultant to the legal industry and a former law firm marketing director. She created the Couch Money® cost analysis and recovery program. She can be reached at [email protected]. Barbara Harrison Kaye is chief marketing officer at Thacher Proffit & Wood in New York. She is a fellow of the College of Law Practice Management of the American Bar Association. She can be reached at [email protected].

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 Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.