Golden Practices Blog

Listener Beware: Don't Take Everything You Hear from Experts as Gospel

I think industry experts have some responsibility to qualify their opinion statements, but their audiences have a far bigger responsibility to vet what they hear.

For one thing, experts don't all agree, so what does that tell you? Further, experts in some areas aren't necessarily experts in all areas. And even when they are, in general, advice is "one size fits one" (a concept I heard a few times at an event last week).

Last week, I was at the Winning is Everything conference held by The Advisory Board—a group of my colleagues who are widely recognized accounting-industry consultants. This year's event was as good as any of their past ones I've attended, if not better.

As always, I heard some great stuff where firms are truly innovating, and I heard some stuff that makes me cringe.

It's true that everyone has an opinion. Especially on hot topics like diversity in the workplace or on the effectiveness of social media.

Sometimes, especially on panels, speakers are simply sharing their observations an a wide variety of subjects, whether their areas of expertise or not. 

It's kinda frightening to me that members of the audience, holding the speakers in deservedly high esteem because of their clear expertise on certain topics, will take observations on other topics and cling to them like gospel. Especially when it's what they want to hear about trying new things (i.e., "don't bother").

This is the case with some sweeping statements made about social-media use in professional firms. Panelists discussing changes in the profession said things like "Firms I talk to about their social-media use say that there hasn't been any ROI [return on investment]."

Aaaaaggghhhhhh! 

Who, exactly, are those firms? How have they been using social media? Did they define their purpose? Specify goals? Once that was done, did they use the right tools? In the right way? With the right groups or people? And for how long? Did they track the right success metrics?

The odds of all those things happening well are very slim, if they happen at all. So, yeah, it's no wonder they can't point to results.

Social media isn't the problem. Lack of planning and spotty execution are the problems. I devoted entire chapters to this in my book, Social Media Strategies for Professionals and their Firms. 

We're so quick to blame the tool and not the methods of using the tool. That's like saying cars crash and fail. Yes, some do. But why?

Social media is rarely effective in a vacuum. Or as stand-alone marketing.

As I discussed in a past blog post called "'What's the ROI of Social Media?' is the Wrong Question," you can almost never isolate the ROI of social media." It's like trying to isolate the ROI of your phone. Or your email's ROI. Impossible.

Anecdotal and blanket statements like those heard last week can prematurely deter others from even caring to learn how to use the these modern communication vehicles. (Don't confuse "modern" with "new." Twitter & Facebook have been around for 6 years, LinkedIn for 9, and blogs for 13+ years). There's enough trepidation within firms (already far behind the rest of the commerical world) about exploring social media. We don't need more.

Coincidentally, the fabulous Rebecca Ryan, a member of The Advisory Board who couldn't be at the conference this year, had commented on my above-referenced blog post with remarks that included this gem: 

Asking "What's the ROI on SM?" seems like a way for decision-makers to end a conversation they're uncomfortable having. (And it works!)

So true.

Please, don't let anyone deter you from exploring any methods for communicating with people and distinguishing yourself and your firm from the pack. 

Take advice, including mine, in its proper context and explore and challenge experts' ideas on your own.

The Original Accounting and Law Marketing Professional, Bruce Marcus, Releases 16th Book

A few months ago, I had one of those career shock-and-honor moments. 

Bruce Marcus (of The Marcus Report and Marcus Letter fame) called to ask me if I would write the introduction for his sixteenth book Professional Services Marketing 3.0.

I've long been a reader of Bruce's musings and admirer of his no-holds-barred views about firms and their operations. I particularly appreciate that he never tried to separate marketing from ops; he agrees they are integral. 

Allow me to tell you a little about Bruce. He joined Peat Marwick Mitchell in 1951 (after serving the our country during a fairly major event) and his career includes law as well as public accounting.

With his keen eyes open—his majors were econ and philosophy—he experienced, first hand, the dramatic evolution of professional service firms from "we don't market" to post-Bates decision assertions of "we'll advertise over my dead body" to fairly sophisticated modern marketing including the social web (which Bruce, an octogenarian, uses daily).

He was, quite literally, the very first communications director at a then Big-Eight CPA firm. He's done much in his prestigious career: http://www.marcusletter.com/Background.htm

Because Bruce has an incredibly open mind and reflects in order to advance, there really is no one better to help us envision where the professions need to be. He's watched from the birth of professional firm marketing, through its toddlerhood, and into its rocky teens. Professional firm marketing is now entering adulthood and we need perspective. This book provides it.

