Seeing the law firm as a brand?

The iconic brands are part of our subconscious memory. A bar of Cadbury's Twirl staring at me like a seductive twisted demon, a mug of milky steamed coffee at Starbucks, and on my feet are a pair of Adidas running shoes, brands engulfing me as I type. It is not possible to get away from brands. But, some brands are more prominent in my memory and others I am less conscious of.

I start the period leading up to the new year wishing everyone a prosperous new year. This very concept of prosperity as an opportunity is key to survival for any business. For the legal brand, that realisation is an imperative in the face of today's hyper-curated generation of individual customers constantly connected to the digital world. The young are now raised to think like an individual so the idea of the brand is not about the mass any more but I am conscious of my supposed need to see myself in what you are selling to me. I don't care about what others are caring for unless my own individuality fits in within your brand. Could a law firm ever aspire to reach the heights of a consumer legal brand?

If everything is for sale and legal services could be thought of as a commodity, how do we unravel the mystery of the brand in the context of a digitally connected world. Is there a meta-language of brands shorn of marketing jargon that could be easily understood by the lawyer with client interest and a dedication to the legal process in heart? It is often said that branding at its core is linked to manufacturing a need. Strictly speaking, the nature of legal services is such that the need for it is a dependent action after something happens. An artificial need for legal services could not be created. It is not an aspirational product nor is it pure gluttony like my sickeningly sweet Cadbury's Twirl. The need for legal services is driven by necessity. So essentially, the branding of legal services is about the visibility of the legal service providers, in this instance law firms to be operating in a market place where the value of their service could be easily understood by consumers and businesses, at a time when I need it the most.

If branding is about an emotional connection, that connection is naturally formed through the experience of the brand. Nike as a brand of running shoes offer an emotional response to the desire to own a quality product. Nike may not make the very best running shoes, however, the brand identity has made it appear as the conceptualisation of the best pair of running shoes. There are significant promises attached to a brand and such promises are a result of consumer expectation. There may also be an association of results to subscribing to a brand. I may prefer Adidas running shoes but the more style conscious runner may prefer a Nike. That I am able to separate myself from the style conscious intrinsically pigeonholes me to another brand, which may be less fashionable but serves my need by providing the result I require. One of the problems faced by legal brands is that the individual experience of the brand associated with legal services is always carrying a more complex and diversified set of expectations in terms of the results. Coke as a brand is clearly identified with the result. Drinking coke quenches thirst and while the sensations may be different depending on how thirsty the drinker is, however the product essentially remains the same. Legal services offered by a law firm is not Coke, but perhaps it represents a different set of opportunities? While the results driven nature of legal services may be promoted as 'no win no fee' within the personal injury sector, the concept could not be actively transferred to every single 'instruction' taken on by a lawyer.

The other aspect of iconic brands like Nike, Starbucks and Ikea represent a great democratisation of humanity. Brand specialists often argue that these popular brands are accessible to all, from the ordinary human being to billionaire owners of football clubs. However, this in itself is a simplified understanding of what the legal brand is. For some, Starbucks may be too expensive and for some, not reassuringly expensive. Competitive prices and easy to understand fees structure may be of advantage to the client, however, the most important aspect of the result is not legal fees but the quality of service. Huge legal fees may dominate newspaper columns in relation to major cases, it definitely forms the basis of major consideration before contacting a lawyer for certain cases, however, the result and the quality of service comes above financial consideration for the affected parties. Greater transparency regarding the service provided, associated fees and a more personal service may represent the future of marketing legal services, especially by the smaller firms.

Does a brand represent notions of power? Could a brand identity be separate from its origin? Does Starbucks carry enough of a brand identity that could dissociate itself from being an American brand? American political and economic activity may make the country rather unpopular in certain parts of the world, however, is Starbucks dragged down or is there perhaps a cultural dimension to the taste, feel and the experience of Starbucks that separates it from thoughts of America as a political entity. Here we see a strange phenomenon. Many may want to dissociate themselves from America as a political phenomenon, but the idea of the American dream and the freedom to create it remains a dominant desire for the developing world when drinking Starbucks. So Starbucks does not necessarily get tarnished by America but is more associated with the idea of the freedom. The parallel to this maybe the age old lawyer-jokes. There are many in every culture and language, and most often paint the image of the lawyer as a bloodsucking creature of indignity, with little care or consideration outside of his or her own financial gains. Regardless of this negative perception, thankfully, such representations are not an overriding factor by individual lawyers or even the smaller firms. Here, perhaps the smaller firms have an advantage in being able to tailor their services rather more as well as greater transparency.

The dominant forces of the 21st century is not the nation state but corporations. This could be translated as soft power or a more gentler form of influence. Could power be seen as means to reaching out to the community and ultimately, embedding the brand into the hearts and minds of the consumer? In UK, we have been used to seeing adverts from InjuryLawyers4u for a number of years. Individual medium sized law firms have also advertised in the regional television channels targeting particular audiences for over a decade. Over the last 12 months, I noted how one of the top ten magic circle firms have advertised themselves as a major brand. A large national or international law firm with its financial muscle is able to market itself through television advertising. Similarly, brands like QS (Quality Solicitors) have more marketing power that could potentially create a new brand and generate additional business for its pool of associated firms, who may individually lack the advertising muscle. Is there any room for the small local law firm to create its own brand and rival the large firms or avoid the various marketing services? The answer lies in how ambitious that firm is and the demographics. An economically vibrant geographical area may allow for increased business. A stagnant community may not lead to increased business unless the small firm is able to promote itself as a brand and look at external business. But, it is the digital world and the power of social media that has the potential of making the small firm as big as the large, hence it is in this new marketplace that true democratisation has taken place. Social media is the new platform for smaller brands to exist alongside their bigger rivals.

So what is the legal brand in 2015? The opening up of the legal marketplace in UK and the diversification of the profession requires a greater understanding of how brands work. The digital consumer and the increased choice should not lead to stagnation and slow death for the small or medium sized firm. A successful brand remains a dichotomy between the emotional to the rational. The emotional is often associated with loyalty, however, there is no reason for the rational element to lead to a lack of loyalty. The key to creating this loyalty may be to design services around the needs of the consumer rather than maintaining an inflexible method of operation. Adapting services by creating a promise, continuing to deliver on that promise and marketing this brand of quality service is the key to survival. The consumer is an intelligent human being and the new reality is a consumer need driven marketplace where both the small and the major brand could survive by taking advantage of that very need.

No need to be scared of the digital world. Align the brand with the product and allow the consumer to see exactly what the product is about. Communication, creativity, flexibility, training and evolution are the keywords that are essential for all law firms in this new age. For me personally, what is essential is coffee from a smaller independent café. Small is rather beautiful!

The writer of this article is the Editor for TheLawMap.com publications which include legal interview blog SaturdayLawInterview.com, weekly UK law firm activity review blog SundayLawReview.com and the daily blog on Law and Justice related news LawNewsIndex.com.