Header graphic for print
Real Lawyers Have Blogs On the topic of the law, firm marketing, social media, & baseball

Is the customer always right?

LexBlog has a ten step process we run through in taking a legal professional’s blog live. The process revolves around strategy, design, education, editing, quality and assurance, and marketing.

If a blog isn’t up to snuff, LexBlog has a team of young tigers in client service, project management, client development, and editorial who will fight a client tooth and nail who wants us to take a ‘sub-standard’ blog live.

The team’s logic is if we give in to a client’s demands once, we’ll start giving in all the time, and the quality of the LexBlog Blog Network, now numbering over 2,500 blog lawyer authors, will suffer. “We won’t stand for anything. Our blogs will look as bad as the other blogs out there.”

This team backs up their argument with stories of lawyers and law firms coming back later and thanking the team for demanding quality. The clients found they were prouder of their blog and achieved greater client development success. Client development tells me they hear from new clients that they want to be on the LexBlog Network because of the quality of our legal blogs.

On the other hand, I’m from the old school. “Rule #1: The customer is always right. Rule #2: If the customer is ever wrong, re-read rule #1.” I’m not looking to get my clients angry, lose them, and lose the referrals they make. Plus LexBlog has a 100% client satisfaction guarantee we put in writing.

At yesterday afternoon’s LexBlog team get together we got into a heated argument (I mean knock down vicious) over this conflict of ‘LexBlog Standards’ versus the customer is always right. The more I argued we have to do what the customer wanted, the more I got kicked in the teeth.

Reading Seth Godin’s recent blog post, Win the fight, lose the customer, I thought I had pretty good answer for those tigers come Monday morning.

Does it really matter if you’re right?

Given the choice between acknowledging that your customer is upset or proving to her that she is wrong, which will you choose?

You can be right or you can have empathy.

You can’t do both.

It’s not the nature of capitalism to need to teach people a lesson, it’s the nature of being a human, we just blame it on capitalism. In fact, smart marketers understand that the word ‘right’ in “The customer is always right” doesn’t mean that they’d win in court or a debate. It means, “If you want the customer to remain a customer, you need to permit him to believe he’s right.”

If someone thinks they’re unhappy, then you know what? They are.

I’d suggest that they try, as Seth advises, saying this to yourself the next time they’re telling an upset client they can’t take the their blog live:

I have no problem acknowledging that you’re unhappy, upset or even angry. Next time, I’d prefer to organize our interaction so you don’t end up feeling that way, and I probably could have done it this time, too. You have my attention and my empathy and I value you. Thanks for being here.

Because as Seth explains if you can’t be happy with that, “Go ahead and fire the customer, cause they’re going to leave anyway.”

But as sure as I was in the middle of Friday afternoon’s fight that I would prevail, and then again reading Seth’s post, I’m not so sure I’ll win the argument anymore. And I’m not sure I want to.

Look at who’s fighting me. Young professionals I hired because they were smarter than me, had strong principals and morals, were passionate about life, believed in my cause, and demonstrated a high degree of care in everything they did.

I wanted a team who could really teach legal professionals how to network through the Internet, who would make a difference in the professional and personal lives of the lawyers we serve, and who were capable of being part of a cause which could improve the image of our legal profession.

Looks like I got such a team. Do I want to fight them? Do I want to win?

Understand, we don’t fight with our clients often. It’s dam rare. And I’m sure we’ll work something out so we can give our clients what they need while maintaining LexBlog’s standards.

But when you’re building a quality blog network of legal professionals, maybe there are times when the customer isn’t right.

What do you guys think? Feel free Team LexBlog to continue your input here.

  • http://www.polarbearlamps.net Brian Hefter

    The customer is always right phrasing was coined in a direct-service industry. The difference with producing web content is that the customer is not the only person being served. We also have an obligation to not only our own clients, but also the users who are utilizing our online content to ensure they can access it if they’re disabled in any way, as well as have an enjoyable and engaging experience while using it.
    A lot of the conflicts involve a customer’s desire to go against practices that maintain these standards. They may be happy with the way they want to do things, but the people they’re serving won’t be, and that does nothing but do a disservice to their own readers.
    If you’re an architect, would you really let one of your customers follow through with the demand that no handicap ramps be provided on the property? It’s an extreme example, but it represents the duality of customers and users that we’re dealing with.
    The design firm, Edenspiekermann, has an excellent manifesto that details this thought process. See point #1. http://www.edenspiekermann.com/en/about/manifesto/

