QualitySolicitors Hits the Streets

From the Law Society Gazette 20/05/10:

Law firm marketing alliance QualitySolicitors has launched a national high street branch network in a bid to become the first ‘household name’ legal brand, the Gazette can exclusively reveal.

Today sees the opening of the first 15 QualitySolicitors branches across the UK, in a strategy described as a ‘game changer’ by one industry commentator.

Well-established practices such as Bristol firm Burroughs Day, Lockings in Hull and Howlett Clarke in Brighton are among 13 firms to have totally rebranded. They now trade under the QualitySolicitors name, branding and logo.

QualitySolicitors chief executive Craig Holt said: ‘The threat posed by “Tesco law” [when the Legal Services Act comes fully into force in October 2011] is so grave because of the lack of recognised, customer service-focused brand names in the legal market.

‘Visibility on the high street, along with a high-profile marketing campaign including on primetime television, will transform QualitySolicitors into the first household name legal brand.’

It’s always said that attack is often the best form of defence and I guess this is a clear shot across the bows of ‘Tesco law’ players, who are currently readying their battalions prior to battle.

I think few will deny that the legal profession should evolve and modernise its image and accessibility to better reflect the demands of clients in the 21st century. It’ll be interesting to see how well this is received but this could well be a taste of things to come.

And regarding the name, QualitySolicitors, it’s certainly a ‘what it says on the tin’ approach, but I suppose those are often the best.

Comments

  1. "Written in association with no win no fee solicitors"

    So essentially this post is an 'advertorial'? I've got to admit, that has made me much less inclined to read your blawg, which is a shame.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I take your point, Anon. but I don’t think that line of text affects the substance of the post, nor the wider blog.

    It’s no different to having a couple of sponsored links in the sidebar; it’s just that one firm prefers it in the odd post for SEO purposes and this one seemed suitable. The post wasn’t related to the sponsored link – nor have I ever offered a clear endorsement of any law firm on my blawg.

    I really can’t believe that someone would be discouraged from reading a blog on the basis of an innocent line of text in one post. I mean, they’d have to be a highly suggestible character and believe everyone else also suffered with that affliction, wouldn’t they? :p

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well the difficulty you have is that the line of text is worryingly opaque - links in your sidebar I can take or leave, but when you tell me that a post has been written with a commercial partner, alarm bells start ringing about the content of the post, no matter how innocent it looks...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah, I hear ya, Anon.

    I think you’re right in saying that the issue is with the words, “written in association with”. I initially just had the subject words but they asked for it to be included. Perhaps there’s a compromise that I can reach with them.

    The more I think about it, the less suitable, “written in association with” seems now – for both me and the other party. I probably should have revisited this before.

    Thanks for bringing it up and I hope you keep on reading! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hmm, I tried to respond, but my response seems to have vanished!

    I do enjoy reading your blog though - it brings some colour to my otherwise overworked existence as a pupil barrister! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Glad you enjoy reading and I hope you continue to! :-)
    For what it's worth, I'm going back through the relevant posts and removing, "written in association with". It needed doing, I think!

    ReplyDelete
  7. QualitySolicitros is a horrible name... you'd think they'd have come up with something better than that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yeah, I agree AW.

    That said, it's not grating on me as much as it was.

    Still, I'm sure they spent tens of thousands on focus groups and think tanks to come up with that! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. i reckon they are nuts if they want their product (however cut-price and correspondingly low-quality) associated with a blog dominated by piscine porn and sexist choccy!
    and honestly; some of the people who leave comments...

    yrs tactfully
    sw

    ReplyDelete
  10. I wouldn't say it's dominated by that stuff, SW. It just features fairly frequently. :p

    What's wrong - are you jealous? :p

    ReplyDelete
  11. jealous?
    of your success with cephalopods; of the availability of dodgy choc; even of the fact you know how to add pictures to your blog - hell yes!

    that you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with andro and some unknown female colleague wrestling in their scanties, perhaps less so.

    get help and get a nice little squid of your own is my advice

    ReplyDelete
  12. SW: Thought so! :p

    I think 'unhealthy obsession' is a bit strong, too.

    And re. the squid, I'm way ahead of you - I stopped by the sushi bar earlier! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  13. I talking about this story with my supervisor yesterday afternoon.

    His comment: "Anything that calls itself quality normally isn't".
    Can't see my firm joining it anytime soon then!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Asp I agree with you on this. The name makes the some worse than they probably are.

    The better well-established firms may regret their rebranding efforts and lose the reputation they've built up.
    I really think this is going to be one of those all-or-nothing situations. If it works, it will work well!! If not, its a lot to lose.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts