Broadcasting Tactics to Generate Enquiries
post # 12 — February 3, 2006 — a Client Relations post
Beverly Hedrick, Director of Business Development at the Waller law firm in Nashville, TN writes to ask:
I am wondering if the tactics listed below, and their order, which you published in 1993 in Managing the Professional Service Firm, are still correct in your view. If not, what has changed?
Proven Business Development Tactics for Professional Service Firms (In approximate descending order of effectiveness)
Proprietary Research for the client
Attendance at client industry meetings
I said in my blog philosophy that I wasn’t going to blog about old topics that I’d already written about, but in this case I’ll make an exception, Beverly, because it’s cleverly phrased by you, asking for an update.
Before I give you a direct answer, remember that my 1993 book (and the recent videos and podcasts on this site) remind you that this list of BROADCASTING tactics (generating enquiries from people you don’t know)is only done long after you do other, more effective business development: achieve such a high level of client service that you are getting your new clients by existing clients telling their friends about you, and investing nonbillable time in your key existing relationships to turn them from a series of transaction into a dependable romance.
In other words (and I’m serious) you really shouldn’t have to do too much of what’s on this list at all, because it’s low ROI compared to other ways of winning business. (Read the books, watch the videos or listen to the podcasts if that’s not yet evident to you from real life.)
However, if you do have some left over to do pure broadcasting (the items on the list) it would still be my experience that the ROI is as shown, with one obvious exception – the implications of the internet.
The top 4 items (research, seminars, articles, speeches) are all at the top because they are attempts to demonstrate not assert – put some substantive evidence out there that allows me as a client to judge whether you have fresh content or are just making claims about your expertise.
My eternal rule, Beverly, is simple. All you have to ask if you want the answer to any business development question is to ask – what would work on me? So, look at the list and consider. If you or your firm were trying to hire an accountant, a plumber, a nanny for your kids, a management consultant like me – assuming that we don’t have an existing relationship, which of these tactics would most affect YOUR buying behavior and make YOU want to follow up? A press release you read in the newspaper? Someone you met at a church social? Someone who cold-called you? You figure it out for your part of the world. But face up to the fact that clients, by and large, are influence by the same thing that influences you in your purchases of professional services.
Which leaves us just one BIG topic to address, whether or not the net has changed things. Personally I think it’s changed our ability to do the SAME list better, but still in the same order.
The most effective (for marketing purposes) websites and blogs are not those with great graphics, but those that offer fresh content, in absorbable fashion eliciting the reaction (as research, speeches, article, seminars were suppose to do in the old days) – wow, I’d never thought of it that way, I’d like to talk with that person some more. (See my article Marketing is a Conversation)
The net allows increased effectiveness in make these old-style vehicles entice people to want to contact you, but the underlying approach hasn’t changed.
Maybe, just maybe, there’s a need to emphasize number 5 on my list a bit more (attending client meetings) since if you end up (as I do) doing a high percentage of your seminars, speeches and articles on-line, (webinars, etc.) you’ll be leaving out the flesh-to-flesh, face-to-face meeting people that you did with speeches and seminars in the old days. That’s a problem that needs to be corrected, and you do that by going to client industry conferences (which was always high on the list.)
So, Beverly, I think the logic, the real world evidence and the conclusions are still the same all these years later. (Which doesn’t mean that many firms continue to rush to do activities with lower ROI than those with higher ROI). Go back to the original book for a discussion of why that – still – happens.
Any dissenting opinions out there?