Here’s a question for you.

Of the top 100 TV markets in the country, how many experienced a reduction of attorney TV advertising in the last five years?

How about seven. Just seven TV markets out of the top 100 saw a reduction in attorney advertising in the last five years. While the law firms in 93 markets shifted into high gear and moved ahead at a blistering pace (70% average increase), the firms in seven markets slammed their marketing efforts into reverse.

Three of those markets were in tort reform happy Texas – Houston, Dallas and Austin.

The other four? Omaha, Honolulu, Boston and New York City.

I’ll save the first three for another time but what’s going on in the biggest TV market in the country – New York City?

Before you suggest that the problems are statewide, take a look at other New York markets? Buffalo, already one of the ten most saturated markets in the country grew by 31%. Rochester grew by 11%. Syracuse was up 26% and Albany was up by 32%.

Is there a dominant TV spender that is discouraging competition?

Not really.

The top TV firm – Trolman, Glaser, Lichtman – has not created any space between itself and the rest of the pack. It’s share-of-voice, i.e., the amount of its TV advertising compared to all attorneys on the air, has never topped 20%. In the first half of 2009 it stands at 16%. A 16% share-of-voice is not going to frighten away any competitors.

Jacoby & Meyers has kept pace with Trolman for several years. Other firms have remained within striking distance – firms such as Weitz & Luxenberg, Wilens & Baker, Ginarte O’Dwyer, Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald, Parker Waichman, Silbowitz Garafola… the list goes on.

What about cost? Because New York City is such a large TV market, the cost just to get on TV can be prohibitive. But other big expensive markets have seen increases in attorney TV advertising in the last five years – #2 Los Angeles increased by 91%, #3 Chicago increased by 17%, and #4 Philadelphia grew by 68%.

So, why the decline in attorney TV advertising in New York City?

Here are two possibilities:

1. The lack of strong brands. I won’t swear by this but just looking at the websites of the leading law firm advertisers suggest a problem with branding. The websites appear dated. None of these firms appear to have moved into 21st century marketing. The lack of strong branding makes growth problematic. New case acquisition hinges entirely upon direct response. This keeps the cost of acquisition high and vulnerable to changing market conditions. (I know that criticizing a firm’s website is like telling the emperor that he is not wearing any clothes or telling a new mother that her baby is ugly. But either I’m wrong, in which case these firms can ignore what I say, or I’m right and I’m doing these firms a huge favor by pointing out a huge & expensive problem with their marketing efforts.)
2. Operational inefficiency. Since I haven’t had an inside look into any of these firms, this possibility is entirely a guess. But, it true, it would explain why these firms have had difficulty sustaining growth. Operational inefficiency reduces profit margin and inhibits cash flow – both barriers to growth.

But neither of these theories explains why smart attorneys who spend lots of money each year have not found the means to reach more people in the biggest market in the country.

If you have a theory, let me know.