Yesterday, Kara Smith's blog covered a challenge to Holland and Knight's reputation that was active on the internet at Twitter. No need to recap here, because Kara has done the digging and has an explanation of the ambush technique. Hat tip to one of my new Favorites.
Consultant Larry Bodine has also done his share of trash-talking about the Legal Marketing Association. This is simply another way that reputation attacks can be mounted.
The point I'm making is that the internet is a wide-wide channel, an electronic river into which anyone can throw content, whether it has value or simply aims to besmirch a decent reputation. In order to keep the waters around you clean, you have to be vigilant. What are you doing to watch out for your online reputation?
Friday, January 16, 2009
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Are You Hearing Voices?
Yesterday, I responded to a post on Heather Milligan's blog, Legal Water Cooler, with a reference to an article in the American Marketing Association's November/December 2008 Marketing Management on utility of Voice of the Customer (VOC) data in American companies. This piece was authored by Randy Brandt of Maritz Research and reflects results of the 2007 Maritz VOC Practices and Challenges Survey. The survey and the article are compelling reads for any marketer.
A key observation in the early part of the article is that "in nearly every industry that has participated in the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) since its inception in 1994, current scores are essentially the same as they were in that baseline year, or else they have declined." Yet, a 2005 Forrester Research survey reported that 96% of senior executive respondents believed it was critical to their business to improve the customer experience. How do we reconcile this desperate interest in the customer's satisfaction with the reality that no improvement has been achieved?
Brandt writes that many research studies show companies that encourage and collect VOC data do not effectively act on the data. His observation, confirmed with the 2007 Maritz study, is that the majority of companies have no defined processes that support implementation. He concludes that 1) companies must have a standard set of categories measured across all customer-company intersections, 2) that these categories should be linked to measures of business results and 3) companies must have a formal process and assigned accountability for acting on the VOC data.
Beyond the parameters of Dr. Brandt's article is a question for all law firms of the value of VOC data. Matt Sherman correctly notes in his response to the Legal Water Cooler post yesterday that the customer experience and its satisfaction are a "partner by partner" effect. I'll add that the one sure way to get the VOC data into action in a law firm is to connect the partner bonus to it. Frankly, my feeling is that most legal firms lack the courage to monitor client satisfaction, although there are an increasing number of consulting firms who have superb processes for this research.
As a profession whose primary intellectual capital is characterized by service based on "proving" assertions, law firms should be clamoring for this data. Relationship partners ought to insist that the client's voice be solicited so that they and the firm can have irrefutable evidence that the relationship is solid and linked primarily to the partner. The lack of courage may be due largely to the law industry's paucity of innovation and reliance on the status quo, at least as far as business operations are concerned. However, by protecting their compensation to partners with lock-step and production systems that depend on completed, billed and paid-for work (hours), they ensure that the client's voice will go unheard until a complaint interferes with the collection process. Which, in my mind, is way too late to save the client relationship.
How closely does your law firm listen to the voice of your clients? Is there action connected to what you hear? How can you increase the volume and frequency of this conversation?
A key observation in the early part of the article is that "in nearly every industry that has participated in the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) since its inception in 1994, current scores are essentially the same as they were in that baseline year, or else they have declined." Yet, a 2005 Forrester Research survey reported that 96% of senior executive respondents believed it was critical to their business to improve the customer experience. How do we reconcile this desperate interest in the customer's satisfaction with the reality that no improvement has been achieved?
Brandt writes that many research studies show companies that encourage and collect VOC data do not effectively act on the data. His observation, confirmed with the 2007 Maritz study, is that the majority of companies have no defined processes that support implementation. He concludes that 1) companies must have a standard set of categories measured across all customer-company intersections, 2) that these categories should be linked to measures of business results and 3) companies must have a formal process and assigned accountability for acting on the VOC data.
Beyond the parameters of Dr. Brandt's article is a question for all law firms of the value of VOC data. Matt Sherman correctly notes in his response to the Legal Water Cooler post yesterday that the customer experience and its satisfaction are a "partner by partner" effect. I'll add that the one sure way to get the VOC data into action in a law firm is to connect the partner bonus to it. Frankly, my feeling is that most legal firms lack the courage to monitor client satisfaction, although there are an increasing number of consulting firms who have superb processes for this research.
As a profession whose primary intellectual capital is characterized by service based on "proving" assertions, law firms should be clamoring for this data. Relationship partners ought to insist that the client's voice be solicited so that they and the firm can have irrefutable evidence that the relationship is solid and linked primarily to the partner. The lack of courage may be due largely to the law industry's paucity of innovation and reliance on the status quo, at least as far as business operations are concerned. However, by protecting their compensation to partners with lock-step and production systems that depend on completed, billed and paid-for work (hours), they ensure that the client's voice will go unheard until a complaint interferes with the collection process. Which, in my mind, is way too late to save the client relationship.
How closely does your law firm listen to the voice of your clients? Is there action connected to what you hear? How can you increase the volume and frequency of this conversation?
Friday, January 02, 2009
Supergoddess average everyday sane psycho
So says Liz Phair. Talking about herself, as do many of her lyrics, but I'm borrowing the phrase to pay a first of the year compliment to Heather Milligan, my friend at the Legal Water Cooler. In 2008, she was transcendent.
Forget that we both have a strange fascination with Twitter, (she wrapped the year by posting about it, yet again, on the Cooler). Forget that we worked side-by-side on the Legal Marketing Association board for a couple of years. Even if I had nothing in common with Heather, I'd admire her for two things.
I got into blogging in 2004. That year, I posted five times. Pretty thin. Heather entered the blogsphere in 2008. By the 30th of December, there were 183 posts. 183! This woman has strong opinions and wonderful creativity, but the personal discipline necessary for this level of conversation is OFF THE CHARTS! I have said so to her.
Blogging is about many things for bloggers, and one of the purposes it serves for some of us is to bring our views to the notice of our own network of mentors and fellow travelers. In 2008, a number of Heather's posts were noted (like this one and this one and this one) by some of the leading bloggers and publishers in the legal space, such as the Legal Blog Watch at law.com, the ABA Journal and others.
In 2008, Heather entered the online conversation with a powerful presence and shortly was leading the conversation. These are high standards for all of us and I admire Heather's accomplishments. Happy new year, supergoddess!
Forget that we both have a strange fascination with Twitter, (she wrapped the year by posting about it, yet again, on the Cooler). Forget that we worked side-by-side on the Legal Marketing Association board for a couple of years. Even if I had nothing in common with Heather, I'd admire her for two things.
I got into blogging in 2004. That year, I posted five times. Pretty thin. Heather entered the blogsphere in 2008. By the 30th of December, there were 183 posts. 183! This woman has strong opinions and wonderful creativity, but the personal discipline necessary for this level of conversation is OFF THE CHARTS! I have said so to her.
Blogging is about many things for bloggers, and one of the purposes it serves for some of us is to bring our views to the notice of our own network of mentors and fellow travelers. In 2008, a number of Heather's posts were noted (like this one and this one and this one) by some of the leading bloggers and publishers in the legal space, such as the Legal Blog Watch at law.com, the ABA Journal and others.
In 2008, Heather entered the online conversation with a powerful presence and shortly was leading the conversation. These are high standards for all of us and I admire Heather's accomplishments. Happy new year, supergoddess!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)