ANYTHING YOU CAN DO I CAN DO BETTER
Are Accountants Or Lawyers The Better Marketers? Does one size fit all?
It’s not a race, nor are there prizes for the winner. But it has been suggested that the lawyers are light years ahead of the accounting profession in marketing.
It’s nonsense, of course. Is one profession indeed better at marketing than the other? Well, no. Each profession is different, and to try to make the comparison would be an apples and oranges game. But silly as the idea may be, it opens a vast and intriguing question. Are there significant differences between the professions that affect marketing? Indeed there are.
The differences, obviously, derive from the unique professional skills and services offered by each profession, by the different issues and needs of the clientele, and by the way each service is performed. Within each profession, there are differences in specialties, in firm size, in firm philosophies, and in the different target markets served by different firms in the same profession. Many of the differences are subtle, many are profound. But differences there are, and they seriously affect the thrust of a sound marketing program. Moreover, as veteran consultant Terry Lloyd, a CPA and financial analyst, points out, “Even though the lines continue to blur between the services, there are still differences in the way CPAs and lawyers are perceived.”
Do the differences really matter? Well, yes. While the professional services marketing tools are the same for both professions, the application of each of the tools in each of the professions, is different. And certainly not in the same way in each profession, nor even for any two firms in the same profession, These differences may be subtle, but they had best be observed if marketing programs are to be successful.
As competition becomes more intense, the distinctive nature of each firm in each profession, small and incremental though they may be, should be examined. In competing, every little advantage counts.
Generalizations, such as the marketing superiority of one firm over another, not only belie reality, they mask those particulars that matter. Marcus’s Third Law is that the broader the generalization, the greater the disparity in details. And generalities don’t solve problems -- particularly marketing problems. Understanding the details do address problems usefully.
Seeing the murkiness of the generalization that one profession markets better than the other, or even that the same marketing techniques worked in the same way for all professions, we asked a number of leading marketers and consultants for their views. The proposition generally struck them as ludicrous. But in a fascinating twist, triggered by a notion that seemed simple and obvious, many of those discussing the idea came up with different views of the same conclusion. Their answers provide some valuable insights. Internationally renowned consultant David Maister (www.davidmaister.com) , says “Personally I find the proposition a surprise - I don't find the law firms ahead in anything at all and have no idea where the hypothesis comes from. It would be an exercise in futility to try to explain a fact that was incorrect.”
While the differences in the professions rarely reside in old bromides about the differences in personalities, Kenneth Wright, the former head of marketing for Ernst & Young, notes an interesting exception. He says “Seems to me that the Tax Lawyers/CPA's are very similar (they believe that clients should come to them for their good work) versus the Litigators/CPA Consultants (who realize that they have to go get clients and show them how good they are). The first group really doesn't want to market at all - it is beneath them - and the second group doesn't need professional marketers because they know how to market better anyway.”
At the same time, Richard Levick, of Levick Strategic Communications, LLC (www.levick.com) , believes that, “There are simply too many variables, and too many anecdotes pointing in all directions, to support any conclusion about one profession being more adept at marketing or intrinsically more marketing-oriented. However, a few likely truths emerge when we compare the professions.
“No law firm can touch the Big Four’s marketing and, in fact, it was fear of the Multi-Discipline Practice [in which aspects of the law are practiced by accounting firms, and vice versa] that powered some of the best marketing we’ve seen from law firms in the last decade. Now that the MDPs have been sideswiped, it will be interesting to see if law firms relapse into marketing insensibility. I doubt any kind of study can determine that, but it’s something to bear in mind when we observe marketing among the AmLaw 200.
On the other hand, says Levick, “That said, the state of marketing among midsize and small accounting firms is dismal compared to law firms. That has a lot to do with their getting trapped in their own numbers games. Unlike the Big Four, their services are not so diversified or sexy. The nature of their own businesses discourages them from thinking they even have a right to be creative about marketing. Also, to be frank, their margins are usually too low to encourage investment in business development. Lawyers don’t have that problem as much, so they’re less disinclined to at least think about marketing venues where they can stick their money.”
