Some time ago, I was asked how I structure my arguments to achieve effortless buy-in of innovative ideas and initiatives with skeptical groups of lawyers and marketing committees. My answer: It all comes down to education.
Logically, if what I’m recommending is the best idea or action, and I can teach lawyers what they need to know to position them to make a good decision, then they should see that I’m right and agree with me. However, if they disagree with what I’m proposing, then either I was wrong or I’ve failed to educate them sufficiently.
As marketers, we spend eight hours a day thinking about marketing — our lawyers may not spend eight hours a year. We exhaustively research every variable before recommending a particular course of action to the marketing committee. Why should we expect lawyers to have all the answers the first time we throw it at them?
Regardless, in spite of their lack of information and education on any particular topic, if the lawyers are asked, they’ll always have an opinion. And once they voice that opinion in front of others, it’s very difficult to persuade them to change it. So before we allow them to subconsciously formulate that opinion, we must get them to buy into our view on the topic.
To do this, I always follow a formula that has increased my professional effectiveness and is arguably the most vital lesson I teach marketers. To illustrate this formula in action, let’s start with a simple example: We are looking to redesign a firm’s letterhead to remove a long list of lawyer names. Here’s how to start.
Step 1: Do not lead with the conclusion.
That is, I do not open with my closing statement of, “I think we should remove the names from our letterhead.” If I do that, they’ll identify 100 reasons why I’m wrong, such as, “We’ve always done it this way,” “Everyone does it this way,” or, “My clients like seeing my name up top!” Once that argument starts, I’ve already lost. Alternatively, we must first provide them the information that will allow them to make a well-informed decision.
Step 2: Give the big picture.
In this case, I might start by quickly discussing design trends in the legal marketplace and what the leading firms are doing. I’d show actual examples of beautiful design from competing local firms that don’t have the lawyers’ names on them.
“Some time ago, I was asked how I structure my arguments to achieve effortless buy-in of innovative ideas and initiatives with skeptical groups of lawyers and marketing committees. My answer: It all comes down to education.”
I’ll also validate that what they currently have was the right answer at the time it was created, but that since then, design has changed — as it always does over time. I might mention other obvious types of designs that have changed since the time this letterhead was created. Back then, men were wearing three-piece suits, suspenders and yellow ties, while women lawyers had stiff, poofy hair and dresses with shoulder pads rather than the more open and casual approach we have today. The business culture is less formal than it was back then, and today’s design reflects that.