The 2010 ILTA Conference “Strategic Unity” kicked off last night with its typical relaxed excitement. The replacement venue, the new Aria hotel in Las Vegas, is enormous and it seems they’ve left no stone unturned in accommodating the ILTA organization. Despite outside temperatures well in excess of 100°, attendees and exhibitors enjoyed the cool indoor atmosphere at the opening reception.

Peggy Weschler, Program Director, was beaming as she informed me that final registration exceeded 1,100 attendees, a 37% increase over last year’s conference! Kudos to the staff of ILTA for pulling this great event together so quickly, following the tragic floods in Nashville less than four months ago. It’s great to have ILTA back on the West Coast (almost).

A Time for Change

While this year’s conference moves forward with ILTA’s historic peer groups, one of the biggest changes at ILTA is the restructuring of the peer organization. Recently announced, ILTA is moving away from its vendor specific peer groups and embracing topical categories. The new categories are:

Desktop and Application Services
Communications Technologies
Emerging Technologies
Enterprise Content Management
Financial Management
Knowledge Management
Law Department
Litigation and Practice Support
Professional Services
Risk and Records Management
Server Operations and Security
User Support Services

The Board of ILTA and their Strategic Relationship Liaisons really got this right! The new peer groups are topically aligned with the issues facing law firms, legal departments, and law practices. A quick glance at any of these categories reveals that the restructuring team has thought of just about everything.

The new structure should benefit members and vendors alike. Long time vendor-based peer groups will be replaced, evening the playing field for competitors in their categories. Going forward it will be interesting to observe how these new groups are accepted by the membership and vendor sponsors.

In the last couple of weeks I’ve been thinking about how few organizations really commit to or trust their marketing efforts. Regardless of the size of the organization, marketing typically comprises a significant portion of the budget, but it is not well understood or respected by other members of the organization.

If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard a sales executive lament that marketing “isn’t particularly helpful’, or a financial manager complaining about marketing expenses, I’d have retired to a sandy beach (with a case of Zinfandel)  a long time ago. At the same time, marketers complain that we’re misunderstood and nobody appreciates what we’re doing.

Marketing departments and budgets are usually the first areas cut during difficult economies or sales slowdowns, and they often take the blame when revenue expectations fall short. In order to succeed in the long term, marketing needs to be unified with every other department within the organization.

So how do we align marketing with sales, business development, finance, and even customer support? We find out what they need and support them. It couldn’t be easier! Treat the departments within the company as valued clients and partners and before you know it, they’ll be your allies and advocates.

One of my first challenges after being hired at Law.com, was to identify and then support the best revenue opportunities. After evaluating several products, I determined that Online CLE offered significant short and long term revenue potential. The problem was, Online CLE wasn’t selling and in an effort to reduce expenses, the product was on the chopping block. Not to be deterred, I worked with the manager of the department, corporate executives, and the financial managers and convinced them to test a different approach to how we packaged our CLE products. With everyone’s buy-in and a small test budget we set out to repackage CLE and market the new offering. Our first test returned such a positive result that everyone quickly got onboard and we were able to efficiently scale-up the offering.

Every day, we marketers write content for our organizations preaching how the company listens to its customers, it’s time we take that message to heart and take our own advice.

An article appearing on Corporate Counsel’s website this week caught my attention. Titled Disconnect Between Legal and IT Getting Worse, Survey Finds, the author Thomas Huddleston Jr. comments on research recently released by Recommind. The survey indicates a growing rift between in-house legal and the IT department in large corporations…specifically as it applies to eDiscovery.

The survey of corporate IT personnel indicated that only 26% considered eDiscovery a high priority, while 43% of the same respondents believe eDiscovery is a high priority for the legal department. But when it comes to buying authority, 78% of the respondents indicated IT was significantly involved in their organization’s eDiscovery purchase decisions, while just 32% of the respondents answered that the legal department was significantly involved. Only 28% of the organizations responding have a litigation support manager, and nearly 23% of the respondents report that IT and legal departments never meet to discuss eDiscovery.

In this year’s survey the percentage of respondents describing the relationship between IT and legal as ‘good’ or ‘very good’ has dropped from 67% to 54%. As I thought about this phenomenon, it occurred to me that the economy and staffing reductions may be at the heart of this issue. Corporate America has not been immune to cost-cutting efforts. Everyone is being asked to do more with less. Is it possible that in the process these important relationships are suffering? Going forward, how will this growing disconnect impact the ability of IT and legal to effectively and efficiently do their work? And, how does it affect the companies that provide technology products and services?

