TV vs. the Web for Law Firm Marketing

Steve Matthews
steve@stemlegal.com
Owner, Stem Legal Web Enterprises Inc.
steve@stemlegal.com

As you can probably guess, this is tough stuff to quantify in terms of research. That said, I do think there are some logical aspects:

• TV guarantees the focus is placed on regional audiences.
• TV is push media & interruption based, but does have the potential to reach a wider audience.
• TV is also tougher to quantify for metrics (old adage: 50% money spent on advertising is a waste, but which half?).
• Profile spikes are usually temporary.

By comparison,

• The web has smaller but more focused audience.
• Web audiences are seeking information, a solution, or conducting due diligence related to off-line marketing efforts.
• Web audiences are also willing participants, rather than being exposed to a brand via the interruption of another message.
• Profile building efforts are cumulative, creating a body of work that grows -- assets that can follow the firm for years to come.

My opinion would be to recommend balance. Online marketing often backs up traditional marketing, and the two can work well together. I would try to create a situation where you are supporting the TV spots with a custom URL website, and quantify the related traffic. Capture the referral source on the client opening form, and get a sense of where leads are currently coming from, and the number of them.

I would also say this balance should be extended to their budget. The web can originate files just as well as TV, but does require a similar commitment and investment in the infrastructure. Those hard costs, as you know, will be significantly less for the web over TV. Web brands are also much more closely aligned to the firm and its attorneys. However, the tactics often require more lawyer time to build out. ROI wise, the web will likely outperform the TV spots by a wide margin.

The single biggest selling factor in my mind is the rented space vs. building assets argument. When it comes to brand building, the web is a diet & exercise approach, while TV is much more instant gratification. Creating a balance that included both tactics would give the web some time to catch up, and a chance to make a more accurate comparison.

Evaluating purely on brand impact, the web delivers a much longer lasting effect, and a better long-term value. Obviously I'm a bit biased, but if you can wean the firm off of the TV spots even a bit, that would create the budget room to start extending their web presence.

TV advertising is a terrible way to go for a law practice. I consult with dozens of top plaintiffs’ attorneys, I am married to a top plaintiffs' attorney and none of them do any TV or Yellow Page advertising. They all have quality websites, though.

TV brings a high volume of crappy cases. The high cost of advertising and the high volume of cases make overhead go through the roof between paying for the ads and hiring staff to handle the volume of screening and working hundreds of small or marginal cases. The lawyers are always under pressure to settle cases for less than what they are worth to maintain cash flow. I've worked with insurance defense firms that have unabashedly told me that they low-ball offers on lawyers who do a lot of advertising and dig in their heels on settlements because they know they will be desperate for cash.

Websites offer a way to target your clientele at a fraction of the cost, and you can use Google and Yahoo Adwords to augment and target your market even further. Websites allow you to give the prospective client reams of material to read about you instead of trying to throw a big 30 second net over them. Websites help close the deal on referred clients who look you up on the search engines, and can enhance your reputation by allowing you to post articles, videos, and detailed information about your practice and your firm.

You're not likely to find research on this. I know this from 16 years of working with hundreds of attorneys. Most of my clients who used to do mass market advertising have switched to professional networking augmented by web based marketing with sizeable increases in lead quality and profitability, not to mention practice sanity.

There is absolutely no question about the bang you get for the buck and the quality of the leads. TV is the dregs. It is 20th century legal marketing and it wasn't much good back then.

A top notch website is the way to go.

The Web is gradually swallowing up TV, and the new "prime time" is on the Internet in a growing majority of what might be called "savvy" households that might be most interested in, and capable of affording, various forms of legal advice.

I think most TV advertising is going to become a total waste of money. On the other hand, you will find most TV channels will instead become Web channels, and people will "watch TV" on their computers. At the same time, TVs will become computers, and will mostly be used for Web surfing, not channel surfing.

So I suggest a strategy of switching a huge part of the ad budget to the Web. The Web is not a "mass" medium but a self-segmenting market, based on special interests. That is the best way to reach specific market niches of potential legal clients.

James Archer
Managing Director at Forty marketing agency
Phoenix, Arizona area

It depends on their brand and their clientele. If they're a fairly serious firm, I'd probably advise leaning toward the web, simply because TV lawyers tend to universally come across looking pretty silly.

The web is also much more measurable (you can get highly detailed analytics on responses to online campaigns), which means they can more easily refine tactics and optimize the campaign over time.

The biggest benefit of web, though, is that you can catch people when they need you. TV is the shotgun approach -- you throw it out there and hope that they remember you six months later when they need someone. With web campaigns, you can get in front of them at critical decision moments -- when they're searching for help, when they're reading about help, etc.

That said, TV may make sense for at least part of their marketing budget if they're looking for a long-term branding play. If they can get in front of people several times to build awareness, and then hit them on the web in their time of need, it can help increase conversions.

Many people still watch television in one form or another. When they see an advertisement of interest they go online and do their research instead of immediately picking up the phone to call.

My only advice is that if you decide to move dollars from traditional media to the web, do it in a gradual way. Our clients are only spending between 15 to 25 percent of their budgets online and getting around 70 percent of their responses to their advertising effort from the Internet. When they tried to spend more online and less on traditional media, lead quality went down.

I’m sure that this is different with every business category and I’m also sure that these metrics will change as time goes on, but I’ll tell you what I tell my clients: be cautious in your approach, don't jump too fast... test, test and re-test everything.

TV advertising is OK if you are a global firm. I know of commercials that do really well in Asia right now because that's what people connect with. However, in the USA, all I picture is Larry H. Parker playing in between Jerry Springer episodes -- not the best way to go. If you have a really great (non-cheesy) banner and can spend the $ on putting this on some quality sites, I know you will get more inquiries.

