Hill then said, although I believe in parody, that “perhaps [law firms] should shorten to a couple syllables. MoFo conveys a sense of personality – forceful – that "Morrison & Foerster" does not. What opportunities do other firms have to rebrand themselves by going short?”
After giving a few examples, contributors came up with a few of their own. They are a hoot to read – although if you find sexual innuendos and opinionated commentary a waste of time – then you should avoid the comments altogether.
However, in response to Comment 13 where the anonymous guest says that in his “experience, these ‘experts’ [alluding to law firm marketing experts] don't really know that much about the practice of law or the marketing of a law firm to existing or potential clients” and “who cares what some former Philadelphia trial lawyer thinks about law firm branding? Her view is not relevant,” I say my business results speak for themselves. But more importantly, I want to thank commenter #120 who says:
“#13 - Don't generalize about legal marketing experts. Gina Rubel is one of the best at what she does and you might learn something if you actually paid attention to the content. The good legal marketers – inside and outside the firm – are actually helping law firms increase revenues and teaching thousands of attorneys how to grow their practices. They rarely get enough credit for their contributions but don't underestimate their talents.”
#120 – whoever you are – thank you for the accolades. I’m honored. And speaking on behalf of those legal marketers who have practiced law, managed law firms and kicked A$$ in legal communications by averting crises, garnering national media attention, keeping clients out of the media when necessary, advocating on behalf of the unknown to influence key thought leaders, increasing revenues, and building brands and businesses – I thank you!