LOWERING THE BAR – LITERALLY – ON ADVERTISNG

Dirty Tricks Advertising Seeps Into The Legal Profession

            There was an ad in today’s Wall Street Journal that really disturbed me. So much so that, despite the fact that I’m in the middle of doing a comprehensive study of professional services advertising, I have to write about this now, because I think the premise of the ad is so egregious.

            It’s a quarter page ad with a thoughtful looking man – purportedly a prospective client -- looking pensive. (How do I know ? Because he’s stroking his chin..) The headline reads, “I need lawyers who are more concerned about managing my risks than their own.”

            The body of text reads, “If your lawyers seem more concerned about enumerating your options than helping you choose among them, you might wonder whose interests are really being served.”

            Now, as I mean to demonstrate in my forthcoming paper on advertising, most of it is pretty bad, and seems to have been written (with exceptions, of course) by agencies who haven’t the slightest idea about how the profession of law works.

            But this one looks like it was written by someone trained in political dirty tricks advertising.  Does the advertising law firm really thinks it has to insult the profession to make its point?  Does it really need to put down other lawyers, as if they were opposing candidates in an election campaign?

            I suppose the question of ethics may arise, but even before that is a question of professionalism and taste. I would be surprised if half the profession doesn’t feel sullied by this ad. I can’t wait to hear from the bar associations, who are quick to pick up on this kind of attack. I wonder, too, if prospective clients of this law firm might not be offended by thinking that all the firm has to offer is a put down of competitors.

            I think this ad – and I refuse to name the firm – sets law firm advertising, as fragile as it is  today – back considerably.

Comments

[Suzanne Lowe]

Bruce, you shouldn't be afraid to name the firm, or to be more specific about where the ad is in the WSJ. I'd love to see for myself, and I missed the display you've described.

Nevertheless, I'll offer my opinion that this practice (claiming one firm's difference from another by using negatives), while unseemly, represents a not-surprising "next step" for professional firms that have not yet figured out that true differentiation goes much deeper than messages.

I agree this kind of disparagement is unfortunate, especially since it wastes clients' time and makes the originating firm look cheap and grasping.

But when a PSF can't talk about truly valuable and deeply systemic uniqueness, and if it blindly continues to rely on empty marketing communications tactics, it's not that surprising that it might resort to deriding its competitors.

I suspect you're right that clients will be turned off.