Will the public prefer the more traditional, serious, (dull?) marketing approach when choosing legal services, or the cheeky, humorous tone of Wigster and their ilk? What do you think?
A thought occurred to me the other day: Assuming the Susskind vision of the future is true, can law firms continue to serve all their clients from a single brand? In most other sectors, companies use brands to target a specific market segment.
- RBS have the Direct Line, Churchill and Privilige insurance brands.
- Intercontinental hotel group have Intercontinental, Crowne Plaza, Holiday Inn and Holiday Inn Express.
- In food retailing, many companies have a healthy eating brand, a ‘value’ brand, a mainstream brand and a luxury brand.
If more legal work becomes productised or commoditised and so becomes a ‘value’ based purchase, what impact does that have on your brand and your corporate and prestige clients’ expectations of cost?
It seems to me that the problem with trying to be all things to everyone, is you end up not standing for anything at all.
That’s one reason why Access Legal from Shoosmiths is so interesting: An attempt to create a brand for a specific market segment, but still keeping the parent brand to suggest quality and years of legal expertise.
Are Shoosmiths the only ones doing this? Are there any other law firms out there doing the same?
I’d be interested to know your thoughts. Let me know in the comments below…