Here are a few excerpts from the introduction that can be read in full here.

Bruce Marcus’ newest book documents an important evolution in professional firms and the way law and accounting firms interact with current and prospective buyers. These interactions include serving the client, but also—quite importantly—reflecting how people working in firms present themselves in terms of their ability to bring true value to those who hire them.

The future of marketing is enhanced by understanding the past and present. It’s extremely rare to meet and learn from someone with the vast experiences of Mr. Marcus. It’s rarer yet to come upon a person who also maintains an extraordinarily open mind to new perspectives on the art and science of which he is already a master many times over.

To study the lessons within this book is an investment well worth making; may your mind be as open as the author’s as you explore the pages that follow.

Professional Services Marketing 3.0 is the story no one but Bruce could be in a position to tell. Enjoy...

Why Social-Media Rock Stars are Good for Your Firm

Partners and associates often worry about marketing “the individual” versus marketing “the firm.”

When a person markets herself (whether online or off) and receives some attention around it, colleagues can become envious. Some may speculate that she’s not a team player, and that she’s more interested in getting her name known than the firm’s.

Others might pick at her with comments like “You spend too much time on your blog, not doing client work.” Just anticipating these sentiments could preclude her from promoting herself, as if she’d be stepping out of bounds.

But marketing in the professions of law or accounting is much more about relationships than about leveraging a corporate-like brand.

People want to buy from people. Not from logos.

Logos and brands aren’t accountable and accessible. People are. Brands are inherently impersonal yet your firm’s value and long-term appeal are based on your people.

Rock Stars and Record Labels

A good way to look at your firm's marketing is to view the firm as a record label and your people as performers ... with some as potential rock stars.

When a label has only one rock star, you could chalk it up to luck in discovering that talent. With two rock stars signed, people start to wonder if it’s more than just luck. Three rock stars and it’s a trend: the label consistently finds and draws talent.

Think Motown.

A record label that has signed multiple stars is more prestigious among its competitors and is more attractive to aspiring stars. There’s something magical about that label; it appears to have a formula for success.

Your firm should want your attorneys or CPAs to become rock stars so they can elevate the firm’s visibility and reputation.

Rock-stars using social media can quickly put their firm on the map. The higher profile of the firm, in turn, raises the profile of all its attorneys or CPAs.

Creating the Connection

With the visibility comes responsibility.

In all his marketing interactions, a lawyer or CPA should associate himself with his firm in appropriate ways. Online, this means naming the firm and linking to the firm’s website within his bios on social sites like LinkedIn, Twitter, Google+, and blogs.

This doesn’t mean that every profile or photo needs to incorporate the firm’s branding, just that the connection to the firm is consistently reflected on social sites.

And if the person avoids referring to the firm, you might have reason to question his purpose in marketing so independently.

But this isn’t just a social-media problem, it’s an age-old concern. I know of a partner who contributed an article to a local print publication and refrained from naming his firm in his byline. He confessed his intent was to distance himself from the firm—he felt the firm didn’t support his interest in marketing. Whatever his reason, his behavior reflected an underlying problem. The behavior was just the symptom, the root cause was a deeper issue.

In a scenario like this, be careful to address issues like these for what they really are. Don't let fear preclude you from nurturing rock stars. 

Leaving the Label

So there’s this one lingering concern: what if you do support the growth of a rising star, and then she leaves your label?

Your big stars could certainly migrate just as top artists change record companies. This is one reason it’s best to have several rock stars.

It’s true that blogs and social networking sites make it easier than ever for people to build visibility and social capital. And this certainly means they can leave and take this social capital with them. The important thing to remember is that your firm’s stature is already higher for being associated with your stars. That stature stays even when they go.

There’s one way to be particularly proactive about associates or partners possibly leaving that also inspires people to want to create content: establish who will own content like articles and blog posts.

Regardless of the firm’s ability to assert copyright, the wiser approach is a generous spirit of sharing. Agree to let authors use their own articles even after they leave while being clear that the firm can also continue to use the content.

Here’s why you want to share copyright:

When a firm insists on solely owning the content, it creates a disincentive for people (especially non-partners) to contribute their intellectual capital. I’ve seen this completely kill blog efforts, which is a shame because providing content is some of the most valuable marketing you, in a knowledge profession, can do.

Alternately, if the departing attorney or CPA solely owns her content, the firm faces a hassle of scrubbing blogs and websites to remove her content.

