An investigation into the identity and positioning of the twenty largest law firms in the Netherlands

1. IDENTITY AND POSITIONING OF LAW FIRMS
A N INVESTIGATION INTO THE IDENTITY AND POSITIONING OF
THE TWENTY LARGEST LAW FIRMS IN THE NETHERLANDS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
January 2009
© Kroese brands & behaviour bv
All information in this document is copyright protected and the property of Kroese brands
& behaviour bv. No part of this document may be reproduced or used in any form or by
any means, without the prior permission of Kroese brands & behaviour bv.
1

2. 1. Introduction and Conclusions
‘Man, 39, seeks female companion to share his life with. I enjoy participating in
sports, as well as fine foods accompanied by a glass of wine and engaging
conversation. I have a good sense of humour, and I enjoy long walks.’
W h a t i s wr o n g wi t h t h i s p r o f i l e ? I t o n l y c o n t a i n s t h e a s p e c t s t h a t t h e wr i t e r i n
q u e s t i o n t h i n k s t h a t t h e wo m a n o f h i s d r e a m s wa n t s t o h e a r , a n d t h e r e f o r e
d i s p l a ys v e r y l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e m a n b e h i n d t h e a d v e r t . T h e k e y p h r a s e s
t h a t d i s p l a y t h i s – p a r t i c i p a t e s i n s p o r t , g o o d s e n s e o f h u m o u r , a g l a s s o f wi n e ,
l o n g wa l k s – a r e s o g e n e r i c t h a t i t i s p r a c t i c a l l y i m p o s s i b l e t o f o r m a c o r r e c t
image of the person in question simply by reading the advert. If a reader
r e s p o n d e d t o t h e a d v e r t , t h e n i t wo u l d b e f a r m o r e l i k e l y t h a t s h e d i d t h i s o u t o f
curiosity than out of a firm conviction that this man is perfect for her. The
c h a n c e s o f a g o o d m a t c h a r e t h e r e f o r e r e d u c e d c o n s i d e r a b l y.
I n s t e a d o f t h e a b o v e t e x t , i m a g i n e t h a t t h e p e r s o n i n q u e s t i o n h a d wr i t t e n
s o m e t h i n g l i k e t h i s : ‘ D u e t o m y b e l i e f i n m a i n t a i n i n g a h e a l t h y m i n d wi t h i n a
th
h e a l t h y b o d y , I l i f t we i g h t s a n d s t u d y p h i l o s o p h y ( 1 9 century philosophy,
particularly John Stuart Mill). I can recite every ‘Blackadder’ script in existence, I
e n j o y a r e d B o r d e a u x ( F r e n c h wi n e s a r e m y a b s o l u t e f a v o u r i t e ) , a n d I l i k e
wa l k i n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y f i r s t t h i n g i n t h e m o r n i n g t h r o u g h t h e F o r e s t o f D e a n . ’ T h i s
type of advert paints a fuller picture of the person in question in the reader’s
i m a g i n a t i o n . T h i s h e l p s d i s t i n g u i s h t h e t r u e p e r s o n f r o m t h e wo r d s , wh i c h i n t u r n
i n c r e a s e s t h e c h a n c e s t h a t t h e a d v e r t wi l l a p p e a l t o t h e i n t e n d e d t a r g e t a u d i e n c e
amongst the readers.
T h e d i f f i c u l t p a r t o f wr i t i n g a g o o d p e r s o n a l a d i s t o g i v e t h e r e a d e r a n e x p e r i e n c e
o f wh o t h e p e r s o n b e h i n d t h e a d v e r t i s . T o d o t h i s , t wo c o n d i t i o n s m u s t b e m e t .
T h e p e r s o n wh o p l a c e s t h e a d m u s t b e c o n s c i o u s o f h i s / h e r o wn i d e n t i t y .
S e c o n d l y, t h e wr i t e r m u s t c h o o s e t o a l l o w t h e r e a d e r t o e x p e r i e n c e h i s / h e r
identity. This is not done by using generic or ‘socially acceptable’ language, but
b y c r e a t i n g a n a u t h e n t i c p o r t r a ya l o f h i m / h e r s e l f t h a t a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t s t h e
p e r s o n a l i t y o f t h e wr i t e r .
In essence, this is the dilemma involved in convincing, individual communication.
W e l l - k n o wn b r a n d s s o l v e t h i s p r o b l e m b y m a k i n g c h o i c e s t h a t a l wa ys f i t wi t h i n
t h e i r b r a n d i d e n t i t y , a n d t h u s a l wa y s g i v i n g a c o n s i s t e n t p i c t u r e o f wh o a n d wh a t
they are. This makes them more successful than other brands in reaching,
a f f e c t i n g a n d b o n d i n g wi t h t h e i r i n t e n d e d t a r g e t a u d i e n c e . T h i s r e s u l t s i n h i g h e r
s a l e s f i g u r e s , wi d e r p r o f i t m a r g i n s a n d a g r e a t e r m a r k e t s h a r e , a s we l l a s a m o r e
r e f i n e d s e l e c t i o n o f a p p l i c a n t s wh e n r e c r u i t i n g .
I n v e s t i g a t i o n b y K r o e s e b r a n d s & b e h a v i o u r b v h a s s h o wn t h a t l a w f i r m s i n t h e
N e t h e r l a n d s f r e q u e n t l y s t r u g g l e wi t h t h i s d i l e m m a . T h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n wa s b a s e d
o n t h e i d e n t i t y a n d p o s i t i o n i n g o f t h e t we n t y l a r g e s t l a w f i r m s i n t h e N e t h e r l a n d s .
A n a l ys i s h a s u n e a r t h e d t h a t t h e r e i s a g r e a t c o n t r a s t b e t we e n t h e c h a r a c t e r s a n d
the brands of different law firms, yet this diversity is not expressed by the firms’
2

