Greentarget

April 19, 2022 by Greentarget

Over the past two years, reporters have increasingly turned to online video calls as convenient ways to conduct interviews with faraway sources. The result has been an influx of opportunities for business leaders to engage with the media and establish themselves as authorities in their areas of expertise.

To take maximum advantage of this, one must be ready to not only interview with reporters, but do so via Zoom or similar programs. These interviews come with their own set of challenges and considerations…but don’t worry: we’re here to get you and your firm prepared.

March 21, 2022 by Greentarget

The ground-breaking nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court means professional services firms have a lot to consider when it comes to their PR strategy. The key question is whether – and how – to weigh in publicly on an appointment that could have far-reaching business and social implications.

As her Senate confirmation hearings begin this week, Jackson stands on the threshold of one of the most consequential jobs in the country, ruling on issues that are critical to U.S. business, governance and civic life. If confirmed, she would be the first Black woman on the court as well as the first justice to have worked representing poor criminal defendants.

Her nomination comes as the public is increasingly looking to business leaders for guidance and opinions at important moments of civic discourse. Offering a point of view at such times shouldn’t be done without care. But organizations that consider the matter strategically have an opportunity — and in some cases, a responsibility — to express true positions of authority at a key juncture in U.S. history.

Jackson’s nomination isn’t the only high-profile personnel move that might tempt professional service organizations to speak up. We asked Greentarget’s senior leaders about the advice they offer clients who come to us for guidance in these moments, and it starts with a few questions.

Is There a Direct Connection?

The first couple queries are fairly open-and-shut and pertain to the direct connection to the person being nominated or appointee.

Does the nominee/appointee have a personal connection to your organization?

An organization that has such a connection almost certainly has the authority to say something. That might not be the case if, say, a 67-year-old is appointed to a significant position 40 years after working at a law firm as an associate. But if the connection is stronger, putting out a short congratulatory statement that acknowledges the connection is probably a smart play, assuming things didn’t end on bad terms.

Making such a statement is a point of credentialing for an organization, even if it’s not one that will likely generate tons of headlines. Of course, there’s the inverse to this question …

Does your organization have an obvious conflict when it comes to commenting?

This is probably another question without much gray area. The decision to say something publicly might be a simple “no” because there’s a direct conflict – in the case of Jackson, a law firm might be set to argue before the Supreme Court in the next term. That might not automatically rule out saying something, but it could limit what can be safely said. And a milquetoast point-of-view might not be worth the time it takes to work it up.

What if There’s No Direct Connection?

Depending on the answers to the first two questions, some organizations may simply shrug and move on. But there are other important questions to consider before doing so.

Does the position relate directly to a major focus or emphasis of your organization?

Say your organization does a lot of work in securities or finance. It’s likely that your team includes someone – probably multiple someones – with strong perspectives when a new SEC chairman is named. Or, perhaps your organization has expertise on workplace issues. The appointment of a new secretary of labor will probably elicit a reaction or two from members of your team.

Still, making public comments in such moments isn’t a given. It’s important to actually have something to say about the person being nominated – and that what you’re saying is insightful enough for the reward to outweigh any potential risk.

So how do I know if what we have to say is insightful enough?

For either of the above examples, your organization’s subject matter experts might have thoughts on how the new SEC chair or labor secretary might perform, how policy or enforcement might change and, ideally, practical guidance on how companies should adapt. Importantly, subject matter expertise doesn’t have to be confined to the focuses of practice groups within your organization.

In the case of Jackson’s nomination, Littler utilized an existing podcast on inclusion, equity and diversity to post an interview between Cindy-Ann Thomas, the co-chair of the firm’s EEO & Diversity Practice Group, and Bernice Bouie Donald, a federal judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Thomas and Donald, both of whom are Black women, discussed the importance of diversity on the Supreme Court, strategies for female jurists of color in managing biases and advice from Donald for other female attorneys of color, among other topics.

Walking the Walk and Talking the Talk

The life and professional experiences of Thomas and Donald meant they had gravitas to comment on Jackson’s nomination. But Littler as an organization also could authentically and effectively weigh in because the firm has addressed similar issues for five years on the podcast (in addition to a variety of other channels). These factors tie directly to the next question on our list.

Is your organization able to speak to that point effectively and authentically, particularly in historic moments?

This was a question that came up a lot over the past couple years as organizations decided whether and how to contribute to the conversation in the wake of George Floyd’s murder and a broader racial reckoning. As my colleague, Steve DiMattia, smartly noted last year, it’s important that public comments in these moments aren’t just words:

The authenticity and credibility of any statement issued to address a fraught moment will not be judged against the values that you claim to profess but by the values you demonstrate through your actions. Values reveal themselves in observable behavior. And an organization that claims to stand for diversity and inclusion, but which has done nothing to advance diversity and inclusion, needs to think carefully about how it participates in the conversation about diversity and inclusion or risk alienating its audience.

