There are three thought leadership gaps keeping attorneys invisible in the marketplace. Understanding what they are and how to close them is a key step in your thought leadership journey.
Most attorneys I talk to about ramping up their thought leadership efforts have the same problem: They’re invisible in the marketplace to everyone except their current colleagues, clients, and referral sources.
That’s not because they lack experience, expertise, wisdom, or knowledge—they have each in spades. They’re invisible because of three gaps that often arise in attorneys’ thought leadership programs. Attorneys across all practice areas and at firms of all sizes can experience one or more of these three gaps simultaneously.
Gap #1: The Coverage Gap
Arguably the most prevalent gap, the coverage gap occurs when an attorney has deep expertise, experience, knowledge, and wisdom in and about the areas of law they practice and the industries they serve, yet publishes little, if any, thought leadership content.
When someone searches for content or information regarding those topics, they don’t find that attorney; they find somebody else. That’s an immensely frustrating predicament for that attorney.
They’ve spent years, maybe decades, building their practice. They’ve handled dozens, if not hundreds, of matters. They know all the nuances of their practice that less tenured attorneys might miss.
But because there’s very little, if any, thought leadership content out there with their name on it, they’re invisible to the marketplace. So too is their expertise, experience, knowledge, and wisdom. Only those people who have interacted with these attorneys before know that they have them.
The coverage gap is the most expensive gap because attorneys are missing opportunities to grow their book of business that they do not know exist. For example, let’s say a GC at a company that has just been hit with an NLRB charge is seeking guidance on how to handle such charges. Or a CFO dealing with a novel cross-border tax issue is looking for someone who can help with it.
An attorney can have the knowledge and credentials that either of these would-be clients is looking for, but if they’re not producing thought leadership content on these topics, then these would-be clients aren’t finding it, reading it, and reaching out to them to ask how they could help.
Worse still, the attorney will never know how many opportunities they’re missing out on by not being visible in the marketplace.
Gap #2: The Frequency Gap
Unfortunately for attorneys and all professional services providers, publishing thought leadership a few times a year does not build authority. It merely cements the impression that you publish thought leadership a few times a year.
Welcome to the frequency gap.
Authority is not built upon a single thought leadership article. Authority is built on consistently published thought leadership articles. Attorneys become perceived authorities when clients and referral sources see their names regularly as authors of thought leadership content, which creates an association in those clients’ and referral sources’ minds between those attorneys and their practice areas and/or the industries they serve.
The publishing cadence I have seen work consistently for attorneys who want to be seen as authorities through their thought leadership is at least 8 to 12 thought leadership articles each year, published in third-party publications read by their target clients and referral sources. Below that number, an attorney isn’t building a presence in the marketplace so much as making cameos there.
There’s a big difference in the perception of authority created by an attorney who shows up on their target audience’s radar a few times a year through thought leadership and one who shows up monthly (if not more frequently). One of those attorneys has a good shot at being top of mind when a referral opportunity arises or when a client is seeking help with specific issues. The other one will only be remembered if someone already knows them.
I understand why attorneys fall into the frequency gap. Writing thought leadership takes precious time away from client work, which will always be a priority. And, attorneys rarely see an ROI from a single piece of thought leadership content.
But the ROI on publishing thought leadership content consistently compounds over the months and years that attorneys publish it. This ROI won’t be linear, either. For example, the tenth thought leadership article that you produce this year will likely do more for building your visibility and authority than the first few articles you produced this year combined.
Gap #3: The Audience Gap
Even attorneys who produce thought leadership relatively consistently can fall prey to a gap: the audience gap. The audience gap embodies the truism that writing for everybody is writing for nobody.
Look at most attorney-authored thought leadership content. It’s written at a level of generality that makes it hard for anyone to say, “This was written for me and people in my industry dealing with the kinds of issues that I’m dealing with.”
Yet that is the response required of a reader for an attorney’s thought leadership to land with them, impress them, and persuade them to reach out to the attorney or refer someone to them. They need to feel that the attorney understands the kinds of legal and business issues they’re facing, and the impact either can have on their lives and/or organizations.
The test I use to determine whether a piece of thought leadership content falls prey to the audience gap is whether someone receiving the article would say to themselves, “This was practically written just for me,” or “I know exactly who to send this to.”
When a GC reads a particular thought leadership article and thinks to themselves, “This is exactly the kind of issue that we’re dealing with here,” that was an article written for someone in particular.
When a fellow attorney at the author’s firm or another attorney at a different firm reads that attorney’s thought leadership article and thinks, “I know exactly who needs to read this,” that article was written for someone in particular.
The audience gap is why attorneys can publish relatively consistently, get decent engagement, and still not see new matters come in the door. They’re writing their thought leadership content for too broad an audience to trigger inquiries from, or referrals to, their ideal clients.
Attorneys can avoid the audience gap by paying attention to the feedback they receive from their audiences in the form of likes and comments on LinkedIn posts, responses to emails, and in-person remarks about their content. They should consider the recipients of their content to be a standing focus group, able to provide feedback on various aspects of it, including whether it’s resonating with them and what they want to learn more about.
If consumers of their content are asking for more details about particular topics or asking them to cover different topics, that’s an indication of the kind of content an audience wants to consume. Many attorneys ignore these signals and focus on writing what they want rather than what their target audiences want to learn. If an attorney is rarely covering the topics their audience wants, they’re walking right into the audience gap.
A plan for closing these three gaps
Throughout their thought leadership journeys, most attorneys will encounter one gap, many will face two, and some will face all three.
Unfortunately, you can’t close a gap that you don’t know exists or how severe it is.
Fortunately, there’s a tool that can help you identify the gaps in your thought leadership and how to close them: the Law Firm Editorial Service Opportunity Finder.
By answering three questions (which should take you less than three minutes total), you’ll see how many publishing opportunities you left on the table last year — and get five article ideas tailored to your practice area, ready to use.
Though common, it doesn’t have to be a foregone conclusion that you’ll fall prey to one of these three gaps in your thought leadership.
Consult the Law Firm Editorial Service Opportunity Finder to discover which gaps are tripping you up and to receive a personalized plan for closing them.