Marketing Site - Research

Hi Manuela ,

Yes, Jus Mundi is our main competitor for the research tools side of the products. However, as you saw during our call last Friday, we're launching a new suite of tools that we're leveraging to create sponsored profiles. Our two main competitors in this field are Who's Who Legal: https://whoswholegal.com/ and Chambers & Partners: https://chambers.com/. There is also Global Arbitration Review's Arbitrator Research Tool: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/arbitrator-research-tool?utm_source=garwebsite&utm_medium=advert_box&utm_campaign=home_page, which is operated by the same company as WWL (Law Business Partners: https://www.lbresearch.com/). However, I think WWL and Chambers are more relevant to what we're planning to do with Legal Analytics.

Let us know if you need any other information.

Morgan 

Thanks Morgan – that's all we need to get started!

Hi Morgan ! The team has started digging into things but we realize our Google Analytics access for your site has been removed since a couple of years ago. Would you be able to re-add us using this email address insights@quiet.ly? 

Thanks in advance! 

Hi Manuela ,

It looks like you guys should still have Read and Analyze access to our account. Here is a link to the Production site page: https://analytics.google.com/analytics/web/?authuser=2#/report-home/a97262363w143236692p148644727.

Let me know if this doesn't work, and perhaps Ryan  can assist.

Thanks,

Morgan

Hi everyone,

Confirming from my end as well that it still looks like you have access to the Tologix account.

Thanks!

Ryan

Hi Ryan, Morgan, 

Thank you for checking. You're right...we just double-checked and we do see the Tologix account. Apologies for the back and forth! 

Manuela 

Great! Thanks for confirming.

Ryan

Hi Manuela and David ,

Thanks again for the presentation today. Good work so far. Another issue I want to raise in the context of discussing the keywords for "Legal Analytics", given your findings that branded searches will improve SEO, what if we changed the name of the Legal Analytics tool to something that is completely branded (e.g., ISLG Reports). I'm not sure if what that branded title would be, but it seems like this would improve SEO given the success of branded titles like "GAR30" and "Chambers Reports".

Thanks,

Morgan

Thanks Morgan! We'll definitely consider this as we move forward.

Ok. Sounds good, David ​.

Manuela ​, is coming up with a branded name for legal analytics something we could integrate into copy process? ISLG Reports was a suggestion, but perhaps Haley ​ and the team could come up with alternative options.

Thanks,

Morgan

Hi Morgan , 

We did a little more digging.

We can confirm that the search volume for queries with the suffix “profiles” is higher than “reports”. In both cases, however the volume is quite low… so the impact of selecting one over the other won’t be a big one.

There are definitely benefits to creating a branded term and we would recommend doing so.

Search roughly breaks down into three areas that roughly correspond to the buying process:

Affinity - general interest (“Legal analytics”)

Category - Looking for a solution (“Profiles” or “Reports” of specific firms or people)

Branded - Already familiar with your solution (“ISLG Reports”)

We outlined in the presentation last week that the bulk of search activity we saw in our research were long tail queries that are category-related: People looking for information on arbitrator or firms.

Since we can capture demand through these types of queries we can worry less about capturing affinity/general interest queries like those for “legal analytics”

This leaves us free to focus on brand-building and creating a recognizable name that we can build equity in.

We’ll work this into the copy process and think about a name. The brand name will then likely have an impact on the taxonomy we use around features (eg. Profiles or reports).

Chambers has done this successfully with “Chambers rankings”.

The contents are profiles/reports, but it they’ve build up equity in the brand and that is shaping the behaviour of those who are performing branded queries.

Hope this all makes sense!

Cheers,
David

Hi David ​,

Great. Makes total sense. Let's work towards the branded name as the process develops. Let me know if you need anything from our end in the interim.

Thanks,

Morgan

Hi Morgan ,

One of the questions that has come up while developing copy is what key highlight or differentiator to focus-on when we're talking about profiles.

Do you have any information about the back-end process that we might use to think through proof points? In the absence of this, we're focusing in ISLG's usual differentiator: the combination of analytics and human insight.

Seeing some detail about the back-end process for vetting, etc. might help us get a little more specific about how we talk about this feature.

Thanks!
David

cc: Haley  

Hi David ​,

I'd be happy to take you through the backend process when I'm back from holidays next week. Why don't you send me some proposed times Wednesday, Thursday or Friday and we'll setup a meeting.

Thanks,

Morgan

Hi Morgan , 

We discussed internally and actually feel we can use the time we already have scheduled on Wednesday at 1-2pm to go over the backend process with you re: profiles. We can then follow up later that afternoon with the draft web copy. We don't think having a session with Industrial will be necessary, and we want to make sure you have time to read and digest all the copy. 

Let me know if that works for you and I'll adjust the meeting invite accordingly. 

Thanks! 

Sounds good to me Manuela . 

Thanks,

Morgan 

Hi Morgan , since you'll be showing us the backend process surround profiles, did you want to set up a Zoom link for the call? I have the Google Meet link set up in the invite already, but want to make sure you're comfortable using that if you're sharing any docs/screens? 

Let me know! 

Hi Manuela ,

We should be good with Google Meet. 

Thanks,

Morgan