Last month, we ran Part I of a roundtable discussion featuring marketing experts gathered in the offices of Mayer Brown & Platt in Chicago to talk about how branding can help law firms differentiate themselves.

In Part II, the discussion turns to how to go about developing a strategy for transforming your firm's name into the professional services equivalent of Coca-Cola or Tide. Well, maybe that's a little overly ambitious. But for inspiration, the next time you're in Manhattan, check out Ernst & Young's bold attempt at becoming a household name.

The accounting firm's new office tower at 5 Times Square gets into the spirit of the area's eye-catching signage by putting its name in neon up and down a sloping fin on the building's Seventh Avenue side. Would that Skadden Arps, located across the street, or Proskauer Rose, situated a few blocks up, were as daring. But if the zeal for branding exhibited by our roundtable participants is any indication, it's only a matter of time.

Roundtable Participants

• Felice Wagner, CEO, Sugarcrest Development Group, Washington, D.C.
• Larry Smith, director of business development, Levick Strategic Communications, Washington, D.C.
• Elizabeth Lampert, executive vice president, Levick Strategic Communications, Washington, D.C.
• Norm Rubenstein, chief marketing officer, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, New York.
• Burkey Belser, president and creative director, Greenfield Belser, Washington, D.C.
• Barbara Sessions, partner and director of business development, Winston & Strawn, Chicago.
• Jonathan Asperger, marketing director, Mayer Brown & Platt, Chicago.
• Karen Braun, director of client service, Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago.
• Michelle Hoffman, marketing and business development consultant, Washington, D.C.
• Diane Hamlin, strategic officer, Fenwick & West, Palo Alto.

DIANE HAMLIN: I would disband the committee. That would be the first thing I would do.

BURKEY BELSER: I run the opposite direction. I want as large a committee possible. I want to get buy-in and I want to educate. I want to create apostles for the project. And I must create apostles to walk the halls because I can't walk the halls. The great thing about working with lawyers is they are smart and quick studies. If you explain your goals in an understandable way, they process themselves.

JONATHAN ASPERGER: There is a but. In our scenario, the partners are willing to delegate full authority to a branding committee. But they will also want to delegate responsibility and blame. Don't go there. You don't want to market for your partners; you want to market through your partners. And you want everybody on board because they're going to make it happen. Don't institutionalize marketing -- what I refer to as "make my phone ring marketing" -- so they can sit back and do nothing and wait for the clients to come to them. It's their responsibility.

SMITH: But you still have this committee and it still has a very interactive and a very vital relationship with the rest of the firm.

MICHELLE HOFFMAN: I also think the emphasis should be on the rest of the firm. Whether its Norm [Rubenstein]'s idea of a branding fair or whatever, the challenge is getting the entire firm, not just a few key partners but everyone, to understand who we are and how we're going to represent that as a brand, and that we do this because our clients want you to behave like a business; they want you to behave like them, and this is what corporate America does. This is why branding works for them and this is why we think it will work for us.

SMITH: Karen [Braun], you mentioned that Kirkland [see Part I] has no managing partner, but a lot of very impressive partners. So, you have got these powerhouses floating around the joint: If you want to run an ad or put on a seminar, how do you do it?

KAREN BRAUN: We go through a committee process because we need to always build consensus, which I think is the strength of the firm, but can also be a disadvantage. Norm and Diane have really been able to move quickly, and you're seeing the results. I have been at the firm seven years and we have done things that have been very successful but our pace is much slower. The positive about that is that everything we do is long lasting.

We will never be the first one to take an advertisement, or open an office in Europe or Silicon Valley. But when we do, we will so in a methodical manner. Our partners firmly believe in research. If I have an idea, I need to say here is what the research is. We survey our clients so I am able to say, "Here is what people are saying, here is what the competition is doing and here is the plan that we would like to implement over the next year.

Of course, there are different levels of approval necessary. If I want to do a seminar, I can approve that. If I want to put an extranet together for a particular client, I can approve that. But when it comes to something that's going to affect the firm institutionally, such as a branding or public relations campaign, we would have to involve top management.

BRAUN: Norm, I never knew of Orrick until you got there. What happens if you were to leave, or if the managing partner were to change? Will the whole campaign that you have developed just disintegrate like I have seen happen at Howrey Simon?