Keep it simple and take the high road: agree that the firm and the departing professional can both use it.

When your firm aspires to create, equip, and support as many rock stars as it can, you’ll have far more success than trouble as a result. Encourage your practitioners to create content and participate in social networks to raise both their profiles and the firm’s.

Feature photo courtesy of feiticeira_org on flickr.

Why Outsourcing Social Media Isn't Always the Best Step

Social media takes considerable time and energy.

There are certainly aspects of maintaining a social media presence that are tempting to delegate to interns or outsource to outside companies. 

But wait.

Before you turn to others to "do your social media" for you, remember that social media are just communication tools like telephones and email.

When you have someone "do" email or phone for you, what's that like? How does it go over with the recipient? Would you let just anyone do it?

I prefer you don't delegate the interaction at all. Delegate monitoring and even researching and drafting or the actual act of posting, if you have to.

But be very, very careful if you delegate more. 

If you're a knowledge worker—like a CPA or lawyer—delegating these things well requires finding someone who has exceptional judgment, thinks like you do, and resembles our idea of that superindispensable assistant of the old days—the one who anticipates what we need before we even know we need it. Like Radar O'Reilly.

That person can do your social media "for" you effectively. Interns most probably can't. Outside companies need to be carefully vetted.

(Note: I, in no way, endorse letting someone pretend to be you. I'm referring only to outsourcing company-level social-media interactions. If you have stand-ins for your individual-level interactions, you should be completely transparent about that. Without exception.)

Hiring good judgment isn't cheap. And it's rare to find.

Companies and firms of all sizes—even those with savvy, good-sized marketing departments—sometimes hire outside agencies to interact on the social web on their behalf. Whether it's corporate tweeting and Facebook-page posting, or posting comments on blogs to try to drive some traffic back to their website and boost SEO (search engine optimization), there are businesses who assure you that they'll handle everything you need—you essentially put your entire social web presence in their hands.

And some probably do a good job. (Another note: I've not personally found one yet.)

If you, as the person hiring them, don't know how to go about "doing" social media effectively to begin with, what they say could sound really good. The words and concepts are foreign to you. You don't really want to deal with it. Hiring them solves a big problem for you.

But check out that SEO link I just shared a couple paragraphs ago. Google tells you what to be wary of. Don't let the mystery of what social media entail make you blind to good decision making.

Many of these agencies resort to bad practices and slimy tactics to get you "out there." Sometimes on purpose, and sometimes it's just pure ignorance; they think the approaches are fine. They think what they sell is what you want. Like you sell Viagra or something.

This is why you need to understand what you're actually buying.

A few days ago, I received blog spam from one of the top 10 public-accounting firms in the world who seems to have retained an agency to alleviate their social-media headache.

Oops.

The comment they submitted on an ancient post of mine makes no effort to even pretend to interact with my blog. Its purpose is to attempt to improve search results for the firm related to the keywords included in the comment.

I'll guarantee you that the company is reporting to this Top 10 firm that "we've placed # of links for you as comments on credible blogs." Uh-huh.

Here, I've redacted the firm name and IP address to spare the firm some embarrassment. But not every firm is so fortunate.

Take Martindale-Hubbell (the 140-year-old lawyer-directory company) for example. They hired a company to help them and that company took a similar SEO-boosting path by posting comments to legal blogs.

They at least tried to be conversational. Sort of.

Much to MH's dismay, the hired gun posted a spammy, fake-conversational comment on the New York Personal Injury Attorney Blog whose author Eric Turkewitz called them out. This is the offending gibberish comment:

Being a representative of a law firm, reading an article and blogging and commenting on legal issues has always proved to be useful. To some extent, information given on such blogs and the comments and articles has benefited the victims facing complexities in term of legal issues and helps us also update our knowledge of what is happening around and what all complexities we should expect from our future cases.. It provides a great platform to discuss experiences and share knowledge.

This was particularly bad for MH because they happened to have been well into a promotion about being a leader in social media (which no one in the social-media space believed because of how isolated MH's lawyer listings are from important things like, say, Google searches) even before they proved they weren't a social-media leader with this really bad we-don't-get-it move.

MH stepped forward, answered the questions—albeit a bit inelegantly—and after they got dragged through the mud (see the comments on that mud post, too) later shared how they'd make good. 

Don't let this happen to you!

Be sure you know exactly what the agency (or person) you're thinking of hiring intends to do in your name. 

Do you really want random people making telephone calls or sending emails on your behalf?

