I used to think I wasn’t fishing for clients in the same pond as the large advertising firms.
I don’t think that anymore.
Large advertisers continue to gain market share. More and more people seem to hire them immediately after an injury. And the stigma that once existed around heavy legal advertising has largely disappeared.
Advertising has become ubiquitous. For many people, seeing a firm everywhere is interpreted as a sign that the firm must be good.
If you drew it as a Venn diagram, there are certainly people who only want a large advertising firm and others who only want a smaller boutique firm.
But I think the middle, the people who would be willing to hire either, is much larger than it ever has been.
Many people don’t hire the big advertisers because that’s all they want. They hire them because that’s all they know.
If they were presented with a credible alternative, many would seriously consider it.
The competition is changing. And I think our marketing strategies need to evolve with it.
Instead of viewing our marketing as pursuing different clients, we need to recognize we are competing for the exact same clients. We need to both become known to them, and educate them about the difference.
We can’t assume people will automatically appreciate the difference between a boutique firm and a national advertiser.
What do you think? Join the conversation with me on LinkedIn.