Increasingly, the Corporate market has emerged as the target of many eDiscovery vendors. It’s almost impossible to find an eDiscovery company that isn’t targeting corporate customers. Understanding the psychographics of the decision making and influencing process is critical not only to sales teams but to those developing strategic plans and budgets.

Last week I wrote about legal vendors and the need to start changing the negative connotation within the legal vertical. An email from Brad Blickstein, of the Blickstein Group, made me stop and reflect on how we (vendors) need to take responsibility, and become part of the solution. Here’s what Brad had to say:

“… your blog entry on “vendors” …got me thinking. I think a major part of the problem is that “vendors” use salespeople while consultants and law firms let their professionals sell their services. This leads the clients to feel more like they are being “sold to” as opposed to “advised,” and that assumes that the salespeople are acting professionally and smartly. (You and I both know that’s not always the case.) I think if you’re going to hire a sales force who are separate from the folks actually providing services – and I’m not sure there’s a choice – you are going to deal with some fallout. Clients do not get 5 calls in an hour from people they’ve never met at various consulting firms saying, “I’ll be in Chicago on the 23rd, can I stop by your office?”

Much has been written and spoken about ‘Consultative Selling”. Interestingly, BusinessDictionary.com offers the following definition:

“Personal selling in which a salesperson plays the role of a consultant. He or she first assists the buyer in identifying his or her needs, and then suggesting products that satisfy those needs.”

At first blush, this is a rather cynical definition, but it makes sense. Playing a role or acting like a consultant interested in the buyer/prospect’s needs is an insult. While I’m not implying that every, or even most, salespeople are uncaring product shills, we need to re-examine our sales and communications strategies.
As Vendors we need to start by taking stock of our sales strategies. Are we:

• Too focused on short term results?
• Building long-term trusted relationships, or renting rolodexes and role playing?
• Communicating our value propositions to the proper market, or taking the shotgun approach?

These economic times are difficult for everyone. Long-term success will only be realized through the hard work and patience required to build open and honest relationships.

If we’re going to change the negative view of vendors in the legal industry, we need to make the first changes.

The definition of vendor – one that sells something*, is not a negative implication. Let’s face it, we all sell something! Legal Vendor is a broad category and I would argue one that includes consultants. Consultants are selling their services and expertise, but they’re still selling. And lawyers/law firms are selling whether they like to think so or not. If you’re not selling, you’re probably about to fail.

For over 18 years I have worked for or with legal vendors. In the early 1990’s we were often called on to educate audiences about the benefits of technology or conduct product ‘shoot-outs’, and then seemingly overnight vendors got a bad name in the legal industry. We were viewed as the bad-guys or hucksters. The how’s and why’s of how we got here are worth examining, but they’re probably not as important as what we do to change relationships between customers and providers.

How can we find a way to swing the pendulum back and should we even try?

I believe we must work together to create partnerships that are mutually beneficial. Every vendor needs to take an honest look at what they promise and how they deliver on those promises. How is it possible that every company is the ‘industry-leading’ or ‘insert your rhetoric here’? Attorneys and the other professionals working in law firms are a cynical bunch, they’ve been burned, their expectations haven’t been met, and they’re tired of the rhetoric…it’s time to deliver.

Can law firm clients and prospects be turned around to think more positively about legal vendors? I think so. When legal providers wake up and realize that their primary competition is internal and not external, they’ve taken to first step to success. Ask the hard questions:

» How can we meet expectations?
» Are we delivering on our promises?
» What can we do to improve?

The legal profession is dynamic and the changes we’ve seen over the past 24 months are enormous. Now is the perfect time for vendors to engage with clients and prospects to forge truly meaningful partnerships. If we start now, we can begin to change how we are perceived.

*”vendor.” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 14 Jul. 2010. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vendor>.

In the most recent ChangeThis manifesto, Intelligence Multipliers, Liz Wiseman shares her findings from a two-year study of corporate leadership styles. She begins by defining ‘Diminishers’ as corporate managers that can’t see beyond their own capabilities to utilize the maximum value of the people around them. ‘Multipliers’ on the other hand, have the ability to challenge their teams and create an environment of intelligence and challenge.

How do Diminishers differ from Multipliers?

Diminishers survey their world and see a limited supply of intelligence. They have the “I’m the only one that can do it right” mentality, and as a result, they discourage the people around them to shut down and they stifle creativity.

Multipliers believe in their people and encourage thinking. They look beyond their own capabilities, recognize, and even appreciate the genius of others. Multipliers challenge their people to think outside of the box and invest in their successes.

