The classic elevator speech is used in brief, informal business encounters, like the fifteen-minute conversation at an association meeting or the late-Friday conversation between two delayed travelers in an airline club lounge.  It’s also useful at a lunch a colleague is hosting for you and one of her clients as an informal first step to cross selling your services.  I have previously described this kind of elevator speech in an earlier posting (Elevator Speeches).

It should be clear:

• I am a lawyer.
• I am an accountant. 
• I am a structural engineer.

It should use concrete, simple language: 

• I am a lawyer.  I specialize in family law. 
• I am an accountant.  Specifically, I am a tax accountant. 
• I am a structural engineer. I deal mostly with cases where structures have failed.

It should be memorable:

• I am a lawyer.  I specialize in family law. Many of my clients have children or other dependents who will need taking care of long after the client will be able to provide it.  I help make sure that care is put in place.
• I am an accountant.  Specifically, I am a tax accountant.  And I work with smaller companies for whom workers comp and other taxes are a significant cash drain.  I help them make sure that they aren’t paying any more than they are required to. My clients in your industry include Antimacassar, Inc. and Necessary Needlepoint.
• I am a structural engineer. I deal mostly with cases where structures have failed. I specialize in figuring out why buildings or bridges fell down.  In this city, we have worked on the collapse of the spectator stands at Run Off Raceway.

(For more, see our category on elevator speeches.)

The Council of Public Relations Firms recorded a podcast with Suzanne Lowe and me called Adapting to a Downturn. It is now available here. Free registration is required.

Before a client engages in a serious conversation about her business or legal concern, she might request a short description of what you do. She quite naturally wants to know who she is talking with so that she can decide whether or not it is worth the effort to describe her need in detail.

You must be careful to give her just enough information to make her comfortable that you are, indeed, the person to talk with. If you say too much, you may draw so much attention to yourself that she starts asking a lot of questions about you. If that happens, she may make the decision that you aren’t suited to her need, before you even learn what that need is.

In this situation you need a short, compelling description of what you do. In other words, an elevator speech. We call this kind a positioning statement. It is the most variable of the three kinds of elevator speeches I described earlier, because selling situations differ. Let’s look at how a location consultant might alter his positioning statement to accommodate different selling situations. Just for starters:

The client may know nothing about either him or his firm: We help companies select locations for new facilities. My personal specialty is selecting sites for research laboratories like the one that I understand you need to build. We have helped companies as diverse as Trigestis Pharmaceuticals, Permian Oil and SnackTime Foods select laboratory locations. We look at recruitment of researchers, customer interaction, incentives and any other critical factor that varies with geography.

The client may know you and your firm for one service, when you are selling another: You know us mostly for our location selection work. Many of the companies we work with also seek our help in moving to that new location. We help develop employee relocation policies, employee communication plans, plans for moving furniture and lab equipment and other critical elements of getting a lab up and running on time and on budget. We provide these services to well over half of our location selection clients.

The client may know you and your firm, but not the colleague who has come with you:  I have brought Chris Browne with me today, because you asked about the potential to obtain incentives from communities we are considering for your new lab. Chris leads our negotiation practice and negotiates on everything from tax reductions to site infrastructure improvements and from lease costs to the size of subsidies for training new personnel.

After providing a positioning statement, you want to ask a question that will get the client talking about her need. That’s who we are. Perhaps you could tell us a bit about the lab in question and why you are thinking of relocating it.

Remember that the goal of the positioning statement is to give the client just enough information that she will feel comfortable talking about her issue. You aren’t trying to sell her anything yet. You aren’t trying to differentiate your firm from all of the possible competitors. You just want to give her enough information to make her feel it’s worth telling you what she wants.

After she tells you what she wants, you can tell her why yours is the best firm to solve her problem and how you differ from her alternatives. But not now. Now you listen.

(For more, see our category on elevator speeches.)

