As law firms jostle for supremacy in an increasingly competitive market, Lucy Hickman discovers how branding can be used to enhance firms' profiles - and improve profits

Getting partnership agreement and limited resources are the big barriers facing marketers seeking to boost brand awareness in top UK firms, according to a recent survey by market research group BPRI (see [2004] Gazette, 18 March, 6).

Firms questioned - such as Ashurst, Clifford Chance, and Denton Wilde Sapte - also identified firm growth as a barrier to change.

Julie Murphy, who as marketing director oversaw the recent rebranding at Cambridge-based Mills & Reeve, says: 'It's difficult to get people to agree.

It's not like a public company where you have a main board.

We had to get 65 partners to buy in to what was done.

'You're never going to please everybody.

We whittled 300 ideas the agency came up with down to around six and then went out to the firm to show them what we were considering.

It wasn't just the partnership - everyone had the chance to have a say.

The managing partner, senior partner and I would have been happy with any one of the six.

'We also consulted clients to make sure anything we came up with was the same as how we're perceived in the marketplace.

It was a great opportunity to go out and say we don't just do lots of rural work, we do lots of work for large public companies.'

Even with smaller firms, getting partners to agree on a new concept can be difficult, says Nick Mercer, business manager at 20-partner Watford-based Matthew Arnold & Baldwin (MAB), which rebranded two years ago.

'We spent ten years coming out of the high street to be a more commercially focused firm.

We did some research among clients and non-clients and were reassured by the feedback that we could do better if we rebranded.

'It took a very long time.

We had a choice of new identities and it took about 12 months going backwards and forwards between the different options.

It's very personal to partners, but they had to understand that it was not about them, it was about how the clients relate to us.'

Rebranding international accountancy firm Ernst & Young's law network - renamed EY Law since last June - took months, says marketing and communications director, Chris Hinze.

But although the exercise has created a brand that the 30 firms in the network did not previously have, he says, different identities still exist in different countries because of differing bar regulations.

'It allows for flexibility.

Some law firms in the network call themselves EY Law, while to others we are merely a footnote.

'Before June last year, there was no brand.

We were known collectively as the Ernst & Young law alliance but we had no clear market position.

This was a means of clarifying what we are and what we can do.'

He says the exercise was 'tremendous fun' and involved consulting all the firms in the network, reaching a consensus, and then producing materials giving guidance as to how the brand can best be used in different countries.

Marina Galanti, Ashurst's global brand and marketing director, who oversaw her firm's recent rebranding process, says some law firms do not fully realise what branding is or how important it is.

She says: 'Law firms are somewhat behind in this area and the concept of branding is pretty remote for some of them, but they are fast realising that brands play an increasingly important role in formulating client perceptions and choices.

'It is now being recognised that brand is an important business tool in an ever consolidating, globalised economy.

As part of the professional services industry, law firms are subject to brand perceptions, just like any other services or products.'

Mr Hinze says: 'When firms say they are worried about branding they are not talking about their corporate identity, they are worried about how they are perceived by clients, their competitors and future recruits.'

He says that some firms - such as City firm Slaughter and May - successfully send out a clear message that it is independent and deals with quality work and that it is profitable.

Mr Mercer and Ms Murphy agree that DLA has used novel methods to strengthen its brand such as concentrating on people and releasing several innovative adverts.

Ashurst's rebranding, completed last December, involved a new name (from Ashurst Morris Crisp) as well as a new logo.

Ms Galanti says the name change was 'a small but important part' of the rebranding exercise, undertaken primarily because international clients cannot pronounce the old name properly.

She adds: 'The single name is better at conveying our united vision as an international firm, than the three surnames of English partners who have long since died.

The logo reflects a more dynamic international vision.'

Mills & Reeve was pilloried by some over claims that its rebranding exercise amounted to no more than a logo colour change.

However, Ms Murphy says: 'Changing the colours was the least important thing about it.

It was about how we deliver our services.

We wanted to make sure people knew what our corporate identity was.

'Our image hadn't been changed for many years and it was unwieldy and out of date.

We were seen as quite old fashioned when actually we are modern and progressive so we needed to change to reflect that.'

Mills & Reeve, like Ashurst, undertook its rebranding on moving to new offices.

Ms Murphy says: 'It was the best time to do it since we needed to change all our signs and letterheads anyway.

We changed all our communications material and the way we presented things - there's no point portraying yourself as approachable then sending out 20-page letters full of jargon.'

Ms Murphy, who previously worked in marketing at Tesco and Whitbread, says that branding a law firm is difficult.

'It's not like being Coca-Cola or McDonald's who can control everything from recipe, to price, to distribution.

Law firms sit at the most difficult end of branding because it's not about a physical product, it's about people.

'It's very important to work with people to get the message across that it's important for them to send out this message.'

Mr Mercer agrees it is important to get staff throughout the firm to buy in to the new brand and that extensive training is essential.

'We explained that what was much more important than a new logo was that they delivered the right message.

There's no good going through this whole process only to have the image ruined by a stroppy receptionist.'

Mr Mercer adds: 'We spent a lot of time and money on training and on an intranet to keep them up to date.' In fact, he says, rebranding is an expensive business, with the new image and Web site costing around 90,000, and 70,000 so far being spent on training.

'It was difficult to give partners the confidence that the investment was worth it.'

However, he says the exercise has paid dividends, with the rebranding bringing in better quality work and the firm seeing a 30% increase in profits and turnover.

He adds: 'You can't stop after the first year though, you have to maintain momentum.

If you don't, people may think you're a flash in the pan.'

Ms Galanti says: 'The launch was only the beginning - we are now running training programmes internally to bring the brand to life in the day-to-day work of our fee-earners and employees to exceed our clients' expectations.'

Mr Hinze says the rebranding brought an invaluable confidence to the lawyers.

'You can do fancy logos until the cows come home but it's all about the lawyers being confident with the organisation they are working for.'

Mr Mercer warns against rebranding just for the sake of it.

He says: 'There's a great danger in branding that you'll get bored before your clients do and that you'll rebrand when there was absolutely nothing wrong with what you had.'

Lucy Hickman is a freelance journalist