Looking at the question from a different point of view, Patrick McKenna, of the prestigious consulting firm Edge International, (www.edge.ai) said, “If you're trying to determine which of the two professions (lawyers or accountants) are the more advanced in their marketing prowess, I'm sorry but I think the very question is ludicrous. Be it accountant, consultants, architects or lawyers, it really doesn't matter. My experience confirms for me that when you think of marketing prowess you can divide any of the individuals or firms, in any of those professions (not by profession but by mindset) . . . into three categories: hawks, doves and ostriches.”
Silvia Coulter, head of the Legal Sales And Service Organization, (www.legalsales.org) and a pioneer in selling legal services, agrees with McKenna. “That having been said, if you seek an answer on one side or the other with the assumption of Patrick’s response, then I will say accountants, in general, are more in touch with reality — because of the numbers. Therefore, whether they choose sexier marketing approaches than lawyers, may not matter. It’s who knows the client best and who can best retain and grow client share. Lawyers have all the answers in front of them and yet still after all this time, spend countless dollars on marketing people who know little about marketing, ignore those clients who make up 80% of their firms’ revenues only to chase new business which we all know is far costlier to acquire.
“Having the ability to spend significant dollars on advertising, sponsorships, training, etc., does not make a savvy marketer. Visiting your clients a few times a year (which costs quite little in comparison) seems to warrant hours of meetings with one another in a law firm to discuss whether or not they should visit clients, ridiculous discussions about what to talk about with clients, arguments (in many, many firms) about compensation and who’s client it is, etc. etc.”
Larry Smith, Director of Strategy of Levick Strategic Communications (www.levick.com), adds, “I have always affirmed that the core of all marketing is value for the client. If that is the case, then it shouldn’t matter that an accountant’s work is drab or a lawyer’s work high-profile. Professionals must, in a sense, see beyond the specifics of their practices and focus on what can turn out to be absolutely riveting results for the buyer.”
Citing further differences, Terry Lloyd points out that, “Some CPAs, the auditors, are supposed to act on behalf of the investing public and not be advocates for their clients. This is particularly true now after the latest round in the accounting scandals and the new rules under Sarbanes-Oxley. Tax CPAs on the other hand often start to resemble lawyers as advocates.”
Bruce MacEwen, an astute observer of the legal scene and publisher of the widely read blog Adam Smith, Esq. (www.adamsmithesq.com,) adds, “My primary reaction is that marketing -- a client-focused exercise--has little or nothing to do with the nature of the actual work done ‘inside’ by CPA's and JD's. This may appear to miss the entire point of your thinking that accounting is more cut & dried and law more creative & open-ended (to which I heartily concur), but again, I think the aim of ‘marketing communications’ is to connect with the client/prospect in a way that establishes your (CPA firm/law firm) as offering a distinctive value vis-à-vis your competitive set. Again, this has as little to do with how your litigators draft briefs as a car ad has to do with the credentials of their mechanical engineers. Say I as a client, ‘I want a sexy, growling, red 2-door coupe," or "I want to win this case fast, hard, and cheap,’ not ‘I need an Ivy League ME or JD’. To me, good professional services marketing is good professional services marketing, driven by genuine insight into the client's "need state," and speaking to that with benefits that are plausible, ownable (by your firm), and insofar as possible, unique.”
But what of the particulars? How do the differences between law and accounting color the way each profession markets? How does such empirical evidence as the fact that there are infinitely more blogs by lawyers than by accountants, for example, inform the proposition? The consensus of these thought leaders in professional services, then, is that while neither profession has the obvious edge over the other, there are indeed differences in the profession that affects the nature of marketing for each.