In one of those helpful articles that points out something that should be obvious, but is overlooked, Doug Stern warns us in his Marketing Profs article “The Myth of the Elevator Speech” that people asking about what we do for a living doesn’t mean that they want to know much.    It’s often a conversation filler; a polite question that should be treated as such.

The broader message implied in Stern’s article, one that should also be obvious, is that we each need several elevator speeches to use in different kinds of situations.  I can think of three that we all should have:

1>     The Stern Elevator Speech
2>     The Positioning Statement or Sales Meeting Elevator Speech
3>     The Classic Elevator Speech

I’ll describe the first one here, and write about the other two in upcoming blog posts this month.

The Stern Elevator Speech

Here Stern isn’t an adjective; it’s Doug’s last name, used in his honor to describe the elevator speech used in social, rather than business, situations.  Rather than stern, it should be light and conversational.  If it makes people smile, so much the better.  I like the ending that draws out the other person, because I’m shy and like it best when the other person talks.

I’m a mortgage banker, the person responsible for the current recession. And you?

I’m an accountant.  I count beans and, occasionally, money.

I’m an economist, and if that doesn’t depress you sufficiently, let me know and I’ll tell you more.  What about you?

In Stern conversations (not stern ones), don’t—don’t—bore the other person with a lengthy description of what you do.  For example, a litigation support consultant should not try for a clear statement of what she does.  If you say:
I conduct the forensic accounting analyses that determine financial facts and legal culpability under litigation and that provide valuations of damages.
the other person will either flee, change the subject or, with dread, feel obliged to ask you to explain yourself.  Instead, you might say:

I make up the facts that lawyers like Jim, here, twist in court.

Remember, keep your Stern Elevator Speeches lively and conversational.

(Note to Doug Stern: This posting would have been much easier to write if your last name had been something like Light or Jolly.)

(For more, see our category on elevator speeches.)

In an old post, Build It and They Will Come, I described a common business development fallacy at professional firms.  Professionals sometimes think that one heroic effort; a major presentation to a client or a speech at an association or a publication of a thoughtful article; will bring in business. It seldom happens so simply.

In a recent post Seth Godin reports similar fallacious thinking among those who sell products, who believe that one big effort, like a product launch or grand openning will have significant impact on the market.  Instead, companies must do the hard work of marketing and selling, going back to the market again and again, says Godin.

Because professional service firms often lag product companies in marketing and sales sophistication, it’s good to learn that the product companies make this kind of mistake, too. 

In a recent post, Peter Darling commented on a piece in ABA Journal on the desirablility of origination credits in which Martha Nell reported on a article that appreared in New York Law Journal.  That article argued that origination credits should expire after a number of years.  That way attorneys working the account could get credits to incentivise them to keep and expand it.  Peter Darling argued that the attorney who originated the relationship should get the origination in perpetuity.

I respectfully disagree–and agree–with both positions.  Compensation systems are tools to help a firm achieve its objectives.  They cannot be decided on once and forever; they need to change over time.  What’s right for a number of years won’t be right for all time.  This is for two reasons:

1) A firm’s objectives change with time and circumstances.  At one time it may need to stress cooperation in the sales effort, and so require shared originations.  At others, it may want to focus on individual responsibility, so leaning towards sole origination credits.  As the firm’s needs change, so must its compensation system, or sooner or later the firm will have its strategy and its compensation system in conflict with each other.

2) Any compensation system creates undesirable incentives as welll as desired ones.  Reward people for bringing in a large account with long-term origination creddits and you create an incentive for some lawyers to grasp at credit for any and all contact they have had with a company before it became a client.  After a number of years, any compensation system begins to suffer from having too many people trying to game it.  It then needs refreshing or replacement.

Compensation systems are a way to reward performance.  As the firm’s focus on different kinds of performance change, so must its rewards system.  The challenge comes with successfully making the change.  Every change in compensation system is likely to be met with an outcry of how it will destroy the firm and bring financial ruin to its attorneys.  Push the change through, anyway, and two years later you will get a similar outcry from the same people when you try to replace the new system.  Isn’t managing a professional service firm fun!