ASPERGER: By not staying the course, a firm's credibility is called into question...

BRAUN: It's kind of the Arthur Andersen thing. Arthur Andersen does a nice job in positioning and branding and I see a difference between them and Pricewaterhouse-Coopers, but they're spending $200 million a year on advertising and branding marketing. I have told my partners this. If we're going to do something, we need to make a commitment to it and that it's going to have to be something that we are doing for the next 10 or 20 years.

'Brand Stewardship'

BURKEY BELSER: Once the brand identity is set up, the next step is what we call "Branding 2.0" or "brand stewardship." Once the brand identity is in place, the job of the managing partner, like that of any CEO, is to be the steward of that brand. When you become a CEO, brand stewardship almost becomes a mystical part of your responsibility that's not on your job sheet, because you can kill a brand and we have seen [a brand] killed. A brand is not just a logo on a washing machine or a cell phone; it's something else that we all have difficulties getting our arms around because it's so abstract. It's a relationship between a law firm and the marketplace based on the firm's promise of value.

HAMLIN: To digress for a moment, I can't overstate the importance of continuity of leadership. We know our managing partner is going to be stepping down in the next two to three years, so I have spent a lot of time with every person who I think will be his heir. Similarly, in my own department, it's my responsibility to make sure there is someone who is ready to carry the flag when the time comes. Marketing isn't just how you do while you're there, but how your successor did after you left.

NORM RUBENSTEIN: And in response to an earlier question, when looking at the scenario you posed, a key issue is who besides the branding committee should bear responsibility for this endeavor -- a CMO-level marketer who understands branding and the tools by which it is accomplished, or a committee of lawyers who appreciate the value but lack substantive training in the field?

There are advantages to the former when it comes to determining the external resources you are going to use. I worked with Burkey for double-digit years in a variety of different firms, so I knew whom I would like to work with; our leadership team instantly chose him, in a competitive process, above any other service provider.

ELIZABETH LAMPERT: Did you put an RFP (request for proposal) together and bring in a number of different people?

RUBENSTEIN: Yes. We looked at major branding organizations because we had a very strong commitment in the firm to utilize the very best resources. So part of the issue at stake in this scenario you're developing is how is the firm structured to engage in this process. Given the nature of the firm in your scenario and the seriousness of the branding initiative, you're going to require significant internal capability and a lot external consulting and other resources.

Determining the Elements

SMITH: In other words, there has to be someone with enough market wisdom to be able to mediate between the partnership and the outside world. Which leads to the question how does one determine what the elements of a branding campaign should be and how much the campaign is going to cost?

BELSER: Piece of cake. You're talking an internal communications plan ranging from e-mails to newsletters to briefings. But the communications must be crisp. (We're doing battle with the button every day.) Meanwhile, your external marketing plan must include the development of an identity and a collateral system such as brochures with practice area descriptions, biographies and the like -- the hard-core stuff you need in any branding campaign.

You also need a web site. Most lawyers completely underestimate the value of their web site. In addition, in most cases if you want to power the brand into the market like a Porsche, you need advertising. That's one reason why you know of Orrick and everything it stands for. Some sort of periodic communication is required that sustains the initial blitz.

FELICE WAGNER: You can't forget about the importance of sales training as it relates to the firm's ability to deliver on the brand. As they network, develop new business and serve clients, lawyers breathe life into the brand.

BELSER: Absolutely: sales training. I totally believe in the sales component and training component. And, of course, public relations has got to be a huge part.

ASPERGER: And while all these things can help position the partner to go out and make that sales call, I would say the most effective way to communicate your message is through the partner, one on one with a prospect, in a highly interactive, responsive manner. My concern with some of these marketing initiatives is that many partners may retreat from what they need to do if they think that's taken care of with the collateral materials.

BARBARA SESSIONS: There is another audience we're talking about: lateral hires and recruits. It's not directly the GCs. In that situation, for instance, the Vault Report's out and you are where you are on that report without anyone there so much as conducting a one-on-one interview with anyone at your firm. A branding effort is even more important for that market.

WAGNER: Are you suggesting that with respect to the quality of branding, there should be one track for clients and another for your recruits? Shouldn't it be a consistent message? You know who you are, period? That's a challenge for law firms because these two divisions aren't always talking to each other.