3. corporate communication. According to the conclusions of the investigation, the
cause of the problem is that a relatively large number of law firms find it difficult
to:
1. d e f i n e t h e i r o wn i n d i v i d u a l i d e n t i t y ( a t l e a s t 2 5 % o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n
investigated),
2. e x p r e s s t h e i r o wn i d e n t i t y wi t h p o s i t i o n i n g t h a t s u i t s t h i s p a r t i c u l a r i d e n t i t y
( m o r e t h a n t wo t h i r d s ) , a n d
3. compose communication that truly distinguishes their brand and unique
character from those of other firms.
2. G o a l a n d M e t h o d o f t h e I n ve s t i g a t i o n
Goal of the investigation
L a w f i r m s m u s t d e a l wi t h i n t e n s i v e c o m p e t i t i o n o n t wo f r o n t s . F i r s t l y, t h e d e m a n d s
m a d e b y c l i e n t s a r e c o n s t a n t l y i n c r e a s i n g . C l i e n t s ’ i n c r e a s i n g l e g a l k n o wl e d g e
and the expansion of the field in general mean that law firms are no longer the
c o m p u l s o r y o p t i o n t h a t t h e y o n c e we r e . A d e c a d e a g o , c o m p e t i t i o n wa s a l m o s t
u n t h i n k a b l e ; n o wa d a ys , i t i s c o m m o n p l a c e . F o r t h i s r e a s o n , i t i s n o w f a r m o r e
important for a firm to distinguish itself in the labour market than in the past. So,
s e c o n d l y, t h e r e i s a ‘ t a l e n t wa r ’ i n p r o g r e s s , a n d f i r m s a r e f o r c e d t o i n c r e a s e t h e i r
a p p e a l t o t h e k i n d o f l a w g r a d u a t e s t h a t wo u l d b e s t m a t c h t h e i r i d e n t i t y a n d
m a r k e t p o s i t i o n wi t h r e g a r d t o s p e c i a l i s t f i e l d s , t a l e n t a n d p e r s o n a l a t t r i b u t e s .
Both developments force law firms to position themselves distinctively. This
prompted Kroese brands & behaviour bv, to carry out an investigation of the
t we n t y l a r g e s t l a w f i r m s i n t h e N e t h e r l a n d s ( s e e A p p e n d i x I ) , a n d e x p l o r e t h e
f o l l o wi n g i s s u e s :
H o w d o t h e t o p t we n t y l a w f i r m s p o s i t i o n t h e m s e l v e s i n t h e D u t c h m a r k e t ?
Does the particular firms’ positioning truly match their identity?
Method
O u r a n a l ys i s i s b a s e d o n t h e K r o e s e b r a n d s & b e h a v i o u r b v b r a n d m e t h o d o l o g y. I n
t u r n , t h i s m e t h o d o l o g y i s b a s e d o n J u n g ’ s a r c h e t yp e s ( a m o n g s t o t h e r f a c t o r s ) ,
a n d d i v i d e s b r a n d s i n t o t we l v e d i s t i n c t i v e t yp e s ( s e e A p p e n d i x I I f o r a m o r e
detailed explanation of the methodology employed).
Phase I: communication vs. brand position
P h a s e I o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n v o l v e d a n a l ys i s o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r f i r m s ’ m a r k e t i n g
c o m m u n i c a t i o n . B a s e d o n a d v e r t i s i n g c a m p a i g n s , c o r p o r a t e we b s i t e s a n d l a b o u r
m a r k e t c o m m u n i c a t i o n , a n i n v e n t o r y wa s m a d e o f h o w t h e t o p t we n t y f i r m s d e s i r e
to position themselves in relation to each other. To do this, each firm’s
c o m m u n i c a t i o n e f f o r t s we r e a n a l y s e d i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c h a r a c t e r t h a t t h e
f i r m wi s h e d t o p r o j e c t .
3

