Once again, I’m going to reference an Her article fairly points out many of the pros and cons of working with a network, also sometimes called a "consortium." I think we should use the term "consortium" since it’s longer, sounds like Latin and will confuse the clients. Examples of such consortia (ooh! another good point! the plural is irregular!) include Lex Mundi, Meritas, International Lawyers Network and TAGLaw. Based on the patented "Andy Havens’ Cabalistic Scale of Legal Marketing Jargon," Lex Mundi would have to be the best of the consortia, as their name either means "World Law" or "Superman’s Arch Enemy is Staying for the Weekend."
But enough of my witless banter. The question before the committee is as follows: from a legal marketing perspective, are legal networks (consortia) worth the money?
Answer:
You’re asking the wrong dang question. Or, to be more precise, you’re not questing deeply enough. You’re not getting to the "root why" of networking. Let’s see if we can journey to the center of this nut together.
Why do we network?
That’s a good, root question. Why do we network? Not in the cool, Latin, hipster, "consortium" sense of the word, but in the more generic, "This event should be a good place to network," kind of way. And let’s forget all the social aspects and stick to marketing and business development. Although learning to dance the cha-cha is as good a reason as any to join a consortium. Don’t titter; I cut a mean rug.
As far as I can figure it, we network for the following reasons:
- To increase our access to possible clients. I hope this is obvious. Doing the work of making it happen smoothly and efficiently is the subject of countless sales and BizDev books. Go read some. We won’t get into it at this point.
- To increase possible vendors access to us . The flip side of #1. If you’re only and always on the make, you won’t catch much. You have to bait the hook people.
- To increase our circle of influence. Not everyone you meet will either be a buyer of your service or a seller of something to you. Some will, however, be people that you need to know to get things done. Being someone who knows the people who can get things done will, over time, get you more sales.
- To increase our visibility. Even if you don’t make a sale, if you’re "out and about," people assume you’re busy. Busy is good. You stay in people’s minds. Being "seen" is sometimes all it takes to get on the list for an RFP. Don’t believe me? Look up the term "frequency" in any advertising text book. It’s the single most valuable aspect of media.
- To increase our knowledge. People know stuff. Go figure. When you get out and talk to them, they tell you about it. In many cases, people save the best stuff for personal, face-to-face meetings. This is especially true in the legal profession (like you needed some punk, marketing wanker to tell you that).
- To allow us to make 3rd party introductions. Sometimes the best way to increase your personal mojo is not to network with Mr. Jones and then Mr. Smith… but to introduce Mr. Jones TO Mr. Smith. Helping other people make significant connections, being the matchmaker, is a huge plus in the networking game.
Let’s add it all up
So. If these are all the reasons we network, how many of them are available through a paid referral consortium?
I’m going to stick my neck out here and say, "It depends…"
Obviously, #1 and #2 are covered. That’s what you’re paying for. Right? For the "right" to have other lawyers and firms refer business your way from other cities. Although, Jones’ article makes it clear that even this bread-and-butter aspect of consortia may not be quite as cut-and-dried for every type of law practice.
What about #3? Does it increase your circle of influence? I would argue "No." And I would argue it strongly. In fact, I would say that if your firm has solid cred, joining a consortium increases the circle of influence of the consortium. You are, in effect, paying to network for them. I do understand that some of these networks are by invitation only, and have certain requirements, etc. But (in my humble and entirely personal opinion) that’s like paying somebody to pick out your friends for you. And, from a liability standpoint, let’s be very clear that I’m not singling out any particular consortium, but just speaking in vague hypotheticals. And, in case any of them were thinking of hiring me as a consultant, I’m CLEARLY speaking only of their competitors.
Seriously, though… you may accomplish some of the same goals, but, in the back of everyone’s mind, you’re only tied together by the bond of being tied together by the bond. You didn’t meet at a club or an event or college or a Bar Association whoozamajigger. There’s no context. I ‘m going to have to give #3 a major thumbs-down.
#4. Visibility. Also a thumbs-down. You are no more visible than anyone else in the network. You’ve paid for the same level of visibility as every other member.
#5. Knowledge. I just don’t know. It doesn’t seem like it’s the point of these networks, but they may also have events where this happens. It seems like the goals are more economic, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and make this a half-and-half.
#6. 3rd party intros. Definitely a no-way. You ain’t gonna introduce nobody into the network who hasn’t paid. That would be flat out dumb.
The final score?
Do it yourself networking: 6 points. Consortia: 2.5
My verdict: this is another one of the many cases in which attorneys and law firms are trying to buy their way around the simple truth that good marketing takes time, effort and attention. Not just money. You may get some referrals out of a paid subscription to a legal consortium, but, for my money, you’re losing all the other benefits of real-life networking.
——————————————————————————————————————
[Note: I am completely aware that all the images used in this blog post are barely relevant, marginally appropriate, cheesy clip-art graphics. I am purposefully using them in the context of this particular article to make a point: when you utilize a commerically available product in order to try to make a connection to your audience, you may be unintentionally communicating the point that you are unable to do so in a personal way and/or under your own steam. Take away from this metaphor whatever you'd like.]
Stumble it!