RUBENSTEIN: The advertising that's directed to our recruiting audience is of a piece with the advertising that we use for client purposes. It may differ in image or tone, but I would recognize it as Orrick advertising across the board.

BRAUN: That's how we do it, too.

Dragging Your (Web) Feet

SMITH: The issue of web sites continues to astound me. A lot of law firms are still antediluvian on the subject. If it weren't a buyer's market for first-year hires, these firms would be in trouble because today's graduates go right to the firm's web site. What are the prevailing standards with respect to web sites and similar types of marketing tools?

RUBENSTEIN: I spent a lot of time on this issue [last] year because we are about to unveil a next-generation web site. The challenge that we put to ourselves: If most law firm web sites are flat-file brochures or slightly elaborated organization charts, how could I flip that lens so that a client could come to our site and instantly find what it needed, by way of information and access, in a manner that would make its experience meaningful and encourage it to return.

The site reflects all the elements of our branding campaign because I strongly believe in consistency in the use of branding tools. When visitors arrive, their options are instantly available from the initial screen: They can go directly to those parts of the site that we know all clients or prospects tend to visit, like lawyer biographies, practice descriptions or information.

Or, using a sophisticated menu, they can go to a list of industries and the site will help them find the information that's most relevant to them. In the process, they can designate it as their home page so when they return, they can go right to the value-added material that draws them there. That's what you're going to see more law firms coming to recognize: that it's not about us; it's about the client. They will return if you have a client-focused site.

ASPERGER: We have about 17 different web sites. We feel that people come to us for international arbitration or for appellate work or securitization and we don't want them to have to slog through a bunch of general stuff to get there, so they can go directly to those sites through a URL like "securitization.net."

You can find substantive information on over 100 companies that are active in the securitization industry, and links to those companies. It's a community feel. It's a clearinghouse for information. It's a valuable resource in and of itself rather than simply a promotional resource that talks about the firm. We haven't achieved that with all our sites, but that's what we aspire to.

HOFFMAN: I think you will see more web site developers saying, "We are no longer designing the site for you as our client, but as your clients' client."

SMITH: So it won't even require that law firms be thoughtful and reflective; their vendors will do the thinking and reflecting for them.

BELSER: However, it does have to get out of the IT management and over in marketing.

E Unum Pluribus

SMITH: One of the things that fascinated us about Mayer Brown's approach is it takes us back from the tactical toward the strategic because they've got 17 different web sites, which are essentially 17 different brands. Let's talk about the relationship between branding a firm and branding individual practice groups. Is it a different process or the same? Do they work against each other or can they be complementary?

BRAUN: It's a real issue. You're different camps and even if you decide to test the water with the litigation or IP group, it can provoke questions from other practice groups such as, "Why are they getting the money and not us?" or "Why are you focusing on them?" It can be very divisive.

ASPERGER: What else is new? Every day somebody gets preferential treatment, usually because they have a stronger practice that's making more money.

WAGNER: Or because the firm has a strategic plan.

ASPERGER: Nobody is interested, other than maybe a recruit, in a global law firm with seamless practice. What they're interested in is: Do you have a strong presence in government relations in Chicago, Springfield[, Ill.] or Washington D.C., because that's what we need.

BELSER: That's not true.

ASPERGER: What I'm saying is, once they know you or have started working with you, the fact you can provide all of that could be a great benefit. But when they try you for the first time, they are usually looking for you to handle internal arbitration in a oil-and-gas matter, for example. So we like to market our firm in a niche manner; here's what we have that pertains to your specific needs.

BELSER: I'm not disagreeing that the entry point for most people is matter specific. Our own research shows this is so 85 percent of the time the phone rings. But we're talking about branding a firm vs. branding individual practice areas. I will keep beating this horse: A brand is not necessarily practice-area driven.

BRAUN: But I see Orrick's brand being defined by area. For example, the "O" is a burning hoop for litigation, a lifesaver for IP. I am seeing a brand definition by practice group. Tell me what you see.

BELSER: An application of brand.

