Today the election of the replacement for Ted Kennedy will be watched across the nation. What probably began as just another general election “go through the motions to defeat the Republicans” has turned into an extremely close race creating excited for both sides.
I don’t claim to be a political strategist, but a quick look at the election shows us that Martha Coakley has revealed 3 mistakes every business must avoid.
Mistake No. 1: Stopping Too Soon.
Some say that after winning a 4 way primary race Coakley declared herself the victor and stopped. It appears that her post-primary efforts were more directed to promoting other democrats than in promoting herself. Obviously her campaign would disagree with this assessment. From the outside looking it, her campaign was not “campaigning.”
In your marketing and promotion efforts don’t make the same mistake: stopping too soon. If you choose to conduct a direct mail campaign, it’s not likely that one mailing will be sufficient. In fact, two mailings may not be sufficient. You would probably be better off reducing the scope of the mailing and schedule 3 mailings with a strong “call to action” on each one.
Sometimes we stop too soon by not following up. Have you had that face-to-face conference with a client and then “they never called back?” If we are honest, we will admit that too often we have the conference and then wonder why we weren’t retained. Here’s why: You stopped too soon!
Give the prospect a reason to call you back. Perhaps the follow-up call you make will cement some of the advice you gave during the office conversation. Perhaps there is just one question, which if answered, would result in an ngagement rather than the disappearance of the prospect.
Failing to make the follow-up call presumes on your prospect. That leads us to Mistake #2.
Mistake #2: Assuming Your Customers Will Always Be with You.
Massachusetts is a rock solid blue state. The last time a Republican held the Senate was over 35 years ago. That’s pretty solid!
Coakley held the mistaken belief that her prospects (the voters), her customers (the voters) would always be with her. Again, her campaign will strongly disagree. However, her actions, like the action of failing to follow-up after the initial office conference speak volumes.
She has revealed Mistake #2: Assuming Your Customers Will Always be With You. For lawyers, that is manifest by our failure to treat our “best clients” as “best clients.” Do they get the quickest call back or does the new prospect who needs to “hire a lawyer today?” Have you ever been in court and heard one of your “best clients’” names called out and another lawyer stand to answer? You sit there and wonder, “What did I do? Why is she representing “my client?” Perhaps that has never happened to you. When it does, you can be sure you’ll stop assuming your best clients will always be there ready to do more business with you. When was the last time that you just “paid a visit” to one of your client’s offices (without cause or intent to bill)? When was the last time that you just picked up the phone just to “check in?” When was the last time that you sent a unique greeting card as an encouragement?
Mistake #2 is evidence of a presumptive attitude to your clients. Mistake #3 reveals a similar presumption.
Mistake #3: Not Paying Attention to What Matters to Your Customers.
In the last few days of the campaign, Martha Coakley made what appears to be a significant blunder: declaring Curt Schilling a Yankees fan. Now I’m not a big baseball fan. After all, I’m from Tennessee where we play football. However, I do know a little about sports heroes. I was here when the University of Tennessee kicked Johnny Majors to the side. Here, that was almost sacrilegious in addition to being just mean. It appears calling Schilling a Yankees fan is being taken the same way in Boston. Shilling commented on his blog saying, “ But never, and I mean never, could anyone ever make the mistake of calling me a Yankee fan. Well, check that, if you didn’t know what the hell is going on in your own state maybe you could…”
Look, everyone makes mistakes. This one illustrates that we have to “Know” and “Pay Attention To” what matters to our customers. Voters and customers are fickle. However, they both know what matters to THEM. We should as well.
Don’t make the mistake of assuming , “well, that shouldn’t matter….” You might find out it matters to the client.
This business we are in is in the category of “professional services.” The very name itself screams we are to “serve” our clients, customers (or whatever you chose to call the people that pay you).
Part of that “service” is to find out what matters to them and then make sure it matters to you.
Ms. Coakley may recover from these mistakes. However, let’s do our best to avoid them with our businesses.
Three Mistakes Every Business Must Avoid:
Mistake No. 1: Stopping Too Soon.