Well, letting them interact on the interwebz for you is the very same thing. Without equipping your helpers with information they need in order to represent you knowledgeably, you could really look the fool.

Choose wisely and learn the basics and nuances about anything new to you before you go hiring someone to help you step into it or you could end up with it all over your shoe.

Feature photo courtesy of Joel Abroad on Flickr.

Fly On The Wall #6: The Apprentice Who Can't Take Over the Practice

This is my first Fly On The Wall (FOTW) post in a while. 

My initial FOTW post describes what inspired the series. And maybe you'll enjoy some of the others:

FOTW #1: Respect, Referrals & Cross-selling
FOTW #2: If Internal Communication is Poor, Can You Still Have a "Great Culture"?
FOTW #3: "We Don't Have the Right People."
FOTW #4: What Happens When People Are in Your Lobby?
FOTW #5: "It's Not Us." (All About Sam)

Today, I want to talk about a recent revelation I've had that a problem I thought I just observed "here and there" is actually so common that I now estimate it occurs in about a third of the 100+ firms I've been exposed to during the past 12 years that I've spent consulting.

Here's the scenario.

Introducing the Partner and the Apprentice

There's a dynamic, successful partner with some of these traits:

• A natural at marketing.
  By that, I mean that she makes friends readily and plants seeds with just about everyone she meets. She exudes confidence and is pleasant to interact with. She burns through a box of business cards ten times faster than anyone else. She'll go in for surgery and leave the hospital with a new client or two.
• An expert or niche-practice specialist.
  He is considered one of the leaders among peers. Unquestionable that he's good at what he does—solid credentials back up any claims of quality, and happy clients abound.
• Recurring referrals from the same sources.
  Referrals keep coming from the same people because the work is that good and the quality is that consistent. Her referrals feed the firm well and the practice area grows. Team members are added to support the practice and do the work that she brings in. 
• Meticulous about work and service quality.
  He may believe that few people can perform to his level, and trust is limited to a few key people that work particularly closely with him. It makes sense! Quality is how he built the practice and keeping that reputation intact is essential to the continuity of the happy clients and referral sources.
• Tight control of relationships.
  She's worked hard to earn the business. The most trusted team members have some client contact, but aren't perceived to be truly "in charge" of the work—she's the primary contact for the key decision makers. Her referral sources either haven't met any of the other team members, or aren't encouraged to communicate directly with them.

Then there's someone junior to that partner. This person has some of these traits:

• Highly valued right arm to the partner. 
  She's reliable, conscientious, and very competent. Her strong technical skills, consistent delivery, and unquestionable dedication are why the partner relies on her so heavily.
• No book of business.
  He was handpicked to work for the partner and support the growing practice. The partner brings in plenty of work and, as the first person the partner turns to for leading the project, there's been no need for him to develop business of his own. In fact, the partner hasn't encouraged him to get involved with the firm's marketing and might even discourage it saying, "we have so much going on, don't worry about that right now."
• Full plate.
  Work's lined up for the foreseeable future. There's no need to "shop" internally for other projects to work on, thus no chance to participate in other practice areas. Others in the firm don't consider her as a resource because she never has time to do anything but the partner's work. They may even be a little jealous of how important she is to the partner and how she seems exempted from activites the others are expected to participate in (like marketing).
• Non-equity partner or forever manager or associate.
  Maybe he's never been worried about becoming partner or was made partner without meeting some otherwise key criteria (like having a book of business or demonstrating the abililty to bring in clients). The senior partner might have lobbied for the promotion explaining he'd be able to bring in business once "partner" was on the business card. An underlying reason for this hope promotion might have been to keep this important worker from defecting. 
• Subdued personality.
  She has a reserved nature, rather the opposite of the natural-marketer tendencies of the senior partner. She's happy to have such a great role and the respect of the dynamic partner. And she's glad she doesn't have to do that marketing stuff because it would be uncomfortable and maybe even a little beneath her to do it. Quite frankly, though people in the firm know she's a pro, she doesn't exactly exude "confidence" to strangers. This might be a reason she's not introduced to referral sources.

 

What's Actually Happening

An apprentice is someone who invests in learning a craft from the skilled employer. And if you learn well, you can earn the privilege of being groomed to eventually take over the practice. There is nothing wrong with this model. 

The problem I keep seeing in the accounting and legal professions is that there are too many partner-apprentice situations similar to the one I described.

The "grooming" part is more or less missing.