Which is better for your patient's health - exercise or diet? That depends. What are you trying to address - weight, cholesterol levels, joint pain, or cancer?

• They are going to have to make a decision - what work do they want more of, will the market support it, is there growth potential and will it bring them the profits they want? Because if they are advertising on local TV for their PI practice and doing a decent job of it, they will eventually become known as a (or even "the") PI firm and their business lawyers will have to overcome the "I thought you were a slip 'n fall, consumer-practice firm" objection. It's a tough sell.
• If it's the PI work they want more of and they are prepared to grow that area at the expense of the other, TV is the right choice provided they are doing a decent job of it and they can afford it. Because it's expensive, they do need to be just as 'scientific' as any other business, though, re: measuring effectiveness.

  And they do need to be saying, somehow and depending on the applicable ethical guidelines, that they do it on contingency and/or offer the first consultation free and/or will give them an honest appraisal of the case free or something, because their prospective clients are not generally sophisticated and the ads need to both make them top-of-mind and help the prospective client overcome the fear/objection that they can't afford a firm that can advertise on TV.

  Their website should be easy to find, and there should be a step-by-step what clients can expect, very clear "whom to contact" instructions, etc.

• If it's the corporate work they want more of and they have done (or hire you to do) the research (internal and external) and planning required, then "neither" or "both" might be the best answer. But they definitely shouldn't be blowing the budget on TV PI advertising. A basic (in business terms, not the lame version most firms do) marketing plan will help them make that decision. I can probably find you a sample.
  
  If they want both, they should break off one side of the firm to operate under another name. Seriously.

I'd do both Larry, and track ROI. In my work with law firms, ads in magazines that reach attorneys and ask for referrals have worked very well for PI. The attorneys help find the good cases. For business practices, I've had good luck with seminars.

If it's me that's deciding their strategy I would start to really focus online, since that's becoming the new medium. There are actually a lot of good ways to market the firm without money as well. I would use SEO/PPC a lot, since most people are searching on the internet for help. Coding their website the right way is going to be key there. For them I would think that getting their name in front of the decision makers for the industries of business they work in would be great. There are a lot of creative ways to do this as well.

Just from what you've told me, I don't personally think spending money on TV ads would be as beneficial as focusing in areas where people actually spend time to search for law firms.

TV still trumps web because "plaintiff" demographic does not yet correlate to computer sophistication and intense use (according to my clients).

Depends on who their target is. The Web reaches people with a bit higher education and a younger demographic.

TV still works well – if the budget is huge. Most of our clients have virtually dropped Yellow Page advertising and have reduced their TV advertising and are investing the savings in the Web. One of my big advertising clients (Ken Hardison of www.lawyernc.com) says that if you can’t be first or second in a TV market, you are wasting your money. Ken states that he gets an 8 to 1 ROI on Web advertising, the highest of any medium – see his video which states this – www.consultwebs.com/clientcomments.htm Other clients tell us the same. TV is being impacted by TIVO and DirectTV, however. When you ask people who have TV or TIVO if they watch ads, they almost always say, “no.”

One of our clients recently passed these comments on to us in regard to a product liability campaign the firm was running. “In a thorough review of all their signed cases, the majority of came from the Web. Despite several hundred thousand spent on TV and direct mail campaigns, the best results were from the Web. Not only did the majority of the cases come from the Web, one half of the “hottest” cases originated from his Website(s).” They let us know that they want to invest more. Our client firms that complement their TV advertising with a strong Web presence do very well. Prospective clients recognize them from the other medium and they receive more calls.

Law firms are moving their ad dollars to areas that work and those that are growing. The internet is growing and other mediums are shrinking, including TV. Additionally, firms should invest in the Internet now while it is affordable. It will be extremely expensive to create a search engine presence in 2010 and 2011.

Another point to consider is that YouTube and similar sites are growing extremely rapidly. Firms can quickly and inexpensively develop Web videos. YouTube is an excellent place to put Web video. We and our clients are having very good success with web video. TV commercials are not typically well suited for YouTube and the Web since they are typically 30 to 60 seconds and designed to generate a phone call.

Benefits of the Web over TV include:

• An investment in Web search engine optimization (SEO) continues to bear fruit whereas a TV ad campaign is over at the end of a campaign and is not available for potential clients.
• The Internet is available when a client has a need – even if they do not watch TV or are not watching when the ad runs.
• A Website can be updated instantaneously.
• Web advertising (SEO) is far less expensive than TV advertising.

The Web is better than TV because any video ad they create can be posted on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and of course, their own website and blog. Of course, this will boost their search engine rankings, making it easier for clients to find them.

For the PI practice the correct answer is both. They should be able to gauge how well the TV ads work because they are direct response. The phone will ring the day and around the time the ad runs, that has been my PI clients’ experience. The TV commercial should have a drive to web feature. An offer of a free checklist of what to do if you are in an accident can be part of the voice or message on screen. Then once they get to the web site, they should ideally be able to see a video clip of the PI attorney and give their contact info to get the checklist in the mail. Marketing is always a three legged stool. TV ads for the business practice would not be helpful and should not be included in the TV ads for the PI practice. The TV ads should be single focus. The client should be tracking how their clients come to them and they will know if the ads work. One valid PI case pays for a week of TV ads.

It depends, what kind of cases, in terms of value, are they seeking? The lower the value/higher the volume the more you have a case for TV. Of course, they’ll say they want it all, but they can’t have it any more than a volume insurance defense shop can have a high-end commercial practice. You also have to look at budgeting. There are threshold levels for both media, and they are dependent on market size.