Mistake #2: Assuming Your Customers Will Always Be with You.
Mistake #3: Not Paying Attention to What Matters to Your Customers.
Have you heard it said, “If you want something done right, then do it yourself!”
Sometimes this comment is made after a particularly disastrous mistake or missed deadline.
If we are honest with ourselves, we must recognize that we make mistakes too. So what’s the right decision?
Should we do it all ourselves, or is there another way?
I say, “If you want it done right, then assemble a great team!”
I just published a new episode of Profitable Practice TV that speaks to this very issue.
You’ll probably find it helpful, so take a look here.
I think you’ll find the tips helpful.
I’d love to hear your comments or questions below.
Be sure to subscribe to the channel if you’ve not already done so. That way you’ll be sure to get notice of updates.
Dan Scott
The Lawyers Coach
Do you think of yourself as a “creditor” because you render legal services and then collect after the services are rendered? I don’t! In fact, most of my clients would not like the idea of me saying “paid on the front” it’s the rule of the FTC.
When in April 2009 the FTC declared that because lawyers “permit deferred payment for goods and services” lawyers are a creditor and therefore must create plans to protect against “identity theft” I was just amazed at their over-reaching. The Rules would require lawyers to identify, detect and respond to relevant patterns, practices, and specific forms of activity that are “red flags,” signaling possible identify theft. The Plan would have to be periodically updated to reflect changes in the risks “identified” or “detected.”
The declaration should be seen for what it is: a grab for more Federal governmental power over another industry. No doubt, lawyers could have complied. We are certainly smart enough. However, who pays the cost of compliance? You’re right,the consumer of legal services.
The impact fof this clearly erroneous application would have been to increase legal fess while providing only nominal benefit to the consumer. In effect, it was another hidden “tax” that the consumer would have to pay.
In addition to lobbying efforts, the American Bar Association filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that the Red Flag Rules do not apply to lawyers. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has now entered an order in response to the complaint ruling that the Red Flag Rules do not apply to lawyers. That’s good.
If you want to see the FTC’s guide to the Red Flag Rules go to their site. You’ll find that they have now postponed application of the rules until June 1, 2010.
Additionally, the House has passed a bill exempting attorneys from application of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA) (the law the FTC was “enforcing” when it promulgated the Red Flag Rules). It will be good if the Senate passes the bill and President Obama signs it
Every day we wake up with a new story on the latest proposal and counter-proposal for either “Health Care Reform” or “Health Insurance Reform” or whatever other moniker the administration has decided will more easily sell. With what’s being referred to as the Baucus Plan it appears that every business, including your law firm, small or large, will be required to absorb another layer of costs. If your firm now pays for health insurance for everyone who works for the Firm then there may not be additional costs for you. However, I think it unlikely that such is the case with many of the smaller (2 to 10 lawyer) firms.
So here’s the question? Where do you plan to get the funds to pay for this new mandated benefit?
There’s no need to consider or discuss whether the benefit is desirable or appropriate as that decision is being made for us in Washington. However, you likely won’t be able to print money to pay for it. (If you do, be sure to keep it quiet!)
So will you cut benefits that you currently provide to your employees? Perhaps that would come in vacation days, or sick days, or perhaps medical leave? It’s likely your staff will see any reduction in current benefits to be a penalty imposed by management rather than the government. So how will that impact job performance and/or employee retention?
Perhaps you can raise your fees to pay for the insurance. Of course, that requires your clients to comply with increased fees. I suspect that if you thought you could raise your fees, you’d probably already have done so.
Perhaps you can simply reduce distribution of profits to the owners. Yes, I know I’m stepping on toes here, but the money’s got to come from somewhere.
I know I’ve not provided answers here, just questions. However, we each need to be asking these questions now because it’s likely that the train will be leaving the station pretty soon. Guess who’s paying the freight?
I’d like to hear your ideas on how you plan on paying for healthcare for all your employees. Let me know in the comments below, a kind of informal poll. Thanks.