For years the team approach works well for both people, but what's frighteningly absent is self-sufficiency of the junior person. It's a co-dependency. And everyone ends up hurt in the long run: the junior person, the clients, the firm, and possibly even the senior partner if she really did hope to build a legacy practice (sometimes she doesn't actually hope to).

When the partner retires or leaves, continuity of client relationships in this well-established practice area is impaired or in jeopardy. And new work slows to a trickle because the most logical "next in line" hasn't learned the skills and developed the contacts to keep the pipeline full. 

How can this unfortunate situation be avoided?

If You're the Junior

Understand that, even though you probably didn't choose law or accounting in order to get involved in "sales," business development is an absolutely requisite skill set (unless you elect to work in industry rather than practice in a firm). 

Without the skill set, you will forever rely on others to create your work. You'll have less control of your workload, less opportunity to explore other areas of practice, and much less marketability to move as a lateral. Your odds of earning an equity owner position are slim without at least a modest book of business and the ability to grow one.

Maybe that's okay with you—you don't aspire to be an equity owner. That's fine.

But it doesn't change the fact that, essentially, your career future is beyond your control and perhaps threatened when your other half retires or moves on.

If you stay but can't lead the practice group, the firm has to either bring in a new senior partner (pray you get along with him and that he respects and values you like the other one did) or the practice group dries up. Maybe you can start working in another practice area, but you then have to start all over learning a new trade. It's too bad you didn't have much exposure to other practice areas in the past. 

If you look for a position elsewhere, you're now competing with other professionals who do what you do and have a book, or the skills to develop one. Your only remaining option may be an industry position.

Bottom line: don't permit yourself to become dependent on another practitioner to fill your work plate; become proficient at building contacts and discussing your capabilities with confidence as early in your career as possible. These are skills that can be learned with practice.

You may never by the dynamic marketing type that the partner is, but successful marketing doesn't always look like her. Lots of quiet types are very successful at developing business! 

Remember this as you progress in your career: it's far better to get to the point where you bring in work that you don't do than it is to always be doing work that you don't bring in. 

If You're the Partner

If you're the partner, you are doing your colleague a disservice by not urging him or her to obtain the skills and confidence to be self-sufficient in a practice without you.

Even if you don't consider this person to be the ideal future successor, he or she is your right-hand person and if the proverbial bus came along, your cherished clients would all be left in a lurch. Your firm would face the threat of a completely disrupted, significant practice area. And your valued colleague would be stuck in the situation I just described. 

To avoid this, begin introducing your protégé to clients and referral sources. If she really doesn't have what it takes to impress, help her acquire greater confidence by creating opportunities to present to people she's comfortable with on topics she's a master of. Practice is critically important. Few people rock at this without repeat performances. 

If needed, consider some outside skill development. Toastmasters and the like. He probably won't ever be the dynamo you are and that's okay. He doesn't need to be. Enough confidence to instill trust and to be personable and helpful is the minimum you're looking for.

She should have some exposure to clients, new prospect meetings, and get to know your referral sources and their successors. Your demonstration of confidence in your protégé to include her in these meetings will also go a long way toward instilling a sense of (internal) confidence in her. 

In general, if you do expect the person to eventually replace you, be cognizant of the inherent problems when you hire someone "opposite of you" in personality. You're probably setting yourself up for disappointment. The opposite of you is a great worker bee but is not usually successor material unless you are committed to helping him obtain the skills to keep the practice growing long after you are gone.

Seek out a strong worker who is also a people person. He might be harder to tame, but an entrepreneurial spirit will ensure the continuity of your practice.

Retraining Clients When You've Taught Them to Abuse You (aka Preventing Costly Schedule Disruptions)

Rogue 24 is a new DC restaurant that is apparently so worried about no-shows that it has a two-page contract for would-be patrons. Their terms require payment for cancellations within 72 hours among other (obnoxious) things.

For some, the sense of exclusivity (and jerkiness) might actually be a draw, but last time I checked, restaurants were considered part of the "hospitality" industry and there is nothing hospitable about their approach.

I know a lot of CPA firms who are sick to death of clients not being ready for them when they show up for audit fieldwork. (This post uses audit as an example, but the concepts apply to consulting, website development, and a zillion other types of projects.) 

I can't blame a firm for being frustrated when the audit team appears at a company and the advance PBC (prepared-by-client) list has not been completed. It sucks. It's expensive and it's disruptive.