4. Phase II: identity vs. brand position
T h e o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s p h a s e wa s t o a n a l y s e wh e t h e r t h e r e i s a d i s c r e p a n c y
b e t we e n t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r f i r m o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d i t s d e s i r e d b r a n d
position on the other.
T o t h i s e n d , t h e a n a l ys i s o f p h a s e I wa s e x p l o r e d i n g r e a t e r d e p t h b y m e a n s o f
analysis of the particular brands/firms. The communication managers of each firm
we r e a p p r o a c h e d wi t h a r e q u e s t f o r a n i n - d e p t h i n t e r v i e w, a n d e v e n t u a l l y, n i n e o f
t h e t we n t y f i r m s a g r e e d t o a s s i s t i n t h i s p h a s e .
O n e n o t i c e a b l e f a c t o r wa s t h a t f o u r t e e n f i r m s i n i t i a l l y p l e d g e d t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n .
H o we v e r , a f t e r r e c e i v i n g t h e l i s t o f q u e s t i o n s , f i v e f i r m s wi t h d r e w f r o m t h i s p h a s e ,
s t a t i n g t h a t t h e y we r e n o t , o r n o t ye t , c a p a b l e o f a n s we r i n g t h e q u e s t i o n s
r e g a r d i n g t h e i r i d e n t i t y.
3. F i n d i n g s a n d C o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e I n ve s t i g a t i o n .
CONCLUSION I
L aw f i r m s f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t t o c o m p o s e t r u l y d i s t i n c t i ve c o m m u n i c a t i o n t h a t
does justice to their unique character and brand potential.
While the diversity between the firms offers sufficient ideas for devising
distinctive positioning, the firms diminish this individuality by using generic,
practically identical material in their communication. The result of this is that the
target groups, i.e. clients/prospects and potential employees, are unable to form a
distinctive, unique perception of a firm based on its marketing and
communication.
C o n s e q u e n t l y, f i r m s i n i t i a l l y a p p e a r t o b e i d e n t i c a l , a n d t h e c o n t r a s t b e t we e n
t h e m o n l y c o m e s t o l i g h t a f t e r t h o r o u g h a n a l ys i s . T h i s i s a wa s t e d o p p o r t u n i t y, a s
firms that distinguish themselves clearly appeal much more strongly to their target
audiences.
F i g . I o n t h e f o l l o wi n g p a g e d i s p l a y s t h e p o s i t i o n i n g o f t h e l a w f i r m s a s we h a v e
a s s e s s e d t h e m i n o u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I t c l e a r l y d i s p l a ys t h a t t h e r e i s p o t e n t i a l l y a
h u g e c o n t r a s t b e t we e n t h e c h a r a c t e r s a n d m e n t a l i t i e s o f t h e v a r i o u s f i r m s . T h i s
means that the particular firms have more than enough opportunity to emphasise
t h e i r i n t r i n s i c d i s t i n c t i o n a n d t o s t a n d o u t f r o m t h e c r o wd .
4

