Notwithstanding my curmudgeonly perspective on all things marketing, I’ve come to be a huge fan of Seth Godin.  Not because I’ve changed my mind about marketing (I haven’t) and what it’s done to diminish the profession (I haven’t), but because I think he loathes the simplistic, deceptive, smarmy marketers as much as I do.  He’s just more constructive about it.

Seth makes a point in this post that provides an important perspective for lawyers, and criminal defense lawyers in particular.  That’s not easy to do for a marketing guru, by the way, since we tend to defy most of the rules of the game.

Almost all [marketers’] actions are driven by the search for more customers.

The reason this is a mistake is simple: it’s expensive. Attracting a new customer costs far more than keeping an old one happy. Not only that, but an old customer is far more likely to bring you new people via word of mouth than someone who isn’t even a customer yet.

Which is why share of wallet makes so much more sense than share of market. . . [M]arketers are so focused on more that they forget to take great care of what they’ve got.

The only fly in the ointment is that it’s not marketers’ concern that you take good care of existing clients.  Just as surgeons cut, marketers market.  Lawyers, on the other hand, represent human beings.  The crux of Seth’s point is that wallet share, not market share, is the more important goal.  So what’s “wallet share?” Seth explains it this way:

How much does each of your existing customers buy from you? Do they count on you for all the things they buy in this market, or just some? Does Toyota sell me every car my family drives? Does Chubb get to insure every single thing I own? Usually not.

While it requires some twists and turns to make it directly applicable, let’s apply to this to criminal defense lawyers.  When a client seeks our services, which is by definition a matter of need more so than desire since they are facing prosecution and potentially prison, and the problem won’t go away on its own, there remains one huge issue to address.  The legal fee. 

Our ethical responsibility requires us not to charge an unreasonable (defined as unconscionable) fee, and with some notable exceptions, most of us don’t have that issue. Indeed, the problem is quite the opposite.  Many criminal defense lawyers want the business badly enough that they set a fee that is inadequate to compensate them for their time plus pay their overhead.  This leads to two major problems, too much business to competently handle in order to get a small profit out of the practice, or incompetent representation, meaning the quickie plea to dispose of the unprofitable client without regard to its appropriateness.  Yes, Virginia, these things do happen.

When we undertake the representation of a client, wallet share, meaning how much of a client’s worth he is willing to commit to his defense, is crucial to our ability to do our job.  Too little and we’re in deep trouble.  Too much is rarely a problem, but one that is easily resolved by our adherence to our ethical responsibilities not to overcharge. 

Thus, the critical marketing effort is to help our client to understand that legal representation is not a commodity, that lawyers are not fungible, that the effort to achieve their goals will require work and that the legal fee reflects the value of the work to the client.  Not marketer can do this for you, but your failure to understand this will severely impede your ability to either function competently or avoid starvation.  If you’ve got potential clients knocking down the door, but none willing to pay you an adequate fee, you’ve got a problem.  Recognize it.

But there is still one additional factor to consider, known in retail circles as the “loss leader.”  Let’s assume that you’ve blown it bigtime and taken on a case where the fee is grossly inadequate.  It’s easy to do, since fixed fees up front are based on information known at the time, and we later find out that our information is wrong or that the situation has changed.  It happens, with unfortunate frequency.  Nonetheless, we’ve sign on to the case and, assuming we honor our ethical duties, are looking at a zealous but costly defense ahead of us.  Think “loss leader.”

Word of mouth is by far the best source of clients.  They come with respect for your efforts, and seek you in particular for the confidence you’ve inspire in the referral source.  They want you.  So once you’ve found yourself representing the “loss leader,” you’ve got the opportunity to provide turn a financial disaster into a marketing boon.  Provide your “loss leader” with excellence and make them your biggest supporter.  Make lemonade.

Make sure that they understand that the representation you’re providing would ordinarily cost twice, ten times, whatever, what you’ve charged them, but that they are your client and no client of yours will receive anything short of excellence.  That’s just how you roll.  The reason you need to add in the shortfall part is so they don’t go on the street and tell their friends that you are not only great, but cheap as can be.  What you do not want to be is the great lawyer who only charges a fraction of the cost.  Those referrals you don’t need, and it backfires in terms of the relationship you will establish with your clients, as people are inclined to have substantially less appreciation for your efforts when they don’t perceive them to be valuable.  If you’re undercharging, you’re not going to be shown the respect your efforts deserve.

What wallet share comes down to is quality over quantity.  Marketers get paid for head count, bringing in numbers, and that’s how they see the world.  Wallet share, on the other hand, reflects quality and how your efforts are valued.  Trust me, representing one client for $25,000 and providing excellence beats the crap out of representing five clients for $5,000 and providing mediocrity, if that.