About a dozen years ago, an old friend, Joan Jorgenson, hung out her shingle as a retained search recruiter.  Within a year she was winning the choicest searches in her niche, most coming through referrals from her network.  She built this network from a core of people into the best in the niche within a year. 

I have never seen anyone build such a productive referral network in so short a time.  Being interested in such things, I asked her how she had done it, to which she responded with a steely determination, “One person at a time.”

That is how networks grow.  You meet someone.  You get to know what interests them, so that you can stay in front of them.  You make judgments, about personal fit and your ability to help each other to pick the keepers.  And you stay in front of them some more. 

Recruiters have advantages over other professionals, because sourcing and interviewing candidates and checking references give them more reasons to stay in front of their contacts than most of us have.  At least, they have these advantages once they get hired to conduct some searches.  A sole practitioner, Joan couldn’t rely on searches sold by others in the firm to stay in front of people.  She had to come up with something else, until she won enough searches for the contacting-through-searches to kick in.

Because recruiters need larger networks than most of us, this meant she had to come up with numerous reasons for calling her contacts.  The reason for these calls had to be plausible and offer her a chance to provide value to her contacts.  The approach she developed did all of this and made her a better-informed recruiter into the bargain.

The industry that she recruits for was undergoing a massive change.  Strategies that worked for three quarters of a century were losing their effectiveness. People in the industry across the country were struggling to find new ways to meet their objectives.  The new paths were more diverse than in the past, there was little literature on many of them and what literature there was dated quickly.

To recruit effectively, Joan needed to know about these new approaches.  She found herself developing lists of people at the cutting edge of their development.  Calling them to learn about their approaches, she discovered that each was interested in what she had learned from the others. In this market, it was acceptable to pass such information on.  The more she did this, the more she learned and passed on and the more valuable she became both as a contact and a recruiter.

She began to refer to the people she called as her “brain trust” and the term stuck.  Members had a rough idea of who the other members were.  Outsiders who learned of it aspired to membership and would reach out to bring her information. When someone was needed to recruit cutting edge talent, she became the obvious choice.  This process and the brain trust at its center have been the foundation of her search practice.

I know of other professionals who have developed networks comparable to Joan’s brain trust.  A German strategy consultant, for example, created such a group from firm alumni now working within the industry he specializes in.  This group actually meets several times a year.  “I can find out anything I want to know about what is happening in the industry through this group,” he has said.
One thing that those who create brain trusts have all noted: When you ask someone to be a part of your brain trust, they seldom say no.

A rainmaker, as we define one, brings in leads and converts them into business at such levels that she leaves her colleagues in awe.  Of the two talents, lead generation and lead conversion, the former is much the rarer.  That is, professionals who can sell, once given a lead outnumber those who can generate leads, but can’t convert them into business.

Yet, lead generation gets little attention relative to its importance. Brian Carroll devotes a successful blog to it, B2B Lead Generation Blog, and has written a good book on the subject, Lead Generation for the Complex Sale. A handful of books, like my own, deal with both lead generation and face-to-face selling.  In comparison, there are dozens of good (and not so good) books on how to conduct a sales meeting.

In part, that’s because of the diverse nature of leads in the professions, and, as a result, in the way they are obtained.  A lead, by our definition, is an opportunity to meet face-to-face with a prospective client to talk about a problem that she has that you might be able to solve for a fee. Leads all end up with a professional sitting across a table with a client, but there are many paths to the room.  Which path the professional takes depends on the nature of the clients and the needs he works with and on his personal preference.

For example, there are needs that are secret, like the impending default on a loan, and those that are public, like the need for an auditor.  In the former case, just finding out that a company has a need gives you an advantage, but not in the latter case.  Some needs are ongoing, like need to monitor emissions and discharges; some are frequent, like a fast food chain’s need to negotiate leases; and some are infrequent like the need for a company to pick a location for a new headquarters. 

