Top firms losing out to upstarts in social media sphere
Many of the UK’s leading law firms are failing to make full use of marketing and networking opportunities available through social media, setting them apart from more recent entrants to the legal market.
The so-called ’Klout score’ of UK firms, calculated by social media site Klout, identifies QualitySolicitors, which recently opened sales desks in WHSmith stores nationwide, as having the most influential online presence.
National firm Cobbetts, comes in at number two while magic circle firm Clifford Chance, which currently has 1,223 followers on Twitter, is ranked at number 33 in terms of Klout. Bird & Bird weighs in at number 77.
Devised by Flagship Consulting, Klout measures a firm’s social media influence across a host of popular networking platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. ’Klout’ is measure using metrics such as audience, reach, influence and engagement.
QualitySolictiors’ founder and chief executive Craig Holt commented: “QualitySolicitors aims to be the dominant brand for legal services in the UK. The future of the legal market lies with brands and those law firms who ignore or pay lip service to the importance of online engagement will pay a heavy price.
“Social media’s all about interaction, not just bland marketing or sales, and we’ve focused our energies on that, building up a significant presence which, in turn, develops our brand loyalty. It’s not easy as consumers have little interest in law firms or lawyers but QS has successfully captured the public’s imagination in an exciting and engaging manner.”
A spokesperson for Hogan Lovells, which ranked at number 23, said: “”Social media needs to be used appropriately and in the context of the people you’re aiming it at. It sits alongside and can supplement other ways of communicating with the market and adds to what we do.”
Top 10 by social media ‘klout’:
Quality Solicitors
Cobbetts
Allen & Overy
Eversheds
Olswang
Taylor Wessing
Burness
Pannone
CMS Cameron McKenna
Blake Lapthorn
Bottom ten by social media ‘klout’:
Morgan Cole
Brodies
Keoghs
Browne Jacobson
Bircham Dyson Bell
Hugh James
Capsticks
Bristows
Forsters
Penningtons
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (24)
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2011 3:34 pm
Just because someone has clicked to 'follow' a Twitter feed does not mean that they read all, or indeed any, of the garbage coming out of it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2011 3:49 pm
That's the point. This doesn't measure how many followers or how many tweets. It looks at who someone is connected to, how likely they are to get content re-tweeted (and by whom) and a host of other metrics that weed out people who simply use Twitter to broadcast.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bill Gates | 3-Aug-2011 4:32 pm
Good to see that, judging by the pic, The Lawyer has its finger right on the most up to date technology out there. Where can I get one of those new-fangled machines?!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2011 4:39 pm
what utter rubbish. Gateleys are above such matters. We actually talk to people rather than tweet them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Halil Can Paracikoglu | 3-Aug-2011 4:45 pm
how can we find it?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2011 4:53 pm
Yes, I am sure the client base of the firms who are "missing out" is crumbling fast as their clients rush to switch work to firms who are "influential" online. Goodbye rest-of-the-magic circle, you've been out-tweeted and out-facebooked by A&O.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rural bliss | 3-Aug-2011 4:56 pm
Who the hell are "Burness"?
I would be deeply embarrassed rather than proud if my firm were to be classed as well known by the airheads who `tweet' and record every moment of their unbearably dull and pointless existences on Facebook.
And it's an interesting phenomenon that since the QS franchise was launched I've dealt with 3 different firms of `Quality Solicitors', all of whom were very significantly less co-operative and efficient than average.
I suspect that for many of the firms who are signing up it's a last, desperate throw of the dice before they disappear.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2011 4:56 pm
This 'survey' is hardly cutting edge or adding much to the debate - all it consists of is punching the names of Twitter accounts into Klout's website and then putting them into a table. Solely using third-party tools such as Klout or PeerIndex to measure online influence is dangerous for professional services brands. These tools can be a useful indicator, but are designed for B2C brands (so no surprises that QualitySolicitors comes tops!) and are heavily influenced by factors irrelevant to law firms, particularly network size. Law firms using social media don't need to get distracted by measures such as these but should rather focus on basics like audience and message.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2011 5:01 pm
I'm going to give Penningtons all my work. Although maybe it is no coincidence that most of the firms at the bottom of this "survey" sound genuinely Victorian. Only Speechly Bircham is missing and admittedly Cobbetts doesn't belong up the top.