The Need(?) to Say Something in the Digital Age

Here’s one more piece to the puzzle: Not only do we live in an era when news can make it around the world in minutes, we live in one in which technology makes it easier than ever to hold organizations’ feet to the fire.

Take what happened during International Women’s Day earlier this month. A slew of organizations posted what were fairly banal comments meant to celebrate the day – and were then quickly skewered by a bot that replied to the original posts with pay gap data about the organizations. The organizations, many of which quickly deleted their original tweets, learned the hard way that it’s never been more important to think through points-of-view before going public with them.

But that shouldn’t keep companies from commenting at all. As my colleagues Pam Munoz and Howell J. Malham Jr., noted last year, “It’s not an option for companies and their leaders to avoid entering into the fray of complex social challenges anymore.”

It could be argued that companies can enter the fray without entering it at every possible moment – and in the case of Jackson’s nomination, the moment might simply not be right based on the criteria outlined above. Indeed, organizations should pick their spots, because an empty/by-the-numbers move will be at best a non-factor.

But smart and incisive commentary, delivered thoughtfully and at the right time, is likely worth the risk, and it can make for a smarter conversation.

March 10, 2022 by Greentarget

Smith’s arrival comes after more than two decades in journalism, including 10 years at The Wall Street Journal

Greentarget, a leading public relations firm focused on helping professional services firms establish positions of authority, announced the addition of award-winning journalist Jennifer Smith as Director of Content & Editorial Strategy. Smith, who spent more than a decade as a reporter covering a variety of topics at The Wall Street Journal, will lead Greentarget’s content team, which serves some of the world’s largest professional services organizations.

“Jennifer’s experience at such a prestigious publication will advance our embrace of journalistic principles. Her natural curiosity and creative energy make her a strong cultural fit and will further our mission to create unique positions of authority for our clients,” said Aaron Schoenherr, founding partner of Greentarget. “With content needs evolving so quickly – especially given ever-shorter attention spans and new information-consumption habits stemming from the pandemic – we think Jennifer is the perfect person to lead our content team in the years ahead.”

Smith, who will be based in Greentarget’s New York office, joined the Journal in 2011 and spent three years covering the legal profession, where she broke news on the biggest law firm dissolution in U.S. history. She then spent two years as a culture reporter before moving in 2016 to cover logistics and supply chain – an area that has taken on critical importance amid the ongoing pandemic.

“I got to know Greentarget during my time covering the legal profession at the Journal and was impressed by the organization’s consistent professionalism, diligence and respect for journalistic principles,” Smith said. “While it wasn’t an easy decision to step away from journalism, I’m excited to approach the work from a different direction and join an organization with such a clear focus on creating compelling content that puts audience needs front and center.”

Before joining the Journal, Smith was a reporter at Newsday on Long Island, where she covered environmental issues and other topics. She also served as an adjunct professor at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism.

“Our content capabilities continue to be in high demand as the written word in particular carries significant weight among the sophisticated audiences our clients are trying to reach and influence,” said John Corey, president and founding partner of Greentarget. “Jen’s arrival is a tremendous step forward for Greentarget as we strive to preserve the principles of journalism in our approach to content while embracing what we know to be the fundamental attributes of compelling points of view – novelty, urgency, relevance and utility.”

Greentarget’s Content & Editorial service line has grown steadily in recent years to become an increasingly important part of the company’s offerings for a client base that largely competes on the basis of expertise and point of view. The team has an array of capabilities, including content strategy development, primary research reporting, op-ed campaigns, bylined articles, podcasts, audio storytelling and digital magazines.

Smith earned her M.S. in Journalism from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism and her B.A. from the University of California, Santa Cruz. She lives in Brooklyn with her husband.

March 2, 2022 by Greentarget

2021 was a bountiful year for the legal industry. Surveys by Citi Private Bank / Hildebrandt and Thomson Reuters / Georgetown Law Center all predicted double-digit increases in revenue and profits. The stories about individual firm performance emerging on Law.com bear out the predictions – the revenue and profit-per-equity-partner gains in 20 stories published to date average 15 percent and 26 percent, respectively. Certain firms reported 50 percent-plus increases in PEP, truly astonishing advances. With demand for legal services at historic highs in 2021, the same rising tide is lifting all boats.