Is There Really a Difference in Performance?

Wiseman’s research has shown that Multipliers consistently get 2X more from their people than their Diminisher counterparts. Just think what you could do with twice your resources! In these times of reduced budgets and staffs, you can actually double your output without adding more staff. And in times of prosperity, Multipliers will be able to scale and take increase corporate intelligence and capabilities much faster. Typically organizations, large and small, have both types of leaders. The differences become readily apparent when you view the results of the different departments or working groups.

Over the years, I have been the beneficiary of working with a couple of Multipliers and a number of Diminishers. I’ve known the exhilaration of being challenged to produce at the highest possible level, and I’ve known the frustration of being shut down.

Why does it seem Diminishers are more prevalent? I think it’s because it is easier and safer to be a Diminisher. But if building your success is your priority, take a look in the mirror. If you see a Diminisher staring back at you…it’s not too late to make a change.

LegalTech West Coast has ended, and in my day-after haze (or glow, as the case may be), I thought I’d share a few observations:

1. Project Management is the new buzz term. From the educational program to the trade show floor, project management is the latest hot topic. A Google search this morning for ‘legal project management’ returned more than 45 million results. And it’s not just about eDiscovery…project management philosophies are invading the law practice and in-house legal departments. The latest acronym LPM (Legal Project Management) is certain to send legal vendors scurrying to revisit their content and collateral. Over the next several weeks I plan to dedicate more time to this rising ‘category’ and report back on how LPM is impacting legal vendors.

2. An Interesting Combination of the Usual Suspects and Newcomers. Video conferencing was well represented. New video exhibitors included Vu TelePresence and Affinity VideoNet. As the demand for video capabilities increase, there’s no doubt they both will be busy.

3. The Best New Technology. After just a few minutes with the dynamic Matt Spiegel, CEO of MyCase, I was sold. Matt’s enthusiasm and real-world experience translates into an exciting new product that improves attorney-client relationships. MyCase can simplify the legal process for virtually every lawyer who deals directly with clients.

4. The Most Unusual Exhibitor. Ladybug Teknologies was another newcomer to the show. Their passion, socially responsible drinking, may not at first seem a logical entry into a legal technology event, but it has application to every professional in the industry. Using a small mobile device or BlackBerry application, you can quickly and privately measure your blood alcohol level.

Fortunately for me, I left my vehicle at the hotel and cabbed home after a wonderful event with the TransPerfect folks. They really know how to throw a party!

The 2010 Law Technology News Vendor Satisfaction Survey is the first survey of its kind to take a neutral look at how law firms rank technology vendors. The survey incorporating respondents of all firm sizes and most positions, provides feedback on vendor satisfaction by product category, as well as ranking specific factors, including customer service, price for value, and brand reputation. Monica Bay’s overview serves as an excellent Executive Summary. Here’s my takeaway:

Customer Service, Customer Service, Customer Service

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to legal technology vendors that customer service was the highest ranked factor among survey respondents. The survey reports that 77% of respondents considered customer service the highest priority.

There’s no doubt that technology makes us more productive, but it can also be the source of great frustration. Why do users call help desks and tech support lines with an ‘angry, ready for a fight’ attitude? Because technology has the ability to make us feel inept, even stupid, and more than a little lost, when things don’t go well. What happened to the promises made before the sale…24/7 support and a real person to talk to?

Vendors large and small must deal with customer service and support as a priority service. If support is merely a necessary evil, or a primary revenue center, how do you balance your priorities with the expectations of your customers? Bringing your support team into the sales and marketing process, and clearly defining expectations can extend the honeymoon period after the sale.

The Inevitable Training Question

Training was eighth on the list of nine factors at a paltry 39.8%, and it should come as no surprise that it ranked so low. Why is it that ‘easy to use’ equates to ‘no training necessary’? Several opinions are shared in the article, and all are valid:

Legal professionals have busy schedules and it’s hard to find the time for training

Vendors over promise ease of use

Providers need to develop training options that fit into work styles

In my own anecdotal experience, about a year ago I switched from using Visio to SmartDraw and while I found it easier to use, like most users, I worked my way through my task at hand with little thought for how some product knowledge might help me. Last week SmartDraw offered me a 1-hour, free training webinar. What an ‘AHA’ moment! Although it wasn’t intended as a thorough product training, I quickly learned that SmartDraw was much easier to use and filled with shortcuts that improved my experience.

