It's Okay For Lawyers To Do Mediocre Work. It's Not Okay For Writers.

In a single fantastic sentence about, of all things, alternative legal services providers, Susan Lambreth has summarized why I have a business.

In a recent article, she interviewed Connie Brenton, of NetApp, about that company's increasing use of ALSPs, or alternative legal services providers. These are companies that are not law firms, but provide routine, day-to-day legal services with an emphasis on process and efficiency. If, for example, you need to have hundreds of nondisclosure agreements managed, you hire an ALSP that specializes in this work rather than paying a law firm.

There are two points hidden within this article.

Point One is that most legal work is routine. As Brenton puts it:

"As I mentioned, we have found that 80% of the work we do is commodity driven and that doesn’t need “A+” quality work handled by expensive attorneys: it needs quality execution at a reasonable price. Unfortunately, that isn’t always the type of quality law firms are used to providing."

Part Two is that for this work, the quality has to be sufficient. Not great. Sufficient. Price and efficiency are a lot more important than perfection.

Now, here's the irony: When it comes to marketing writing, which is what I do, there is no such thing as commodity work, because if you don't give the reader a reason, they won't read it. If it's not useful, rewarding, relevant -- and if they don't enjoy the experience of reading it, right from the beginning (which is the headline) -- they won't absorb it and the effect will be nonexistent.

A lot of legal work can be thought of as off-the-rack. Marketing writing always has to be bespoke.

Most of the time, what clients -- at least, large corporate clients -- really need is efficient, decent work. But when it comes to marketing writing, anything less than great is a waste of time and effort.