In this environment, strong financial performance is unlikely to distinguish a firm in the lateral market. So what will help your firm stand out? Frame your financial message around talent.

Missing in the Am Law financial performance coverage so far is meaningful emphasis on firm culture – as experienced by associates, professional employees and partners – and discussion of hybrid and remote work arrangements. These are the new key metrics, valued now more than ever within firms and by potential recruits.

To make an impression on lateral candidates and key audiences within your firm – two groups who keep a keen eye on Law.com at this time of year – prepare messages for your financial survey interview with the following points in mind:

Focus on Talent and Culture – The pandemic-fueled Great Resignation is driving greater attention to the key components of a firm’s culture – i.e., the expectations regarding performance, norms that govern behavior, and actions that display your values. How this cultural grist drives a firm’s approach to such critical issues as diversity, wellness, and work environment is meaningful to potential lateral candidates, now more than ever. Nearly every managing partner featured in Law.com to date claims to preside over a great culture, and that the culture drives the firm’s success. But few have distinguished themselves by describing the specific actions they are taking to strengthen their culture.

One firm stood out for bringing its chief diversity officer, alongside the managing partner, to its Law.com interview. She described how the firm is supplementing its compensation strategy with increased and tangible nonmonetary means to attract and retain talent. Another firm stood out for describing an innovation to address lawyer turnover – something confronting all top firms that has otherwise gone unmentioned by the firm’s peers.

Explain Return to Work Expectations – When are your lawyers and professional staff expected to be back at their desks? For how often and for how long? This has been a moving target for most firms. Current and potential employees accustomed to a new fluidity between work and life are closely following signals regarding a firm’s disposition towards remote and hybrid work arrangements. How a law firm responds to its workforce’s new expectations and preferences regarding work environments will impact the firm’s ability to attract and retain talent.

Further, how you plan to use space signals whether 2021’s historic profits will prove an outlier as the firm – and historic expenses – get back to “normal,” or whether a fresh reallocation of office space will permanently free up resources to sustain profits or fuel attractive investments in talent. Some firms have shared their evolved plans for space and hybrid work publicly; linking these plans to financial expectations would attract attention.

Discuss Financial Results (With Context) – Revenue and profit remain critically important, of course. Share and celebrate strong results. But take care to contextualize these results as a function of exceptional circumstances. Several firms were quick to point out that strong 2021 numbers affirmed their strategy. But given the historic demand for legal services recorded within every segment of the Am Law 200, everyone can claim a smart strategy whether they have one or not. Offices have been empty, and travel is rare, so expenses are down. And strong profits per equity partner were supported at many firms by a decline in equity partner head count – some of it strategic, some not. So, will 2021 prove to be an outlier or has the firm evolved in ways that will keep expenses down, and profits higher, in perpetuity?

The historic war for talent is continuing in 2022, and that is ratcheting up the pressure firms are under to recruit and retain talent. As Hugh Verrier, Chair of White & Case, put it, “What no one wants in our profession is a world where people are being driven by numbers at the expense of people. That is what is commonly known as an absence of culture.”

Verrier is, of course, right. This is the year to make it known how you are investing in the firm’s culture and managing return-to-office expectations to create an environment where lawyers and staff can succeed and thrive.

December 14, 2021 by Greentarget

Professional services firms are under more scrutiny than ever when it comes to the clients they represent. Employees are no longer reticent about protesting clients they consider unsavory. We’ve seen other stakeholders and the public actively lobby firms to drop certain clients, as well.

Think about the way at least three law firms distanced themselves from representing the Trump administration after initially agreeing to help challenge election results. Public and internal pressures forced these firms to reconsider their willingness to be involved.

Controversial scenarios like this can land on the doorstep of any professional services firm. To protect your firm’s reputation in an era of more aggressive social activism, you can mitigate risk by considering carefully which clients you’re willing to work with.

Professional services firm can do this by applying the logic investors are increasingly using – it’s associated these days with three letters: ESG.

ESG Minimizes Risk and Maximizes Long-term Results

In the financial services realm, investing with a fund manager who touts a strong commitment to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices is not just about making a positive social impact. It’s also a way to reduce the likelihood that your investment will lose value while increasing the likelihood of positive returns over time.

Companies with weak ESG performance often find themselves in situations that can lead to a decline in valuation. If a company is cutting corners on safety protocols, harming the environment, or exploiting its workers, there’s a much greater likelihood it’ll eventually be sued, fined, or otherwise penalized, which can negatively impact its stock price. Activision’s shares have tumbled since revelations of sexual misconduct among its employees, a clear failure of governance. So an investor or fund manager may choose to benefit society by putting her money into a company or a fund with stronger ESG standards, sure, but it should also de-risk her investment.

