I’ve just read Andrew Pugh’s excellent summary, in The Lawyer, of the recent round table discussion of the US-based Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC). In it, Pugh reports thoughts from several of the world’s most eminent general counsel, including those from companies big enough to buy up and spit out even the largest global law firms.
In summary, the essence of the dialogue was as follows: in-house budgets are likely to remain flat, technology needs to be leveraged and work standardised to further drive down costs, and that external counsel will need to offer reduced costs for non-strategic work and provide fixed-fee solutions that allow for GCs to work with flat, rather than variable, budgets.
Of particular interest was the idea that relationships don’t exist with firms so much as with the partners within them. That said, what does it mean for branding, particuarly as a business development tool?
It suggests that firms should spend less time and cash on producing a generic, catch-all brand and more resources on building brands for their key partners and practices. So it’s less about ‘What makes the firm different?’ and more about ‘How can we best promote John Smith and Real Estate?’
I’m suggesting this might lead to a new(ish) phenomenen in the industry, henceforth to be known as the patchwork brand. In this model, all the firm’s people and divisions share a common ground in terms of look, feel and possibly core values. But the propositions and channels become more specific to the individual revenue generators. Blogs, mailshots, documents, pricing models and business development techniques are entirely related to partners, carrying their imprint above and beyond that of any other marketing input.
Yes, it’s pretty much what happens in many firms across the world at the moment. But perhaps it will be increasingly recognised as the marketing strategy of choice. After all, when the GC of Coca-Cola says, “I don’t think relationships between clients and full-service firms exist anymore – it’s more about partner relationships’, then who are we not to listen?
