Showing posts with label Charles H. Green. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charles H. Green. Show all posts

Friday, August 22, 2008

Do Clients Buy Law Firm or Lawyer?

Book cover of Book cover via Amazon How does the client select their attorney? So asks Charles H. Green, author of Trust-based Selling (McGraw-Hill, 2005), and co-author of The Trusted Advisor in his blog article "Do Clients Buy the Law Firm, or the Lawyer?". It is worth reading it in its full form.

A brief synopsis:

"The real decision process . . . covers two distinct phases—screening and selection. Screening usually comes first, and is heavily focused on the law firm. The client puts together an initial "short list," based on some combination of prior experience, reputation, recommendations, and some initial search.

Even if only one firm emerges as likely to be viable—most clients insist on some kind of personal interaction before making a decision. And usually this selection process involves several firms. Selection may be more or less formal, may involve presentations or phone calls, but in almost all cases involves personal interaction." The focus of this second stage is the lawyer.

Read the rest here.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Write Next Proposal With Client

An overview of the structure of DNA.Image via Wikipedia
Another good one for Charles H. Green.

Write Your Next Proposal Sitting Next to the Client

We all know we should write proposals that are less about us. We know we should spend less space on credentials and methodology; we know we should focus more on results, benefits, and adding value in the proposal.

But we nearly always miss the biggest proposal opportunity of all—to build the relationship.

Yet there’s one very valuable thing that happens when you say, “I’ll send you the proposal.” You give the client an emotionally acceptable way of saying “no” to you. This may be the biggest reason of all that proposals exist. No one wants to be the agent of personalizing rejection; and frankly, we don’t want to be

Enter the joint proposal. What if, instead of the usual “send it to you Friday” line, you were to say: “Great meeting, Joe, we got a lot better feel for things today face to face than we could have done with more phone calls. Let me suggest we keep up that progress, rather than shutting it down.

“Let me suggest you book this conference room again for next Tuesday, and we write your proposal together.

“Together, we’ll address all the specs we’ve discussed--capabilities, costing, time estimates, benefits, payback and ROI calculations—everything we talked about. We’ll put in the stuff you need, and leave out whatever boilerplate you don’t need.

“I’ll bring everything I need from our side—pricing sheets, work design outlines—and I’ll be quite open about it. You come with the audience you need this to speak to, and the critical issues the proposal must address. As issues of interpretation arise, we’ll address them together. As issues of understanding arise, we’ll address them together.

“Together, we’ll write the best proposal that can possibly be written for the combination of you and us. Is that the best possible proposal for you? Maybe, maybe not. But we’ll both know that we got the best we had to offer for you out on the table.

“Joe, I know this approach is no guarantee we’ll get the job. In fact, it may become very clear to both of us as we write the proposal that we are particular well-qualified—or badly qualified—to do this work for you. Which means we’re reducing the likelihood of misunderstanding and surprise. Which is good for both of us.”

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]