ASPERGER: If you divide a law firm into, say, 60 practice areas and then slice and dice that into 100 practice areas and then further subdivide it into 350 partners, you're talking many different facets -- and one of the dangers of using branding as a shortcut to communicate all that is that you downplay the fact that selling legal services is a time-consuming, one-on-one process.

BELSER: Branding is not inconsistent with one-on-one sales. You can sell and market.

WAGNER: Johnson & Johnson's response to the Tylenol scare is a perfect example of the importance of an overarching brand. Johnson & Johnson understood who they were, what they were: They were about safety. There was no question that they were going to take everything off the shelves, even if it meant losing billions of dollars. Their mantra of safety applied to every single one of their products. Similarly, whatever Winston & Strawn or Orrick's overarching firm mantra (read: brand) is, it must be part of any practice group brand.

RUBENSTEIN: Our firm brand was strongly driven by our corporate identity. I don't have the luxury of marketing to a particular industry or marketing a practice, because we have a fairly diversified practice mix that we have to market equally across dozens of industries. What I really wanted to communicate through the look and feel of our advertising are the personality of the firm and a sense of modernity.

BELSER: Contemporary corporate business firm.

RUBENSTEIN: A firm that could apply all the lessons of the traditional economy to the next economies. A sense of our firm as an energetic, with-it, savvy bunch of business professionals.

BELSER: And by tying everything to that "O," we tried to communicate consistent quality of service delivery across different practice areas.

BRAUN: Your name recognition has certainly shot up.

BELSER: Name recognition was definitely an issue for Orrick. Shortening it from Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe was smart. Meanwhile, the O was an unusual enough letter form to allow you to grab it; it harks far back enough in the world's culture to be infinitely useful and extended.

SMITH: I know Mayer Brown as well as I know Orrick, or at least I know their names. I know they're big law firms. I know some of the basics. Do I have any sense of greater comfort in calling the latter because of the work that Norm and Burkey and, hopefully, Levick have done?

ASPERGER: We love to get a good reputation and have people say you can't go wrong with Mayer Brown & Platt if you're in Chicago. And we hope to extend that worldwide. However, if a person is looking for a referral, he will go to a well-thought-of referral source. They don't need a branding campaign; they need a referral from someone who is a real player in their industry and whom they trust.

RUBENSTEIN: I disagree.

SMITH: But it's a point well taken. What Jon is suggesting is that the warm and fuzzy feeling that consumers of legal services may get from a branding campaign can never be warmer and fuzzier then when somebody they know and respect says, "Don't worry, call them."

RUBENSTEIN: Here's what gets lost when you view branding and selling as diametrically opposed: If a referral source enthusiastically endorses a firm you don't know, you're putting a lot of eggs in one basket for what could be a high-stakes matter. If, on the other hand, the referral source strongly endorses a brand name (for which nobody ever got fired for hiring, you think), then it's an easier buying decision.

We're expecting that the people Orrick serves will endorse us, but we also want to get on short lists without having people say they never heard of us. The branding campaign helps elevate the profile of the firm, which then works in tandem with the value of the referral.

ASPERGER: It's a stretch to think that an individual in a company is going to get that positive about your firm on the basis of an ad, a logo or combination of colors. I would put branding low on the scale of important criteria, and hence, given limited marketing resources, it would not be my priority.

RUBENSTEIN: No one said the impression of the firm comes exclusively from branding; just that it contributes as so many other things including marketplace reputation and referral sources, to overall success.

ASPERGER: Take the Big Five accounting firms. They all spend $100 million or more on advertising and while it's an effective way to distinguish the Big Five from the rest, I don't think it's a good use of their dollars because what differentiates them from each other is too complicated a message for that type of a medium.

SESSIONS: I think you have to support your selling efforts behind with an overall branding message, an overall umbrella that you use to sustain the reputation you have, to reinforce position in your marketplace. The general counsel who already has you as his regular counsel...

BELSER: And who is working with 66 other law firms at the same time...

SESSIONS: ...reads Forbes magazine and in it they see an ad for Mayer Brown & Platt and it reinforces that the firm is a player and that's why he chose you. In that case, the goal is not to sell Mayer Brown & Platt; it's to reinforce a position the firm already has.

ASPERGER: We look for public relations to do that because we think it's more credible.

WAGNER: I think the point Barbara is making is that it's all of these things that make up a brand.