  • http://www.gerryriskin.com Gerry Riskin

    Kevin, I suggest that you tell your clients up front that Lexblog adheres to two principles which live in harmony:
    Principle #1
    It is our primary objective to completely satisfy our valued clients. We back that up with an unconditional guarantee of satisfaction.
    Principle #2
    We have extremely high quality standards. We back those up by placing our reputation ahead of revenue. On those rare occasions when there is a conflict between a client’s request and our standards, we use our best efforts to educate and persuade our client of the merit of our recommendations. Based on our experience, after an explanation, most clients agree. In the rare event that they don’t, we reserve the right to fully refund all monies paid to date and ask that they select another provider.
    Conclusion: I believe that your views, Kevin, and those of the splendid team you have amassed, can operate in harmony. I think every client you serve should be completely satisfied but that you need a way to maintain the sanctity of your standards.
    (By the way, what I have suggested above reflects our long held policy at Edge International.)

  • http://blog.simplejustice.us shg

    Gerry Raskin’s comment reflects my understanding of what Seth meant. It’s not about proving the customer wrong or compromising your quality, but about recognizing the validity of the customer’s concern. If you can’t satisfy it (immediate roll-out), then no charge. Everyone is happy again. Or at least made whole.
    But your position up front is that their blog reflects your competence, and you won’t do poor work. If they aren’t on board, there are alternatives that can better give them what they seek, and you will facilitate their getting what they want by helping them find a better fit. You are helping your customer by making him someone else’s customer, if he can’t work with you and doesn’t care about the quality of his blog.

  • Paula Black

    Kevin, I think there is a missing point here, and that is HOW the difference in opinion is handled. If one is LISTENING there is probably an opening for a win-win solution. Our clients come to us for our expertise and standards. It should not be an either/or situation. I think that is what Seth and Gerry are getting at. Listening is key. We may not always agree with our clients but everyone in our organization owes them the respect to listen.

  • http://kevin.lexblog.com Kevin OKeefe

    Thanks for the comments guys. All good points.
    Listening like you say is critical Paula. That’s something I need to reinforce across our team. Heck, I let each client know during my one on one strategy call with them that we’re here for you and that they may call or email me personally anytime – with any questions or concerns.
    Four or months ago one client labeled someone on our client services team as a ‘Blog Nazi,’ a reference to the Soup Nazi character on the Seinfeld show who exercised an excessively strict regimen responding to the demands of his patrons.
    I suppose that was a testament to LexBlog’s standards, but like you and Gerry point out, we need to listen. And follow that listening up, to the extent appropriate, with education and persuasion.

  • http://www.gerryriskin.com Gerry Riskin

    THX for listening to my comment – it shows you practice what you preach – BRAVO !!

  • http://www.polarbearlamps.net Brian Hefter

    Within this type of business, listening needs to go both ways. There may be better ways of communicating what the actual problems/solutions are for what is being discussed though. It’s important for customers to take our direction because in the web world, the customer is not the focus. As much as they want to be, they aren’t. The user is the focus. Our goal as designers and developers is to make our customer successful by pleasing their users.
    Our expertise entails reading/researching what users find to be most effective and engaging to keep them hooked into content. This involves asking questions, usability studies, and looking towards industry peers to ensure our goals are achieved. When you let a customer dictate the direction of a project without the proper education on best practices, it potentially damages their own credibility, as well as the people who are in charge of design and development. Poor choices reflect poorly on everyone.
    The key is to find a way to make sure the customer trusts us, not to make them happy at any cost. Make them happy, yes, but do so by educating them and guiding them. Give them legitimate, researched, and educated examples for why we do what we do. Without that, all you’re going to have is a lot of artificially happy customers with a sub-par product and the loss of respect from your industry peers.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/roblagatta Rob La Gatta

    The points everyone makes here are valid, and I’m excited to see that this post has spawned such discussion.
    From someone working on the production side, the points Brian Hefter made resonate particularly well. Listening is a trait that all of us at LexBlog value, I have no doubt in my mind…but we need to make the distinction here between “expecting people to listen to make sure I’m heard” versus “expecting people to listen so I can have things done my way.” All too often folks think that their idea, their strategy that they’ve defined independently is enough to warrant changing provenly effective systems or going against web standards based on the often-misguided belief that your project is special or is the exception to the rule.
    Unfortunately, rarely — if ever — is this the case. We have high standards for our clients not because we get a sick pleasure out of demanding more from them; rather, it is because we have researched over the years what are best practices, and want to comply with those to ensure our clients get the most of the product they’ve purchased.
    In sum, I will reiterate the point that is all too often forgotten: we aren’t designing these sites for us at LexBlog, or for you as the client. We are designing it for your readers — who will make judgments about you, be them consciously or subconsciously, after spending time at your site. We aren’t doing our jobs if we allow clients to overlook this fact.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/myprofile?trk=hb_side_pro Pam Garfield

    As Director of Client Services here at LexBlog, I emphatically believe we don’t have a single customer. What we do have are 2,500 strategic partners.
    In a partnership the parties cultivate a relationship for the mutual benefit of both. It’s not about who is right or who is wrong. It’s about building a relationship so everyone can win long term.
    True, we have standards. True, we have policies. But we are also reasonable, empathetic, and flexible. We listen to what our clients are trying to accomplish, advise them on how best to achieve their goals based on our experience and expertise, and support them on their journey.
    Bottom line: We need to be open to exceptions to our “rules.” If we aren’t, then we are aren’t partners and we definitely aren’t in a relationship.
    Granted, there are some things we should never allow: spammy content, key word stuffing, blatant promotional jibberish. But, if a client wants to experiment or deviate from traditional best practices, it’s OK. Go for it. Have fun. Give it a try.
    If it works, it’s good for the client and good for LexBlog. If it doesn’t, that’s cool too. We’ll collaborate, brainstorm, and try something else. That is what partners do.

  • http://www.polarbearlamps.net Brian Hefter

    I agree that we need to listen to clients and be flexible, but the idea that they’re strategic partners is very superficial. We want to work together with them, and they absolutely reciprocate by helping us build a deep network of informed resources. However, these resources are not of the content strategy, design, and usability nature. They are not a strategic partner in terms of the initial product/service we are providing.
    It’s our duty to provide them with the best in design, development, and support in terms of content, usability/understanding readers, and technology on the web. Any less than that should be considered a failure. If someone wants to deviate from the norm, the answer shouldn’t be “ok, go ahead and try”. This is how companies stumble. Change for the sake of change isn’t change at all (remember New Coke?).
    What we should do is listen to their suggestions and then determine the real reason they want to make that deviation from the path. From there we can determine some well-informed methods to achieving their goal rather than letting someone without the background in this industry go it alone. We need to hold their hand, and I don’t mean that in an insulting parent/child relationship way. It’s the same as if we needed legal counsel. It’s their duty to provide us with proper counsel no matter what. Letting the client dictate legal decisions because they want to try something different is a ridiculous sentiment, and I don’t think anyone would disagree with me there.
    While not following best practices doesn’t have legal implications, we still spend years educating ourselves and need to be trusted just the same way. We are guides. We are here to help you, and our advice exists for a reason. When you stray, we want to find the best way to get you back to where you need to go rather than letting you where you want to go and hoping you don’t stumble into danger. Or a cliff. With snakes at the bottom. And sharks. Hungry ones. And bears.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleysee Ashley See

    There is a reason LexBlog’s blogs stand out from the rest…and I consider that a good thing. We fight clients tooth and nail when they want to take a ‘sub-standard’ blog live because if we don’t, those clients will harshly learn the honesty of the blogosphere. If our near seven years of business has taught us anything, it’s that the blogosphere can be a very unforgiving place.
    It comes down to the classic occurrence of having something stuck in your teeth and everyone let’s you walk around with it in there because they’re too afraid to hurt your feelings or humiliate you by letting you know.
    While we could stick to that and protect your feelings, we’d rather be honest so you don’t have to risk that embarrassment. After all, are you hurt when someone tells you there’s a big hunk of something in between your teeth? No, you’re relieved.
    If we don’t tell you your blog isn’t up to snuff, who will? Your competition.
    As a blogger of five years, I have made every mistake a blogger could. Why would I want our ‘strategic partners’ to make those same mistakes I have, that my colleagues have, if we can instead offer our experience so they can bypass those same struggles and mistakes? If we promise clients help building their online reputation and in the interim won’t let them embarrass themselves, doesn’t that merit telling the customer if what they want could potentially hurt them?
    Yes, it may be true that we need to finesse some of our delivery so our customers always feel heard and that we’re receptive to their feedback and ideas. However, it must be recognized that we produce the products that we do for a reason and in order to have that product, you must listen to what we say.
    I am proud to be apart of the LexBlog team and refuse to let a sub-par product go out the door. Our client’s blogs not only reflect on them, but on us as well. If we compromise our standards then what’s the value?

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/roblagatta Rob La Gatta

    “Rules are made to protect, not prohibit.” Someone sitting next to me at the conference I’m attending made this point a few moments back after reading this comment thread…and I couldn’t have said it better myself. This encapsulates the mentality I hold towards our high standards, and it is my hope that this would reverberate across the entire team of talented individuals I work with in the LexBlog office day in and day out.
    We aren’t asking clients to do things a certain way to punish them — we only want to help them, and 99.9% of the time have a much clearer idea of how to do that than they do. LexBlog is only doing these clients and ourselves a disservice by letting them stray from the path. Being open to “exceptions” is senseless when those exceptions do nothing but hurt the client; in fact, it can be downright dangerous.
    I am a firm believer that the majority of LexBlog clients come to us because they value these standards we have — if they wanted a company that had the sole goal of selling a website and getting it out the door, they could easily contact one of our competitors instead. This sets us apart from the rest; with each passing day, the LexBlog Network is becoming an increasingly powerful tool due to the caliber of content it churns out…content that as far as I can tell, no other network of legal blogs online comes close to touching. Does anyone really think this would be true if we had an “anything goes” attitude towards what clients do, so long as it makes them happy in the short term? Not a chance.
    That is the precise reason I work for this company and take serious pride in telling people as much: we truly aim to improve the quality of legal content online (and by extension, improve the lives of those legal professionals writing it). And we put our money where our mouth is by expecting a lot of the folks we decide to work with. If anything, we need to be more stringent — not less — on holding our clients to such standards.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/lisakennelly Lisa Kennelly

    Part of what it comes down to is tough love. We’re demanding of our clients because we pride ourselves on having the best network of law blogs out there, and our clients come to us because they want to be part of that network. Sometimes we may have to, in so many words, remind our clients of that.
    Our clients aren’t just in it for SEO, and amen to that. I see hundreds of law blogs every day, and it’s not bragging to say that many non-LexBlog blogs are flat-out embarrassing. It’s just a fact. Do you want to be part of the nameless forgettable hordes of slapdash blogs that readers visit once and never return to? Or do you want to have a well-crafted and strategic blog that readers will instantly know they want to visit again and again?
    If you’re a LexBlog client, you’ve already answered that question. By signing with us, you’re challenging us to produce the best possible blog for you that we can. Doing anything less for you and we wouldn’t be living up to our side of the partnership.

  • http://www.compliancebuilding.com Doug Cornelius

    Kevin and the rest of the LexBloggers-
    Lawyers and law firms come to you because of the experience you have in designing all the things that go into have a successful legal blog. You’ve seen what works and what doesn’t work.
    Any hack can put together a blog/website on their own. (Mine being a case in point.)
    Doing it well is another story. You need to set a high standard for yourself and your clients. Their blogs reflect on your brand as well as their own. The customer is always right, but not everyone should be your customer.

  • http://lifeatthebar.com/ Julie A. Fleming

    In this instance, you need to worry about your brand image. I think Brian is exactly right that you more than one customer that you need to consider. The reader expects to find quality content, and may stop reading your blogs if they don’t life up to their expectations. Similarly, you may lose out on new clients if they don’t want their name associated with a lower quality product. Also, clients that you currently have may be unhappy if other clients are submitting sub-standard material because it makes their blog look lower quality by association. You need to consider what’s best for everyone, not just making sure one client stays happy.
    Of course, you should still be in tune with the client’s emotions. Consider the way you ask the client to make changes. If done right, then they’re unlikely to ever become unhappy–it’s only if they feel you are insulting them or their work that they’ll get upset.