The auditors either leave with unanticipated open time in the middle of what is typically a jam-packed audit season, or they simply begin to "help" the client get ready. But in doing so without a signed change order, the firm will likely end up writing off the work. Or worse, the firm will later "bill and duck" for this work at high risk of angering the client. 

And next year, when the client is not ready again, the firm is ... wait for it ... surprised. And annoyed.

Parents who are reading this may be able to recognize what the firm has just done.

The firm has successfully trained the client that the PBC list and the work schedule just aren't that important and don't need to be respected or adhered to. 

Feeling taken advantage of, and still not realizing it's partly their own fault, some firms contemplate "policies" that penalize a client for not abiding by the schedule. Perhaps Rogue 24's policy is a good model to follow, eh? Nuh-uh.

There are much better ways to set expectations and prevent major disruptions to scheduling for audits or similar work that needs to be organized well in advance with appropriately skilled people during very specific time periods.

Sit on the same side of the table as your customer.

I'm not the least bit against a monetary penalty for lack of readiness. In fact, I believe timing of work should play a huge role in determining your prices. Timing is usually critical to the client and duration (a maximum) is nearly always going to be essential to your profitability. 

But it's not hospitable to shove an ugly contract in your current or prospective customer's face demanding compliance with your unilaterally decided terms. Doing so creates an adversarial relationship with the customer. (Sorta like billing and ducking does.)

Instead, put some energy into learning details about your customer's exact needs, educating them where it is helpful to both of you, and doing everything possible to help them be ready for you on the day you are going to show up to begin that work.

The best tone to take is "help us help you."

1. Give exact dates.

Be very, very clear about timing in your project quotes (or proposals or statements of work or customer-service agreements — whatever you choose to call them). Many firms take a lazy approach and simply say "30 days before the reporting date" or "30 days after fiscal year end."

Egads, if you don't care enough about the dates to list them, why would you think your client will care enough to honor them?

Don't ever make the customer calculate any due dates!

Do the legwork and tell them the actual dates. Better yet, include a visual. Show them key dates, don't just bury them in text.

Say what is needed, when, by whom, and delivered to whom.

2. Teach them how.

Do you want to win some points for being extra helpful? And do have you have an ulterior motive to make sure it's done right? Of course you do! And that's all right.

Informally talk with them. Show them samples. Provide templates.

Maybe you can offer some formal classes on preparing PBC list items. Education is a terrific complimentary service that you could offer as part of the engagement or charge extra for it. Perhaps new clients get to attend the first one free. Or every client gets one admission included and additional people are extra. 

3. Provide reminders. Early and often. 

Customers appreciate your reminder postcards, phone calls, and emails. They show you care and they emphasize that you're serious about timing and readiness.

This can be done by your admin team on a systematic schedule: a week before fieldwork, two weeks before, 30 days before, 60 days before, etc.

"How's your PBC list coming along?" "Do you have any questions for us?" "Don't forget, we'll be there Monday the 23rd." "Call us ASAP if you have any concerns about being ready two weeks from tomorrow. Now's the time to let us know!"

4. Show you're serious.

Of course there can and should be a stated consequence to lack of readiness if that should occur after all the education and reminders. 

In your project quotes, describe how you'll do everything in your power to help them be ready. Show you are committed to helping them help you help them (did you follow that?). Tell them you share their goal for a successful project and that in order to meet their desired delivery timing, these [list] things need to happen on these [list] dates. 

Tell them that in the unfortunate event that you don't get adequate notice about a date change (two weeks might be reasonable for adjusting an audit schedule) that there will be a $1,000 (or $5,000 or $10,000) rescheduling charge and that their audit would then need to be bumped back to the end of the month (or quarter or year).

And be very clear, in advance, about extra charges (state how much they'll pay for commonly delayed items) for assisting onsite with incomplete PBC work if you even have the time available to perform the work and still meet the agreed-upon delivery timing. This makes obtaining approved change requests a lot easier because the pricing was already spelled out.

When you provide your reminders, remind them that you don't want them to incur these charges or delay their audit and that's why you're being such a stickler about timing.

You can also consider offering rewards for readiness such as "clients who are ready for us will get priority scheduling next year" with first pick of dates which, of course, implies the opposite as a consequence for lack of readiness. 

Training is hard and retraining is harder.

What you are trying to do with all of this is to gain advance knowledge about lack of readiness so you can properly manage and adjust your clients' expectations about price and delivery. And, of course, manage your own scheduling (second to managing client expectations).

Don't budge on your extra charges or rescheduling. Just like parenting, it takes confidence and guts to stick to our guns during the retraining process, but we have to do it to correct the problems we have created and to be taken seriously. The very first time you are inconsistent, you defeat your purpose and have to start all over again.

If you apply these principles with "love" and care (e.g., it's for your own good ... "help us help you") by sitting on the same side of the table rather than coming across as though they work for you, clients can respect and appreciate you in the process of following your approach to serving them.

And they might even prefer to dine with you.

Should CPAs (and Other Professionals) be Active in Social Media?

Bill Sheridan of Maryland Association of CPAs interviewed me asking if CPAs need to be using social media. Spoiler alert: you might be surprised that I answer, "not necessarily."

Also hear what social-media "fence sitters" might need to know and how social media can be used effectively even by a conservative firm. 

 

Sorta Kinda Fed Up With Facebook Disses by Google+ Fanatics

Article after article claims what this one entitled "Google+ is Awesome. Facebook Maimed, Twitter Mortally Wounded?" does:

Instead of treating all of your friends as equals, Google lets you put them into different groups, called circles, such as “friends”, “acquaintances”, “family”, “sports fans”, and so on. These circles represent a powerful innovation.

They allow us to send more personal updates just to our closest friends instead of forcing us to share with all of our hundreds of acquaintances. This simple task is not easy to do within Facebook. Furthermore, Google+ allows us to chop up our incoming news stream based on what circle they are coming from, so that we can focus on just the updates from our family or just the updates from our coworkers. The Google+ circles concept is powerful and easy to use. It represents the defining, foundational difference between Google´s and Facebook´s vision for social networking. If this new model takes off with users, then Facebook will find itself in the uncomfortable position of having to replicate these features within its own platform.

Nothing against Google+ here. I'm still checking it out as I have been for the past couple weeks. There are some things I like a lot about it. And some things that annoy me. But that's not the point of my post. You can read a lot of reviews elsewhere. 

This post is about the lame claim that groups or "circles" is a new concept or "powerful innovation" as the above post claims. 

Hellloooooo.

Facebook has offered groups, called "lists" for years. I know. I use them every single day. Everything written above can be achieved in Facebook. 

I'll be specific:

• Instead of treating all of your friends as equals, FACEBOOK lets you put them into different groups, called LISTS (such as “friends”, “acquaintances”, “family”, “sports fans”, and so on)
• The LISTS allow us to send more personal updates just to our closest friends instead of forcing us to share with all of our hundreds of acquaintances. 
• This simple task IS easy to do within FACEBOOK. 
• FACEBOOK allows us to chop up our incoming news stream based on what LIST they are coming from, so that we can focus on just the updates from our family or just the updates from our coworkers. 
• The FACEBOOK LISTS concept is powerful and easy to use. 

The author wrote: "[Circles] represents the defining, foundational difference between Google´s and Facebook´s vision for social networking." WRONG.

And he wrote: "If this new model takes off with users, then Facebook will find itself in the uncomfortable position of having to replicate these features within its own platform."

Ack! It's there.

Facebook is NOT in the uncomfortable position of having to replicate these features. Perhaps they can make them more obvious, though. Let me show you how easy they are to use. 

STEP 1 - CREATE LISTS

Very easy. In the ACCOUNT dropdown, chose EDIT FRIENDS. Your screen will have a CREATE A LIST button at the top. It looks like this:

 

Make as many lists as you want.

STEP 2 - ADD FRIENDS TO LISTS

Then on the left sidebar, choose FRIENDS NOT ON A LIST to start, or any list name to edit. To the right of each friend's name you can open your list of LISTS and add the friend to as many or few lists as you like. I have a list called "Nothing" and I have miscellaneous pages and what-not in it.

Let's pretend Led Zep is one of my friends. (oh how I wish.) It would look like this:

 

STEP 3 - POST YOUR LITTLE HEART OUT

Either as you post, or for your default privacy, of for each photo album you have, whatever, you can designate who can see it, or who cannot see it, or both.

To change your default or to edit any individual post's visibility, click on the little lock doohickey under your status box, to the left of the SHARE button.

 

When the lock settings open, designate who can or cannot see your stuff, and save as your default if you want.

Enter a person's name or the name of any list you have created. Add as many as you like. When you start typing a name or list name, Facebook will offer up autocomplete help for you. 

 

Voila. You're done. 

 

UPDATED: Oh, and I forgot to share the other important piece. To view the news feed of any single LIST, meaning just the stuff the list members post, is quite easy.