But anyway, this survey is pure poo. I wish The Lawyer wouldn't publish it every year. It just encourages idiot consultants.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Cityboy | 3-Aug-2011 5:26 pm
Seconding the many comments above, surely the relevant measure is the influence over clients? For QualitySolicitors, where the aim is to generate awareness/closeness with consumers what they're doing is brilliant.
Evaluating both global City firms and startup high street firms in the same way is questionable though. Good law firms certainly don't apply such broad brush treatment to their clients. Do good PR consultancies?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
James R | 3-Aug-2011 6:36 pm
This is actually a brilliant tool for measuring consumer interaction and no surprise to see QualitySolicitors doing so well seeing as they appear to be the only ones doing anything in that market (where are Co-op Legal and Irwin Mitchel to be seen - in QS's shadow online it would appear). However, to compare their online influence against Clifford Chance really is chalk and cheese. QS is legal services for middle england - who love facebook and twitter etc. CC is for corporates who probably get fired for being on twitter and facebook. So, well done QS - just what you should be doing - but it is the other consumer brands and high street firms that should be worried, not Clifford Chance!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sanjay | 3-Aug-2011 11:27 pm
@ Bill Gates | 3-Aug-2011 4:32 pm
Rather more curiously, why does that monitor appear to be wearing a shirt?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ashley Balls | 4-Aug-2011 6:14 am
Whether we like it or not social networking is here to stay and its use will get measured and reported on. Just get used to it. After all it is less than 15 years since the august Professor Richard Susskind was reported to the Law Society (for bringing the profession into disrepute) for daring to suggest that one day email would become the standard medium of communication between lawyer and client.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gavin Ward | 4-Aug-2011 8:57 am
I'm with Brian Inkster on this one http://thetimeblawg.com/2011/08/03/uk-law-firms-with-klout-%E2%80%93-a-clearer-picture/
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jonathan Lea | 4-Aug-2011 11:26 am
Social media is not about corporate brands (nobody wants to talk to a company), but about the growth of powerful personal brands who through their high level of connectivity to both other people and information can act in a far more agile and effective way than traditional bureaucratic organisations. Quality Solicitors is a franchise made up of hundreds of people, but myself and several other individual lawyers have a far better online presence than they do, and to the extent it matters, a higher Klout score.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Aug-2011 11:50 am
Wonder how the Lawyer put these figures together (and why?). Actual Klout scores seem to differ dranatically from those calculated and disclosed by Brian Inkster!
http://thetimeblawg.com/2011/08/03/uk-law-firms-with-klout-%E2%80%93-a-clearer-picture/
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jane Williams | 4-Aug-2011 12:08 pm
Does anyone have a link to the marketing report? I'm interested in finding out more from the company that put these stats together.
Thanks!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Aug-2011 3:51 pm
Why does the computer in the picture have shoulders?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Aug-2011 3:52 pm
Expect Dickinson Dees to hastily get some work experience kid to write "an app" so they can try and get a mention next year
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Steve Downes | 5-Aug-2011 4:18 pm
I find it quite odd to see so much hostility to a form of networking from a sector that values networking so highly?
That's all these channels are. How many of you have wasted hours and hours in dreary rooms drinking warm wine wine, with a scruffy name-badge pinned to your lapel then gone home with two business cards of people you never wish to speak to again?
Used properly, these channels are a vastly more efficient way of presenting your authority and expertise to people who really matter. You simply have to learn how.
Now for a blatant plug: I'm your man for that.
See what i did there? Used a social medium to network.
And by the way, why do so many people post anonymously?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment