Marketing cuts: good or bad?

December 3, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
How essential are law firm marketing departments? I guess it depends who you ask.

That department is taking a hit because of the economy, according to a recent article in The National Law Journal. Law firms that are struggling to stay afloat or maintain their practices see the marketing department as more expendable than a practice group or handful of attorneys. Other firms, however, believe now is the right time to step up marking efforts.

In a tough economy, which is the better business strategy for a firm: cut or increase your marketing?

If a firm has little to no marketing, then it will have less exposure to potential clients. Less exposure brings fewer clients, and fewer clients mean the practice will continue to struggle and could face cutting another department or more attorneys. The vicious cycle could continue until the economy picks up.

Cutting back on marketing would be more harmful to smaller firms, newer firms, or firms that haven’t already done a good job getting their name out to the general public. The bigger firms may not take as big of a hit if they cut marketing because they may already have brand-name recognition.

Attorneys and partners at a firm are often responsible for keeping clients or bringing in new ones, but can they do it without a marketing department?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Look at tough times as chock full of opportunity, rather than barren, and your prospects are much brighter.

    When there\'s a dearth of clients, you need to make an extra effort, not a lesser one, to gather them.
  • Marketing for every business is so key right now. My company, Squish Designs, an Indianapolis based web development and social media consulting company would love to help out those lawyers looking for marketing assistance. We offer websites which we can integrate various forms of social media into, including blogs.

    My contact info:
    Nicki Laycoax
    nicki@squishdesigns.com
    www.squishdesigns.com
    www.twitter.com/nickilaycoax

    I am happy to help.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT