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
© 2025 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 AllIs KPMG’s Arizona ABS Strategy a Turning Point in U.S. Law? What London’s Experience Reveals
5 minute readKPMG Moves to Provide Legal Services in the US—Now All Eyes Are on Its Big Four Peers
International Arbitration: Key Developments of 2024 and Emerging Trends for 2025
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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