STEP 4 - VIEW NEWS BY GROUP OR "LIST"

Go to your HOME page and, at the top where it says TOP NEWS and MOST RECENT note the little DOWN ARROW on the button called MOST RECENT.

When you click the button, many options open including the ability to select any of your LISTS.

Guess Facebook isn't so far behind after all. And you can still hate Facebook if you want. But at least I hope that, now, maybe all these people quit claiming this is such a huge innovation on Google's part. Geez.

But, otherwise, that article I mentioned is really pretty good. Just skip the first third of it!

Should You Let People Pick Your Brain for Free?

Yesterday I read an article on Forbes by Adrienne Graham called "No You Can't Pick My Brain For Free." And it prickled me a little.

The author has some legit points.

Some people definitely do try to take advantage of those who have knowledge and are willing to share it freely. And others are just oblivious to the fact that they are asking advice for which the potential advisor is usually paid.

But I have to say this.... the most successful business developers I've observed are those who are willing to "give a little away" and not selfishly withhold every bit of value within their brains.

Generosity and the willingness to have conversations that go beyond selling "why" they should pay for your knowledge (as Ms Graham advises) have worked very well for me, too. 

Her advice is far too black and white. She writes:

If you’re having problem drawing the line in the sand, here are some rules of thumb you should follow:

...Whenever someone wants to pick your brain, make sure you have your fee schedule in front of you. Give them a quote for how much it will cost them. They’ll either pay it or move on. If they move on, good riddance. They weren’t interested in paying you anyway. Let them figure it out on their own.

...Decline lunch/coffee invitations unless they are strictly non-business. If the conversation swings around to business, quickly and politely tell them you’re off the clock. If they are interested in a consult they can book an appointment and let them know what the charge is for that.

...Keep it light. Some of you will probably cave and throw a few nuggets out there. If you do (I hope you don’t), keep it general. Give the why and what but never the how. Anything beyond the why and what comes with a charge. And don’t even point them in the direction to obtain the how. That’s short changing yourself.

If I had held this attitude, there are many wonderful, very profitable engagements I wouldn't have landed.

IMHO, the problems she writes about weren't in the sharing. They were in being able to sniff out the "takers" early enough, and quite possibly in developing good listening skills.

Set boundaries relationship by relationship. But not in aggregate.

No way would I advise a lawyer, accountant or consultant to "decline lunch/coffee invitations unless they are strictly non-business." Guess you should decline golf and ballgames, too? How many relationships have been built on these age-old knowledge-sharing activities?

The interactions that Ms. Graham tells you to avoid allow for you to LISTEN as much as talk. Listening sells. Talking less so.

So, if you are a crummy listener and don't want the opportunity to learn more about a person's situation and needs so that you can eventually discuss ways you might be able to help them, then, yeah, pass on the opportunity to have a turkey sandwich or cuppa. 

Just don't be cynical thinking that everyone's out for your freebies.

If you're new to business development, it's a fact that you've gotta do a bunch of these things to learn how to sniff out the takers...the people who will never buy from you.

You'll get good at it. Trust me. 

Law Firm Adopts High-Tech Scarlet Letter to Motivate

Humiliation is a great way to boost productivity, isn't it? After all, we can get some results when we chew someone's ass out in front of his or her peers.

Sure. When results matter a lot more than respect. And loyalty. And, you know, people's feelings. 

In the what-the-hell-were-they-thinking category, there's a London law firm that found a high-tech way to slap a scarlet letter on "underperforming associates." This per "Red Faces for Poor Billers," an article in Lawyers Weekly, Australia:

According to RollOnFriday, an insider reportedly complained that RPC has implemented a program that changes the colour of associates' computer screens, depending on their level of profitability.  

A red screen is obviously not so good, meaning the lawyer is losing the firm money, while yellow means they're coasting along okay but could do a little better. Those staring at a green screen can look forward to a few long lunches with the partners some time soon.

Unfortunately for those not hitting the big numbers, their red screens are viewable by all within the firm's open plan office.

Despite the public display of a lawyer's profitability — or lack thereof — a spokesperson for the firm confirmed with RollonFriday that colour coding was used, with the system designed to enable lawyers to "develop their commerciality and understand the work they're doing and the amount of time they're spending on it" and not to shame unprofitable staff in front of their colleagues.

Really? Not the aim to shame people into different behavior? This management approach went out decades ago. 

The professions are fans of "Best Practices" and this needs to be added to the "Worst Practices" list, for sure, right along with blocking social media.