5. Fig. 1 - Positioning of the top twenty law firms based on their character
(each oblong represents one of the twenty firms).
H o we v e r , wh e n t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n b y t h e v a r i o u s f i r m s i s a n a l ys e d ,
it is found to have too much of a ‘me too’ character; firms have a tendency to
boast exactly the same values and qualities. Table 1 displays the characteristics
wh i c h a l l t we n t y f i r m s c l a i m t o b e t h e d i s t i n c t i v e a t t r i b u t e s o f t h e i r o p e r a t i o n .
Tab. 1 - Characteristics and values that law firms communicate about themselves
• policy of diversity
• g o o d b a l a n c e b e t we e n wo r k a n d p r i v a t e l i f e
• international firm
• legal expertise
• k n o wl e d g e o f t h e m a r k e t
• short lines of communication and a flat organisational structure
• opportunities for training and career development
• emphasis on scale (number of lawyers, offices etc.)
• close cooperation
• independent
• pragmatic solutions
• f o c u s o n p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d p e r s o n a l g r o wt h
• trend-setting nature and high-quality service
T h e p r o b l e m wi t h t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s t h a t t h e y h a v e n o d i s t i n g u i s h i n g v a l u e t o
either clients or law graduates. They are qualities and characteristics that are
g e n e r a l l y e x p e c t e d b y c l i e n t s a n d e m p l o y e e s / p o t e n t i a l e m p l o ye e s ; t h e y c o n s t i t u t e
a ‘ l i c e n c e t o p l a y’ , r a t h e r t h a n b e i n g p a r t o f t h e f i r m ’ s i n t r i n s i c d i s t i n c t i o n .
For law firms, just as for all professional service providers, this intrinsic
d i s t i n c t i o n i s f o u n d i n t h e u n i q u e c h a r a c t e r t h a t e a c h f i r m p o s s e s s e s . H o we v e r ,
firms rarely take up the challenge of giving shape and substance to that character
by emphasising the attributes that make each firm truly unique. It confirms the
notion that law firms, on a superficial level, are very similar and all seem to fulfil
the same role and function.
5

6. F i r m s t h a t s i n c e r e l y wi s h t o m a k e u s e o f t h e i r i n t r i n s i c d i s t i n c t i o n wi l l d e v e l o p
their communication into a unique experience that gives their target audience a
c l e a r p i c t u r e o f t h e f i r m ’ s t r u e i d e n t i t y.
CONCLUSION II
A l a r g e n u m b e r o f l aw f i r m s h a ve d i f f i c u l t y e x p r e s s i n g t h e i r t r u e i d e n t i t y w i t h
positioning that suits this identity.
CONCLUSION III
F u r t h e r m o r e , a l a r g e n u m b e r o f l a w f i r m s h a v e d i f f i c u l t y d e f i n i n g t h e i r ow n
identity.
D u r i n g t h e i n - d e p t h i n t e r v i e ws wi t h n i n e f i r m s , t h e t r u e i d e n t i t i e s o f t h e s e f i r m s
we r e i n v e s t i g a t e d . B a s e d o n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , d i s c r e p a n c y a n a l y s i s wa s
c o n d u c t e d , wh i c h d o c u m e n t e d t h e c o n t r a s t s b e t we e n t h e a c t u a l i d e n t i t y o f e a c h
f i r m a n d t h e p o s i t i o n i n g t h a t e a c h f i r m c h o s e . T h i s a n a l ys i s s h o we d t h a t t h e
p o s i t i o n i n g o f t wo t h i r d o f t h e f i r m s i n v e s t i g a t e d i s n o t s u i t e d t o t h e a c t u a l
identity.
Fig. 2 - Discrepancies between positioning and actual identity (firms
represented by a black oblong showed no discrepancy between the
identity and the selected positioning).
T h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t m a n y s o l i c i t o r s ’ f ir m s h a v e d i f f i c u l t y d e f i n i n g t h e i r o wn
i d e n t i t y i s s u p p o r t e d b y t h e f a c t t h a t f i v e o f t h e t we n t y f i r m s i n v e s t i g a t e d p u l l e d
o u t o f t h e i n - d e p t h i n t e r v i e ws b e c a u s e , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e m , t h e y we r e n o t c a p a b l e
o f a n s we r i n g t h e q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l i d e n t i t y o f t h e f i r m .
6

7. Ap p e n d i x I : L i s t o f t h e t o p tw e n t y l aw f i r m s , 2 0 0 8
(Source: KSU Publishing, 2008)
1. NautaDutilh
2. Houthoff Buruma
3. De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
4. Loyens & Loeff
5. AKD Prinsen Van Wijmen
6. Stibbe
7. Allen & Overy LLP
8. CMS Derks Star Busmann
9. Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn
10. Clifford Chance LLP
11. Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten
12. Boekel De Nerée
13. Van Doorne
14. Baker & McKenzie
15. Holland Van Gijzen
16. Simmons & Simmons
17. Nysingh Lawyers and Notaries
18. Kennedy Van der Laan
19. D i r k z wa g e r a d v o c a t e n e n n o t a r i s s e n
20. DLA Piper
7