Gale Crosley, an insightful consultant to the accounting profession and author of many thoughtful articles on accounting firm marketing, (www.crosleycompany.com) says, “Michael O'Horo (who has consulted on law firm practice growth for the past 10 years) and I have discussed this at length, and are constantly doing comparisons, since I only do CPA firms and he only does law firms. We have discovered and debated differences, but have been unable to draw overall conclusions regarding relative practice growth sophistication between these two different ecosystems. However, if we break down practice growth into the three functional components of sales, marketing and product management, I suspect we will find differences, and maybe even significant ones. For example, the Big Four invested heavily in large opportunity methodologies and training (sales) over the past 10 years. Because they dominate the CPA firm landscape, they have set a tone at the top - significant sophistication in opportunity pursuit. At first glance there doesn't appear to be the same consistent wholesale investment in large opportunity pursuit at the top of the law profession. However, O'Horo could certainly confirm this. Within the product management discipline, CPA firms are infused with investment management niches which often incorporate a "packaged product" orientation from their roots in investment houses and insurance companies. This piece of the CPA firm ecosystem is probably way out in front of the law firms, which may not have a similar influence.”
David Urbanik, the business manager of the Connecticut-based law firm, Pepe & Hazard LLP, points to the specifics. He says, “I have never seen this quantified, but I would suspect that the majority of the revenue earned by the typical CPA firm is derived from what I would describe as routine, generic tasks that are an integral part of the annual business cycle, most notably the annual audit and the annual tax return. The methods and practices used to produce these two major products tend not to vary much from firm to firm and the final work product of one firm on a particular assignment on the face is probably indistinguishable from that which would be produced by a competing firm. Of course, accounting firms can and do provide other consulting services. However, I think in the mind of the average business executive, accounting services are thought of as a routine service that you purchase as part of your basic business operations.
“In contrast, I believe most law firms generate the majority of their revenue through what I would classify as more specialized services. Invariably, this leads to the ability to carve out and pursue a greater number of unique market niches than I think are available to the accounting profession. Even when legal services involve repetitive instances of the same type of service (closing a loan or defending a workers comp claim) each individual matter is in some way unique and the outcome may vary significantly depending on the skill and approach of the individual lawyer. As such, providing legal services generally requires not only the specific base knowledge of the profession but may demand a greater degree of analysis, creativity and ultimately, strategic decision making (or strategic advising) than generally associated with the accounting profession. In addition, many legal services involve a much higher degree of perceived business risk (particularly litigation). Given these facts, it is only natural for the typical business person to view lawyers as specialists hired to influence the outcome of a situation whether it be a piece of litigation or a business transaction. As noted above, accountants are typically hired to deliver a defined product.
“Given the above distinction, I would expect the two professions to employ very different approaches to marketing. I would expect law firms to be push individual reputations, specific knowledge, and demonstrated results more heavily than accounting firms. Likewise, I would expect accounting firms to emphasize general experience, efficiency, and specific industry focus more so than law firms. Thus, many of the things law firms are doing may not even be appropriate to the accounting industry and there may not be many lessons to be learned.
“The lesson to be learned for both professions is not to look to the other for answers. All the answers are with their prospective clients – what do they value and is what they value worth delivering (i.e. can you make a profit). Once you figure this out, the marketing challenge is to pursue those vehicles that will most likely impart information that will lead clients to conclude that you can deliver what they value as well or better than potential competitors.”
To which David Maister adds, “Maybe, just maybe, the explanation lies at the individual partner level. There, you could make the case that there is more entrepreneurial intuition among lawyers (even in large firms) than among accountants, but I'd bet a lot of money that if this is true, then it's driven by compensation schemes which are w-a-a-ay more individualistic in law firms than accounting firms. There are many significant differences between the practice of law and the practice of accounting (size of engagements, duty to public v. duty to client, etc.) but it would be a waste of time to list them unless we really knew what we were trying to explain.”
And to which Larry Smith adds, “The challenge for accountants is to start appreciating how much they are capable of being appreciated. Maybe lawyers do have a head start on that, if they’re doing high-level or bet-the-farm work. Maybe accountants are weighed down in their creativity by the work they do. But it doesn’t have to be if they can somehow see beyond the daily grind.”
Based on the responses from these industry leaders, then, the foundation of the question is ludicrous, but the question itself raises valid issues that are worth exploring.
