My last post posed the question, "Are you giving away too much or not enough?" Only one reader commented on the blog, although I have been having some rather lively conversations via email over the past few days as a result of the post. As I anticipated, the idea of lawyers giving away information provokes an almost visceral reaction in some.
As I have advised some of my readers via email, the purpose of my post was to provoke thought and re-evaluation of lawyers' business practices and long-held beliefs about the value they provide to clients and how they deliver their services.
Whether you decide to give away information or advice for free is a personal decision. There is no model or method that can be followed by every lawyer, all of the time. A lot depends upon what kind of information that you are giving away, to whom, and when. There is also a big difference between giving away general knowledge and giving away specific information tailored to a particular client or situation (which is the point that I believe the commenter, John, was making on my previous post).
If you are a regular reader of my work you know that I advocate that lawyers charge for the value of the work that they do and of the services they provide.And you'll know that I think too often lawyers do undersell themselves, in part because they don't recognize the real value they bring to the engagement and in part because they don't do a good job of communicating that value to their clients or potential clients.
I don’t happen to believe that information, by itself, is the greatest value a lawyer provides, and as such, giving information away is not always detrimental - quite the opposite. As I said in my previous post, there’s a difference between having information and knowing what is relevant to a particular situation and how to apply the information.
My experience and the experience of the lawyers I’ve worked with, studied and talked to over the years has demonstrated positive results and improvements in both client acquisition and client loyalty as a result of even subtle changes in what they charge for and what they 'give away' for free. These are real, not hypothetical, results, even though they may not be easily duplicated or applied.
Of course, there will always be clients – or potential clients who never become paying clients – who will take the information and try to do the work on their own. But I don’t necessarily consider that a loss, since those people clearly don’t see the real value of using a lawyer in the first place. Those kinds of clients are usually the ones who don’t value the lawyer’s advice, are uncooperative, time-sucking clients who view lawyers as commodities (hence the idea that they can take the information and do it themselves), are overly price conscious and generally cost the lawyer more than they pay anyway.
Yes, overall demand may fall – in fact, it is falling anyway because the availability, speed and easy accessibility of information to the general public has increased dramatically with the internet.The kinds of services, once considered 'legal services,' that do not actually require a lawyer or legal degree or a certain personal touch are already increasingly being considered commodities, regardless of whether lawyers continue to try to get paid for that work or information. But demand for the real value that lawyers provide will not fall.
All of that being said, as one of my readers pointed out, "faking it is not making it." There are good ways and bad ways to give for free. An example of a bad way is giving ‘canned’ or valueless content.
In order for 'free' to work as a strategy, you have to give away something that has value for your audience. Otherwise, it is counterproductive. But as I said before, for the most part, what you would be giving away is not what you ‘should’ be selling, because what you should be selling is the specific advice given to a specific client in a specific situation.
There is an exception to the above (hence the caveat, “for the most part”). There are situations in which it does make sense to give away what you could sell, particularly to an existing or former client. Again, there are good and bad ways to do that. It is most effective when the client has already seen and experienced value from you. There must be a level of trust already established so that client doesn't de-value your services or think there is a hidden cost.
This post, like the last one, is not meant to be a step by step system for implementing 'free' in your firm. There is no one 'best practice' that can apply to every firm, every client or every situation. A good example is the fee consultation. It works very well for some lawyers if there is a strategic purpose behind it and the lawyer creates boundaries around that consultation. In other situations, for other lawyers, it de-values the lawyer's services or wastes time. Charging for the consultation - requiring the client to have some 'skin in the game' - can be a demonstration of commitment on the part of the client.
In order to make sense, any 'free' strategy should engender client loyalty, move the sales process along, and/or convince an existing client to purchase additional services or refer business. None of that will work if the give-away doesn’t have some value.
No one strategy works for everyone. But it makes sense to consider what you are giving for free (whether you realize it or not) and why. If you have never given anything for free - including to existing clients - it may be time to reconsider.