Berbay's Blog: Marketing for law firms, engineers, CPAs, architects and other professional services

I recently attended a Greater Los Angeles Building Owners & Managers Association (BOMA) lunch program called “Meet the Press – How the Media Cover Commercial Real Estate.”  The panel of three real estate reporters/writers included Andrew Khouri from the San Fernando Valley Business Journal, Jacquelyn Ryan from the Los Angeles Business Journal and Roger Vincent from the Los Angeles Times.

The three reporters started by providing insight on what kind of material they seek to cover, best ways to reach them, etc.  Among the topics that could pique their interest was the “next big thing,” new companies doing significant transactions, and trend stories.

The questions from BOMA members that stood out to me were:

“How come I always see the same individual quoted in your stories?” The reporters admitted that they were guilty of returning to the same reliable resources that they developed relationships with, but acknowledged that they needed new resources in their database.  They noted that a reliable resource is one that is always available or gets back to them right away with valuable commentary.

“I spoke with a reporter once and when the story came out, my quote was not what I had said; the reporter didn’t offer to fix it or apologize.” Reporters strive to be as accurate as possible but there are steps that you can take to ensure this, including asking the reporter to repeat the major points back to you to ensure they understand the story.  Also, it is always a good idea to send a follow-up email thanking the reporter and at the same time reiterating the correct spelling of your name, firm name etc.

The reporters said never ask what the quote will be but did say that sometimes they will email the quote to the individual to ensure accuracy. They do not welcome or accept edits to the quote – in other words, when people see their quote, they may say – “Well, that’s not what I wanted to say, I wanted to say something more along the lines of….”

Interestingly, the reporters preferred to be contacted by email rather than by phone but in our experience, phone follow-up is how we obtain results for our clients.  So although reporters don’t like to be bugged via phone, sometimes you have to take that extra step.

Berbay would be happy to speak with you further about making your experience with the media successful.

I was surprised and heartened to read that Andrew Langhoff, publisher of The Wall Street Journal Europe, had recently resigned after an internal investigation revealed he was closely involved with an ethics breach at the paper.

Allegedly, WSJ Europe’s circulation department made a deal with a Dutch consulting firm to sell the firm discounted papers for distribution to students and others, thus boosting WSJ Europe’s circulation and allowing it to raise its advertising rates. The paper informally agreed to give the firm editorial coverage in return. Two articles featuring the firm were published in the paper, and the internal inquiry found that Langhoff personally pressured reporters to write those stories.

I hate for anybody to lose his or her job. However, what has remained with me since my first journalism class in high school is that there should be a “wall” between a publication’s editorial department and its business departments (including circulation and advertising). Editorial should be independent.  Admittedly, high school is a distant memory and from what I see today, an independent editorial department has pretty much been tossed out the window. Just watch any television news program (particularly a local TV news show), to see examples of the creeping intermingling of news and advertising—in many instances, it’s difficult to tell one from the other.  However, based on WSJ Europe’s actions, it looks like there are still those around who believe this independence should still exist.

WSJ Europe is owned by News Corp., a company that, after this year’s News of the World imbroglio, is likely trying to keep its nose especially clean. Still, this Langhoff incident could probably have been swept under the rug. I was very glad to hear it wasn’t.

When we propose to our professional services clients that they place a bylined article in an industry or professional publication, they sometimes ask about the circulation of various venues, usually with an interest in selecting the one with the widest distribution. While circulation or website hits are valid measures, they should not be your sole criteria for selecting a publication. Theoretically, a widely read publication may reach more people in your target audience than one with a lower circulation or number of hits. However, counting on circulation alone to get your article in front of the people you want to reach is letting the power of publishing go to waste.

The power of publishing – in print or online – comes from leveraging your visibility. In other words, everything depends on what you do with the article after it’s published. If you do nothing, you lose most of your work’s power and shelf-life.

It’s up to you to let your target market know about your recent media coverage, and put that information in front of the right people. You can do this by posting an alert to your website’s News section, mentioning it in a sidebar to your e-newsletter, posting an announcement on LinkedIn or Facebook, tweeting about it, distributing article reprints at conferences, and similar marketing tactics. A few extra steps like these will take you miles further.

The same is true if you’re quoted or featured in a news story or interviewed by Katie Couric. It doesn’t count for anything unless you tell the right people about it. Remember, leverage it or lose it!

One of our clients, a professional services provider, was considering spending a lot of money on an ad in a special supplement to a widely read publication. The amount in question far exceeded what they normally spent on any kind of marketing.   We advised our client not to “put all their marketing eggs in the same basket,” but rather invest that same amount in a consistent marketing program throughout the year. Why? The answer lies “frequency vs. reach.”

When you are evaluating where to spend your advertising dollars,  you usually look at frequency vs. reach—i.e., how often your target market will see your ad vs. how many people will see it. In this case, our client’s ad could potentially reach a large number of people, but they would see it only once, if that.  (i.e., no frequency).

Frequency in advertising is analogous to consistency in marketing.  Small but regular “touches” is what makes for effective marketing.

And, speaking of consistency, I met with a prospective client who told me that, yes, his firm does send out e-newsletters to clients, prospective clients and referral sources. When I asked how often, he said about once each year. A marketing activity on an annual basis is consistent, but in this instance, greater frequency would improve its effectiveness.

How do you stay up-to-date on the latest trends in your industry? What are people saying about you and your firm? To answer these questions, set up a Google Alert. A Google Alert is a program which monitors the web and sends you relevant email updates on your search term or query.

To stay current on happenings in your area of expertise, set an alert using the name of your specialty or practice area, or any important terms related to it. You’ll receive email updates on any online content that mentions your keyword, whether a news article, blog, press release or conference announcement.

It’s always a good idea to set a Google alert for your firm name, as well as the names of your professionals. You’ll receive an email whenever someone writes something about your firm or its members, good or bad. The names of your clients or customers also make good keywords for Google alerts if you want to stay up to date on what others are writing about them in news stories or blogs.

By staying up-to-date with Google Alerts, you are giving yourself the option of responding with your own feedback and participating in Web 3.0.