This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful. Read our Privacy Policy<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In 2015, I was running a personal injury account in Manhattan. Cost per click on Google: $29.39. I keep that screenshot around because when I show it to attorneys today, they assume I doctored it. Those same clicks now go for anywhere from $100 to $200, and it\u2019s a similar story in basically every consumer […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-161490","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-legal_matters"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161490","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=161490"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161490\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161490"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161490"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161490"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Google\u2019s ad system is an auction, plain and simple. Demand is the number of advertisers bidding. Supply is the number of people searching (maning your prospects). And here\u2019s the number that matters: for the U.S. market, that supply essentially tapped out around 2016. Search was already baked into consumer behavior. I remember switching to Google myself somewhere around 2001 or 2002, and I was not an early adopter.<\/p>\n
So supply flatlined, demand kept climbing. Econ 101 does the rest.<\/p>\n
Then Google made it worse on purpose. In 2020, they took away your ability to see what people actually searched before clicking your ad. That killed the negative-keyword game: the adoption attorney screening out people looking for dog adoptions, the workers\u2019 comp firm bidding on specific spine injuries. Gone. Then by 2022, manual bidding became a joke. You can technically still use it; you just won\u2019t get impressions. So now Google\u2019s algorithm bids on your behalf, in Google\u2019s auction, and surprise, the number only goes up. Google is effectively bidding against itself with your money.<\/p>\n
One more wrinkle. For the first time in close to 10 years, Google is losing search market share. Which means the pond everyone\u2019s fishing in is now shrinking<\/em> while getting more crowded. And everything downstream inherits the problem. LSAs, SEO, lead vendors, all of it sits on top of the same search volume.<\/p>\n If your intake team has noticed callers getting ruder (\u201cI don\u2019t care, just tell me the price,\u201d click), that\u2019s the same disease, different symptom. Run a search for a lawyer in any decent-sized city and you get hundreds of results. LSAs, sponsored, map pack, organic. You get 30 characters of headline to differentiate yourself. A savvy consumer looks at that wall of sameness and does the rational thing: calls around for quotes, like they\u2019re buying dish detergent. I call it the Amazon effect. When everything looks exchangeable, people buy on price.<\/p>\n But the auction cost isn\u2019t even the real limitation. The real limitation is who\u2019s in the auction at all.<\/p>\n Chet Holmes International did research on this that I think about constantly. In any given market, about 3% of prospects are buying right now. Another 6 or 7% are open to it. Then it gets interesting: roughly 30% aren\u2019t actively thinking about the problem, and another 30% don\u2019t think<\/em> they\u2019re interested but would be, with the right information. The bottom 30% you don\u2019t want anyway.<\/p>\n The person typing \u201cdivorce attorney near me\u201d? That\u2019s the 3%. Every firm in your market is bidding on that person simultaneously.<\/p>\n Now think about who\u2019s not typing anything. The average divorce gets contemplated for somewhere between six and twenty-four months before anyone acts. Two years, sometimes, of a person lying awake with a legal problem and typing nothing into Google. Bankruptcy works the same way. Immigration. Employment claims. Insurance disputes. Estate planning might be the worst offender, since nobody wakes up excited to contemplate their own death.<\/p>\n And some of the best cases we\u2019ve ever seen don\u2019t exist on Google at all, because the prospect doesn\u2019t know they have a case. We\u2019ve watched seven-figure mesothelioma matters, $25,000 estate plans, and $20,000 emergency Medicaid engagements come from people who never ran a legal search in their life. Add up the reachable-but-not-searching segments and you\u2019re looking at a pool of prospects many times larger than the 3% everyone\u2019s fighting over. Almost nobody is fishing in it.<\/p>\n The catch (there\u2019s always a catch) is that you can\u2019t reach these people the way you reach searchers. Google is where people go to make decisions. Facebook is where they go to avoid making them. I once saw a Facebook ad from a law firm that said \u201c50 years of trial experience, call us today.\u201d That ad works fine on search. On social media it\u2019s answering a question nobody asked.<\/p>\n You have to enter the conversation already happening in the prospect\u2019s head. For insurance disputes, that\u2019s not \u201chire an attorney.\u201d It\u2019s \u201cNot sure what to do after an insurance claim denial? Start here.\u201d The problem, in their words, at the deliberation stage they\u2019re actually in.<\/p>\n And the click shouldn\u2019t go to a contact form. Cold traffic won\u2019t book a consultation with a stranger. Why would they? Instead we send them to an educational 30-40 minute presentation: how to know if you have a claim, what the process actually looks like, what a case worth pursuing looks like, real examples. Frame the topic as \u201cHow to X.\u201d How to protect yourself. How to know if it\u2019s the right time for a divorce. How to lawfully stay in the U.S. even after a visa overstay.<\/p>\n Attorneys always assume nobody will sit through it. Wrong. Attendees watch, on average, 70% of a 40-minute presentation our clients put on. Remember, these are people who\u2019ve been privately chewing on this problem for months. What was holding them back was never laziness. It was uncertainty, and good information can compress two years of deliberating into half an hour.<\/p>\n Now, the mistake almost everyone makes: assuming the educated prospect will reach out on their own.<\/p>\n They won\u2019t, and the reason is sneaky. Watching a thorough presentation can leave someone psychologically satisfied<\/em>. They feel like they did something about their problem, when they did nothing. Send them a calendar link and a polite email sequence and you\u2019ll book maybe 5%-15% of attendees.<\/p>\n Have a human call within five minutes of the presentation ending and that number changes completely. We\u2019ve measured 38.83% booking rates with immediate outreach, which comes out to roughly one in four attendees landing on a consultation calendar. Good closers then sign 50%-80% of those.<\/p>\n And those consultations feel different, because you\u2019re not exchangeable anymore. This person just spent half an hour learning from you. They\u2019re not comparing you to six strangers on a results page, which is exactly why these clients don\u2019t price-shop and why they\u2019ll pay premium rates without flinching.<\/p>\n If you\u2019re considering this, here are three things to do.<\/p>\n Google isn\u2019t going anywhere, and if you can profitably absorb the costs, keep spending. But the auction only gets more expensive and the 3% only gets more crowded. Meanwhile the lake sits there, mostly empty of boats. Today is the good old days. You just won\u2019t know it for another five years.<\/p>\n The post The 3% Problem: The Leads Every Firm Bidding on Google Are Missing<\/a> appeared first on Attorney at Law Magazine<\/a>.<\/p>\nThe 3% Problem<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Fishing in the Lake Instead of the Stream<\/strong><\/h2>\n
The Five-Minute Window<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Where I\u2019d Start<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/attorneyatlawmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/black%400.5x.png?w=1080&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n