Comparing the marketing ability of one practice as compared to another is irrelevant of itself, then, and leads to generalizations that serve no useful purpose. But when the question of which firm is better at marketing is addressed, it raises issue concerning the different nature of each practice. Notes Terry Lloyd, “The Big Four are trying to create a firm brand and firm relationship with the clients. They minimize the role of the partner and other professionals. While law firms go to lengths to put impressive resumes and contact data on their web sites, it may be almost impossible to find even a list of partners on the sites of the Big Four.
Several of the respondents note the differences in marketing between large and small firms. Larger firms in both professions are obviously more sophisticated in marketing than are smaller firms. They have more services to offer, reputations that are, for the most part, more prestigious than smaller firms, and certainly, larger marketing budgets. While size, as Silvia Coulter points out, is no guarantee of the ability to understand marketing, the larger firms tend to hire more experienced and more versatile marketers, which sometimes – but not always – results in better understanding of marketing practices and skills.
But the real differences lie in the nature of the practices themselves. As David Urbanik points out the revenue of accounting firms tends to come from routine and generic tasks, while the law firm faces new problems – or old ones in different iterations – each day. Both are marketable skills, but the accountants skills lie predominantly in a formalized product, whereas the lawyers tend to address problems of larger dimensions, requiring innovative and distinct solutions. An audit is an audit, and because audit rules are essentially institutionalized, it’s difficult to distinguished the capability of one accounting firm as better than another. Lawyers, on the other hand, see either new problems every day, or old problems colored by the nature and context of the client. The accountants must sell the ability to do the same thing meticulously well; the lawyer must sell an innovative ability to understand and apply complex law to the benefit of the client. The accountant sells the ability to confirm; the lawyer sells the ability to innovate. And as David Urbanik so cogently points out, “The lesson to be learned for both professions is not to look to the other for answers. All the answers are with their prospective clients – what do they value and is what they value worth delivering (i.e. can you make a profit).”
In other words, in this new environment, the client, not the profession, is at the core of the practice. (See Client at the Core, by Bruce W. Marcus and August Aquila)
It can be argued that in many aspects of accounting, consulting skills are often required, and they are certainly not static. Tax accounting requires not just a knowledge of an arcane body of tax law, but in many cases, an ability to legally apply tax practice innovatively. But here again, you are dealing with the individual practitioner, and with tax codes that are not as susceptible to interpretation as are most of the matters dealt with by lawyers.
Many law firms are better at marketing than many accounting firms, as many accounting firms are better at marketing than many law firms. The nature of the professions, remember is that individuals, or teams of individuals, practice the professions, not corporations. And while firms may be managed so that its partners are highly individualized, or may be, on the other hand, so well in tune with one another as to tend to have a better leavening of quality (what David Maister famously calls, “the one-firm firm”), individuals, not corporations, are the practitioners of the professions. It should be remembered, then, that ultimately, marketing is an art form. The skill in marketing resides not in the mechanics, nor in benchmark concepts, but in the artistry of the marketing practitioners.
Perhaps the marketing differences between the two professions lie not in the mechanics alone, but in the strategy. And the strategy works best if it’s formulated with particular attention to at least two areas in two areas – the target audience and the content of the marketing campaign – but always with the focus on the needs of the clientele. The view of the differences may be discerned by looking at the services performed, and by looking at the different skills used in the practice of each profession, and the different problems each profession solves and the different opportunities sought by each profession. Herein, then, lies the incremental differences that distinguish one firm from another in a highly competitive environment.
Experience tells us, then, that three factors work best in marketing professional firms, in distinguishing the difference in professions, and in serving to distinguish (if not differentiate) one firm from another. They are…
This, then, is what marketing professional services in the contemporary environment is about. Recognizing this reality, and focusing on it, makes the original questions about differences between professions worth exploring. Particularly so, if it leads to more innovative marketing. Then, who’s better at marketing, is irrelevant.
What is relevant is which firm serves its clients and itself to better meet the needs of both. That – and that alone – is most important. It’s certainly more important than which profession does it better.
Editor’s note .. This is obviously a complex matter. You, the reader, are invited to submit your comments and ideas. They will be greatly appreciated. BWM