LEXIS Responds To Earlier Post

A representative from LEXIS responded to my earlier post,LEXIS, You Could Have Had Us Solos At Hello Unfortunately, I have been experiencing some serious problems with the comments feature of my blog and as a result, have missed many comments.  I would never, ever not post a comment to a site, even if it is critical; any delays are usually a result of problems with the comments feature or my busy schedule.

Because LEXIS sent a response two weeks ago, I am choosing to feature it in the body of this post below:

A very persuasive post with some very good points/criticism. I wanted to let you know that a number of us at LexisNexis are reading and even working on many of the issues you correctly cite.But I also wanted to respond to your post with some corrections and additional information.

First, I need to provide a couple of corrections because despite our effort there were a few factual errors in the Forbes.com article:
– the new TV campaign is actually the second campaign we have launched. We have been on TV (in a small way) for about a year now
– even though we are always trying to promote LexisNexis, the real aim of the TV commercial is to promote Lawyers.com as a lead-generation source for our subscribing attorneys
– Forbes unfortunately only quoted our SEM (pay per click) prices and not our subscription pricing. This made us seem unfairly expensive to a small law firm. In fact, our prices for subscription to Lawyers.com start as low as $50/month for a solo attorney and scale with the size of the law firm, the extent of advertising and whether we are also building the web site or delivering an SEO campaign but at the intro level, we believe our pricing is very reasonable.

At Lawyers.com, our primary job is to bring consumers and lawyers together and our purpose for being on TV is to reach consumers. Our message to attorneys is that with over 2 mil consumer visitors per month, we are delivering significant value and leads. The new TV ad with our objectives explained can be found at www.youtube.com/user/Lawyersdotcom

Your post, however, represents a very important (and widely held) opinion that we could and should do more for solo/small law firms. We understand and are working on addressing these needs.

Your comments were aimed mainly at the research side of our business and while I am in our marketing group, I know our research group will be bringing simple solo and small law packages to market later this year. These packages of research and marketing are aimed directly at the solo and small law firm – a group that we probably have not done enough to help.

Within our Lawyers.com group we have introduced small law packages and even pay for performance pricing for those firms that want to directly link marketing spend with real results.

You are raising very important and entrenched market attitudes. You may see us as late but I wanted you and your readers to know that we are listening, working hard to adapt to market needs and particularly to do a better job of assisting the solo/small law firm.

Your criticisms are on point and fair but I hope you will give us a chance to change your mind – even if in a small way.

thank you –
Dave Danielson
VP Small Law Marketing Solutions
Lawyers.com/LexisNexis