Over the last few weeks, I’ve heard a couple of statements like this and read far worse online comments, including one chap who suggested that using awards to attract new clients does not meet integrity standards. Wow.
I can stay silent no more! So….
Why do law firms enter awards?
· To increase the number of enquiries they receive
· To increase their conversion rate
· To help with recruitment / retention
There are other reasons, but I would say most lead back to one of these three points. An award shortlisting or a win is a ‘trust factor’ that potential clients may consider alongside so many other things including personal recommendations, reviews, general reputation and online presence.
But we don’t need any of that, we rely on word of mouth
Good for you. Often these sorts of comments come from consultants or small firms that need sub 20 new instructions a month, so you’re probably right you don’t need that. Equally if you work for a law firm that’s been around for 100+ years and is based in an area with a reasonable local population your repeat work might well be enough if you’re happy with the status quo and don’t want to grow.
That doesn’t mean that law firms who engage in proactive marketing or want to expand their business are bad firms. Why does that seem to be the immediate assumption?
You have to pay to have a chance of winning so that can’t be right
No, you must pay to enter some awards because there is a huge cost to run the event. This cost is funded by sponsorship, entry fees and ticket sales. The businesses that run awards are not charities so hey, I expect they would ideally like to make a profit too - how dare they!
Here’s some other things that you have to pay for that will also help you win more business, drumroll please…
If you want to be number one in Google for ‘conveyancing solicitors’ you’ll need to invest time and money into search engine optimisation.
Build your local brand – invest in PR and content and social media.
Develop your commercial client base – spend time getting in front of decision makers, run seminars, produce useful updates.
Maybe we just need to go back to the good old days and ban all forms of promotion?
But we know the firms that win aren’t the best
Ooooh controversial.
Let’s be absolutely clear, the judges are there to review an award submission against a set of criteria. That’s it. So the award goes to the business that is best able to demonstrate how they have met the criteria.
What I can say is that I have had firms contact me to look at entering an award, but when they have really considered the points they need to answer, they can’t.
How many of the naysayers can tell me what projects they have undertaken in the last 12 months that have made a tangible difference to either their clients, their staff or their business?
You’re biased Paul
I’m certainly biased towards firms that want to be proactive in developing their business, but I’m not touting for new business. I generally only do awards entries for firms that I work with on fixed retainers, so if I never write another award submission I’d have more time to waste on LinkedIn.
So why write this piece then?
Because, as is often the case, the negative voices are the loudest and those involved in the awards will understandably not want to engage with them nor with the firms who enter.