CASE STUDY: MARKETING COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE & DIVORCE MEDIATION

In this case study, we review the process behind the strategy we implemented for the Springfield Collaborative Divorce law firm in Raleigh, NC that is consistently converting 83% of cold traffic into leads and consultations. 

As I go through this case study I'm going to reveal a bit about my process for developing a campaign like this, because it is this thought process that makes a difference between average campaigns or campaigns that flat-out fail, and those that are successful.

We've been promoting this campaign using Facebook ads and the results so far are off the charts.  I get copied on the emails when a new lead is generated for this campaign.

The video below is a quick screen shot video of what the email box looks like. 

(So, the next time someone tells you that Facebook ads don't work for divorce lawyers don't believe it.)

Facebook ads like this don't work. They never work. As we get into this campaign, I'm going to show you what does work.

We started running ads on for March 5, 2020 and after about 30 days we generated 59 leads at an average cost per lead of $4.20.

We started running ads on for March 5, 2020 and after about 30 days we generated 59 leads at an average cost per lead of $4.13.

Now we are still in the learning phase. Facebook has a learning phase where they are monitoring the results you are getting, running thousands of calculations and figuring out who to show your ads to based on who is already responded. And so, when you do it right, the results keep getting better. If we look at the last two weeks, our average cost per lead is $3.04.  

When people click on the Facebook ad, they come to this landing page for a short e-book we created title The One Question. 

Okay let's get back to the thought process behind this campaign, and why it works.

Keep in mind, some of these assumptions are based on market research I did about three years ago.

Even after 30 years, few people know about much collaborative law and even fewer understand what it means.  There are also several misconceptions around collaborative law. For example, some people think they forfeit the right to the court process if they try collaborative law. In addition, some people have a tendency to dismiss collaborative law without really taking the time to understand it because they are afraid to take any chances, 

I outlined three goals for the campaign:

1) It would have to get through to everyone without being immediately dismissed because of misconceptions around the "collaborative divorce" label.

2) It would foster an initial level of trust by speaking to people in the context of their lives and what's important to them. 

3) It would give people a holistic understanding of the benefits of collaborative divorce as opposed to a bulleted list of "benefits" that are actually a lot closer to features than benefits. I wanted it to model a natural progression from where they are to the understanding that collaborative law is the best way to ensure they get what it is they truly want.

I spent the next few days thinking about how to do this. I reviewed the materials provided by a number of collaborative practice groups.

Honestly, I don't know how effective the typical message provided by collaborative practice groups is for that purpose. So I did what I always do. I try to put myself in the place of a someone being approached by their spouse with information about collaborative divorce. Clearly the dynamics of the relationship would play a big part in the response, but for the most part, I felt like most people would be skeptical.  

But even beyond that, what if they couldn't even think clearly because of more basic questions like...

What if they don't want to divorce?

What if they've been hit out of the blue by their spouse’s desire to divorce and they don't want to divorce?

What if they can't think straight because, as Pauline Tesler notes in her book,  Collaborative Divorce: The Revolutionary New Way to Restructure Your Family, Resolve Legal Issues, under the stress of the situation, their blood pressure is up, cortisol is flooding the bloodstream, and the newer cognitive centers of the brain go off-line triggering fight or flight mode.

And so with that in mind, I asked my client to provide what they thought was going on in people's heads that could be an objection getting in the way of considering collaborative divorce. In addition, I wanted to know where people want to be (vision) when it's over.

The client sent me the following:

The potential ‘problems’ that could be in the conversions in their heads:

1. I don’t want a divorce
2.  I don’t trust my spouse (either bc of experience or bc they just asked me for a divorce)
3. I don’t know what to do - I have never gone through a divorce before. I feel lost and overwhelmed
4. I don’t trust lawyers  
5. I don’t trust myself (how did I marry this person? How did I not see this was coming? 

Some of their visions of where they want to be could be

1. Competent through this process, not being taken advantage of (by spouse or by spouse’s lawyer), being fair/getting what is fair
2. Being seen as a good parent, i.e. putting the kids first, by the community, themselves, their spouse
3. Maintaining control

To make a long story short what I came up with actually turned out to be something much more than just an effective brochure for prospective clients to give their spouses, but an effective piece for marketing collaborative law on the front end.

I wrote this e-book to be compelling using curiosity, and then to engage by immediately speaking to those objections we determined might be going to their mind. 

Click here to download the PDF.

You can see from the first paragraph, we begin by mirroring the types of questions they may be asking themselves.

By speaking to what's already going on in their head we start to establish a level of trust, because as Jay Abrams said, "If you can describe the problem of your client better than they can they will assume you have the solution."

As they read, we gradually lead them from this place to the ultimate question. 

What Do You Want?

After that we explain how and why people often don't get what they really want because, out of fear and uncertainty, vivid tendency to define what they want by a position, and then proceed to defend that position out of fight or flight mode.

We explain how the position limits your options, and actually puts at risk what you really want whereas interest-based goals and negotiation opens a whole new world of possibilities.

We attempt to show how it actually improves your chances of getting what you really want while allowing everyone else to also get what they want.