RUBENSTEIN: As always in these discussions, we've ended up talking disproportionately about advertising and have given short shrift to media relations and all the other aspects of a branding campaign. But the reality is that advertising is only one element of a much more comprehensive identity.

The Future of Branding

SMITH: In wrapping up, would each of you predict what is going to happen in terms of the spread of this gospel? Feel free to cite a firm other than your own, if you think someone has moved excitingly in this direction.

RUBENSTEIN: I think you will see considerably more branding activity among law firms, but, more important, you will see law firms doing it better. Firms will learn more about how to invest wisely, what tools have to be used in tandem with one another to achieve desired results, and the importance of being very focused and strategic about one's branding objectives.

For me, there were few role models of law firms that had branded effectively, but within the professional services community, I was very influenced by the Deloitte and Touche's "The Answer Is" campaign, which continues to resonate with me, whether in print or diorama form. It is the one Big Five ad where I can match the campaign to the service provider. I think they coupled media relations, advertising and a wide range of other tools in a way that made that brand extremely effective.

BELSER: First, I want to emphasize that there is no discontinuity between sales and branding. To the contrary, branding reinforces sales. The biggest challenge to branding is firm's lack of understanding of the complexity of branding. Too often, they have retreated into an easy and misguided position as they try to brand their firms.

SESSIONS: The difficulty is not going to be coming up with a promise of value and having it even rise to the level of personality, but forging a distinctive identity without seeming gimmicky. I think the answer is getting the buy-in, doing the introspection and then following your own true, genuine personality.

It is also important to work in an environment where you have supporters who can give your campaign credibility, focus and longevity.

ASPERGER: While there is a place for branding as a way to make it easier for the buyer to make a buying decision, I think it has a relatively minor role compared with one-on-one marketing and that a better way to reinforce a buying decision is the referral. And while the referral can be enhanced through a background of branding, which can add a luster of professionalism and raise awareness of a firm, I still think the referral accounts for 95 percent and the brand 5 percent of the buying process.

WAGNER: Many more firms will jump on the branding bandwagon. I also perceive a number of consultants becoming branding experts overnight and turning their whole practice into that. While I will not be one of those people, there's definitely a need because the firms that have developed effective branding campaigns are few and far between.

I fear that too many firms will spend too much time deciding on logos, taglines and the various branding vehicles, and not enough time focusing on the discovery of who they are and who they want to be. It is my hope that advertising, web sites, public relations, lawyer training, etc., will be increasingly shaped around client needs as opposed to the perceptions or assumptions of firm leadership.

BRAUN: Just as the recession is weeding out a lot of those in the dot-com field who can't show results, the same is going to be true with respect to those spreading the gospel of branding: They're really going to have to make sure that the results are there. With that said, I think firms will need to continue to brand in order to survive the coming shakeup. On the other hand, a lot of firms will just pull the plug and say, "Branding is passé." Like what happened to the concept of total quality management.

SMITH: Branding will be a part of the law firm market proportional to how the buyer perceives that it's delivering value to them. As Burkey is fond of saying, if it gives a meaningful foretaste of what it's like to deal with the firm; if it delivers a credible promise -- "1,000 lawyers," "No wait" -- whatever the promise is, branding will continue to be a part of the picture.

HOFFMAN: I think we will see the continuation of attempts, but to some degree the profession may be more at risk because of these built-in changes of personnel, whether it's chief marketing officers or managing partners. That makes consistency more of a challenge. I hope that more firms are able to build on the legacy and give themselves more time to see a campaign to fruition. I also think we will see web technologies working to deepen and personalize the lawyer-client relationship.

HAMLIN: I think branding is here to stay and I rejoice that it is. It's a powerful part of what we do. In the short term, especially in the recession, we are going to see some shortsighted firms backing off of branding. We can add those to the list of firms that are not going to come through this recession particularly well.

I also think that technology as a driver of our world of business is here to stay and we need to embrace it, and it's going to change the nature of what we're branding even more deeply.

I have a friend in the venture capital community who keeps referring to lawyers as the smartest dinosaurs. The idea that all we have to sell is the billable hour is a scary, archaic concept and the lawyers who survive and thrive will have to re-examine the nature of the services they provide with an emphasis on partnering.