Some may have a devastating effect, if the need isn’t met effectively, such as the recruitment of a new CEO, while others can result in an ongoing annoyance if resolved poorly, like the retention of a graphic artist to place, word and design signage for a college campus. 

Some, like the outsourcing of a company’s data center operations, evolve and develop over a long time.  With others the formal hiring takes place when the client calls up and, in effect, places an order.  M&A attorneys often hire valuation consultants this way.  The informal sale was made at some previous and usually unspecified time, when the attorney decided to give the valuation firm a try the next time he had a need.

The challenge for the aspiring rainmaker is to identify a process or processes for generating leads and then to work at that process intensely.  In the early years, the challenge is often meeting enough people with the right kinds of needs.  Here are a couple of quotes of young lawyers who did this and succeeded:

“I spent a significant amount of time giving speeches to groups of people I hoped would remember me. I spoke at chambers of commerce, hospital associations and many other groups.  Once one is on the circuit and has topics of interest, you get requests to speak.  I would ask clients if they were members of an association that would like to have me speak.  There were years when I was doing 25 speeches a year and it was very, very fruitful.  It is where I got my early business, and the people I met giving speeches form the corps of my network today.”  (The late Carol Berlin Manzoni, who in addition to being a fine attorney was a lovely person.)

“When I was 32, I started going to every business meeting I could.  I went to Chamber of Commerce Meetings, Institute of Packaging Professionals meetings, Business & Industry Association meetings—you name it and I was there. I wanted to meet everybody.  I did in every meeting and largely at my own expense.  I realized soon that I wouldn’t meet end users at these events, but I could hook people up with each other and build up chits.  I made a point of coming back from every meeting with several business cards.  Those that seemed at all promising I had a breakfast or lunch with. After about a year, I started getting some good cases.” (Attorney Eugene Killian)

Once the machines they had built began to punch out leads, neither of these people had to continue at such a feverish pitch.  Over the years the processes evolve as a rainmaker’s needs change.

The challenge is to identify a process that will work for you. Here are some simple guidelines for doing so:

1. Try what’s worked before. There are no extra points for originality in this game.  If it worked for your boss or the big rainmaker in the firm, see if you can make it work for you.  Ask the person who is already effective how she got started, what false starts she had, what she has changed over time and how long it took before she began to see solid results.  Use what you learn to adapt the technique to your circumstances.

If these people don’t make rain in a way that suits your style, explore what worked before for others in your profession.  What worked before includes what worked for competitors.  It’s amazing what you can learn about a competitor’s techniques, if you focus on finding out.  You can watch them in action at conferences, debrief their former employees and colleagues, and read what they have published.  Ask them and chances are they will tell you more than you expect.  Ask a client who knows you well how other professionals approach him to get his business.
My book, Rain Making-2^nd Edition-Attract New Clients No Matter What Your Field, describes many methods for generating leads that have worked for other professionals.

2. Experiment and adapt.  Some trial and error learning is inevitable as you try to master lead generation. You are entitled to have some false starts and make mistakes along the way.  If you think of a way to get close to prospective clients to generate leads that you haven’t seen succeed, try it.  Whatever technique you choose, you will need to adapt it to your time and place and personality.

3. Don’t let up.  A few mistakes may set you back, but giving up is certain failure.  Try to do at least one thing every day, even if it is something small, that will help you get into a conversation with a prospective client.

For more advice like this, please see Ford Hardings’ new book: Rain Making, Attract New Clients No Matter What Your Field, 2nd Edition

“Rain Making, in its new edition demonstrates its position as the single most sensible, accessible guide to building a professional practice…”
David Maister, author of Strategy and the Fat Smoker and co-author of The Trusted Advisor (with Charles Green and Robert Galford)