How is this strategy relevant to who professional services firms take on as clients? Like investors, they should weigh the short-term gains they stand to make against the long-term risks associated with their choices. Is the initial financial windfall of working with a client of questionable or dubious integrity worth a ding to your firm’s reputation?

Socially Responsible Investing is a Way for Investors to Live Out Their Values

There are firms who choose to represent society’s most controversial and polarizing characters as a matter of principle. In the legal industry, for example, firms rightly argue that everyone deserves skilled representation, even those who some may consider unsavory. That’s certainly true, and if the employees and stakeholders of those firms know that is how they make decisions, there’s less risk for those firms. But when a firm purports to hold certain values and then makes decisions that contradict those values, the firm takes on significant reputational risk.

Assuming you’ve taken steps to define your values, applying an ESG investment lens to client selection can help you live them out.

Ethical investing got started in the 1980s when students in the U.S. demanded that their colleges and universities divest from companies that did business with the apartheid government of South Africa. Over the years an investing strategy known as “exclusionary screening” became popular, wherein investment managers would screen certain industries out of their portfolios. Tobacco, firearms, pornography, fossil fuels, etc., were common targets.

Investors have largely moved from screening out whole industries to selecting best-of-breed companies across all sectors of the economy. Regardless, protocols aligned with your corporate values can help you make decisions about the types of clients you’re willing to represent or the kinds of projects you’re comfortable taking on. Failing to make decisions in this way can cause backlash among other clients, employees, and even law enforcement.

Google, whose motto remains “Don’t Be Evil,” faced intense blowback when employees discovered its plans to work with the Pentagon on a project using artificial intelligence technology. After workers spoke out, walked out, and even resigned in protest, Google abandoned the project. Executives recently announced they’ll be exploring another contract with the Pentagon — but this time Google took care to explain how this decision fits with its principles.

PR giant Edelman has been assailed recently by employees who decry statements it made praising COP24’s “new level of international consensus that climate change is an existential threat,” calling for “more scrutiny of corporate climate lobbying efforts,” and arguing that many pledges made at the conference “fall short of what is necessary to avert climate disaster,” all the while representing companies that exploit fossil fuels and the trade groups that lobby for them.

McKinsey advised the pharmaceutical industry for years about how to increase opioid sales at a time when abuse of pain medicine was widespread. Sued by 46 states’ attorneys general for contributing to the opioid epidemic, the firm ultimately apologized for the work and paid a $573 million settlement to resolve investigations into it conduct, though the firm remains beset with fresh lawsuits. To avoid such entanglements in the future, the CEO Kevin Sneader struggled to draw bright-line rules around the kinds of industries from which it would no longer take clients, including defense, intelligence, justice or policing institutions in nondemocratic countries. Consensus among its partners on this has been difficult to achieve, and the divided opinions are said to have contributed to the Sneader’s ouster.

Investing in Funds with a Low ESG Index Can Influence Positive Change, Too

Sometimes, investors with a strong ESG commitment still invest in companies with environmental, social, or governance liability, but make this seemingly contradictory decision to encourage a company to change. For example, they might invest in an oil company to influence management’s decisions around replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy.

This logic might guide you to take on projects or clients that appear to be objectionable on the surface but have the potential to drive reform.

One example of this is impact litigation, which Harvard Law School defines as filing or defending lawsuits focused on changing laws or focused on the rights of a larger group of people than is directly involved in the suit. On the surface, such representations could beg the question, “Why are you doing this work?” But under certain circumstances, a firm may enter unsavory territory not only to earn fees, but also to make the world a more equitable place for more than just its client. Alan Isaacman’s work on behalf of Larry Flynt, published of Hustler in Hustler Magazine v Falwell, a landmark First Amendment decision, is a clear example. Indeed, John Adams’ defense of the reviled British soldiers who fired on colonists at the Boston Massacre in 1770 – rooted in his concern for the rights of the innocent and the rule of law – reveals how this practice has long been a feature of American jurisprudence.

Make Business Decisions that Align with Your Firm’s Values

Whether you’re more concerned with mitigating risks to your firm’s reputation or using your talent and expertise to effect social change, the business decisions you make are most defensible when they align with what are commonly understood to be your organization’s values. Applying an ESG filter can help your firm make choices that maximize long-term earnings over short-term gain, enter boldly into social reform territory, or screen out clients and projects that don’t fit with your core principles.

It all comes down to who you are and what you want to represent. Define your values. Communicate them to your clients, your employees, and the community at large. And then commit to making decisions with those guidelines in mind.