Product literature may not be as important as we thought

Ranked the least important consideration was vendor literature. We spend weeks and months developing product brochures and feature lists, should we eliminate them? Absolutely not, they are an important part of any integrated marketing program, but don’t rely on your collateral to make your sale for you.

How would your company stand up to this survey?

A few years ago while visiting my friends Jeff & Sue Pavone (yes, that Jeff Pavone) in Scottsdale, I was intrigued by a Zinfandel labeled ‘7 Deadly Zins’. Knowing nothing about the wine and unable to sample it at the wine store, I took a chance, rationalizing that if the winemakers could have fun with their wine, maybe we would also. At the time, I believe I paid about $25-30. We drank it and enjoyed it.

After my first introduction, I searched high and low, but was unable to find this California wine in my home state. A couple of years later, while crawling the wine section of Costco, I stumbled upon my old friend…7 Deadly Zins! It was the same wine I’d previously enjoyed, and due to its commercial success, it is now available in larger quantities, and at a much lower price. Now it’s my everyday vintage, I buy it by the case (for under $12/bottle), recommend it often, and gift it regularly.

It turns out, the name of the wine is really a tribute to the blend of Zinfandel grapes from seven different vineyards. It’s a big wine that is great with anything grilled or by itself on those evenings when a glass of wine is a deserved reward for a day well done.

While my selection method isn’t scientific, and certainly not recommended by wine connoisseurs, it works for me. On that day in an Arizona wine shop, I met a wine that was memorable because of its label. What has 7 Deadly Zins taught me?

What’s inside should be good, even great…but presentation is just as important!

In 1992 after a seven-year career as a litigation paralegal, I decided to move into the world of marketing and selling to lawyers. I knew instinctively that my time “in the trenches” would serve me well as I went to work developing messaging and selling technology software to lawyers.

Having spent three months on a law school campus earning my paralegal certificate, I saw first-hand how law students were converted into lawyers. What I didn’t realize until I entered my new career was how many of the same factors that go into legal training influences the way lawyers buy legal products and services.

Why is the legal vertical so challenging?

1. Law School Creates Lawyers – Like medical school, the competitiveness and demand on law students fundamentally changes their personalities. From LSATs to applications, the competition starts before the first day of class. Drop-out/failing rates and class ranking struggles pervade the psyches of students forcing them to focus inward and manage their time selfishly. The better the school, the higher the class ranking, the better the job at graduation (especially in a tough job market). That competitiveness continues into the firm environment.

2. Law Firms have a Different Business Model – A carry-over from the law school mentality, law firms are a bastion of individuality and competitiveness. Rather than pulling together, law firms are made up of pockets (practice groups) that invariably distrust each other. David Maister’s article Are Law Firms Manageable? first published in The American Lawyer, addresses the issues of distrust and competitiveness, and how they impact firm values.

3. Competition is the Name of the Game – The law school process encourages critical thinking and teaches students to advocate every side of an argument. There is no right or wrong, only winning and losing arguments. Three years of arguing in law school, and it’s no wonder lawyers challenge every claim a vendor makes. As consumers, they question ‘the biggest’ and ‘the best’ and they are risk adverse. Few lawyers want to risk trying something new for fear of making a mistake and suffering the scorn of their peers…in short, they’re not early adopters by nature.

My first position after leaving the law firm was as Vice President of Sales and Marketing for a legal technology company that developed and marketed case/practice management software. From the onset, we knew we had to overcome aging Luddite managing attorneys, and reasoned that within a few short years, younger more technologically inclined lawyers would move into decision-making positions and advocate for more technology. Along with our competition, we truly believed that as younger, more tech-savvy attorneys worked their way up the ranks, they would embrace productivity enhancing technology, and by the new millennium, every attorney would use practice management software.

And yet even today, only 33% of attorneys use case/practice management (according to the 2010 “Perfect Practice® – Legal Technology Institute Case, Matter, and Practice Management System Software Study” conducted by The University of Florida Law’s Legal Technology Institute, link unavailable at this writing).

What we failed to understand at the time was that the demands placed on young attorneys to perform require them to narrowly focus on the issues at hand. Most young attorneys enter the practice of law in subservient roles and are required to use whatever technology their firms use. Their goals are limited to getting the job done, and as they mature and move through the ranks, they remain focused on getting the job done, and not on how to do the job better.

This is not to say that lawyers will never embrace technology fully. It is to say that there are factors unique to the legal industry that impact buyer behavior. As sellers of legal products and services, we need to hone-in on the specific buying characteristics of this unique market of buyers and craft messages to address their needs and the drivers that most influence them.