Who Are You?: Results of the Reader Survey

As I reported a couple of days ago, the results of the Reader Survey are in, and I want to share with you some of the highlights. 

First of all, I'm deeply gratified by the many of you who took the time to fill out the su rvey:  Fully 260 of you responded, a very robust number.  I'm also pleased to report that the survey achieved its primary goal, yielding a tremendous amount of insight into:

• who you are;
• what you're interested in getting from "Adam Smith, Esq.;" and
• what concerns are at the forefront for you and/or your firms.

I hope to be able to capitalize on your comments and observations to make "Adam Smith, Esq." even more valuable, pertinent, and thought-provoking.  (As you see, I've already acted on the observation some offered that the previous design of the site could be difficult to read to some eyes.  If any of you have other specific suggestions about the "look and feel," please let me know.)

But to the survey:  Let's start with who you are.

• Not surprisingly, 72% of readers work in law firms.
• 21% of readers are partners, and of these:
  • 5% are Managing Partners or Chairs of their firm;
  • 4% are on their firm's Executive Committee; and
  • the remaining 12% are "rank and file" partners.
• More than 60% of you work in AmLaw 200 firms, and 32% of you in AmLaw 50 firms.
• It looks as though many of you "have a life"—over 60% of you report traveling internationally for leisure in the past year.
• And you're a tech-savvy crowd:  Over one-third of you read "Adam Smith, Esq." by RSS feed.  I'm happy to report that, counting this group (who technically do not "visit" the site), the average monthly page views of "Adam Smith, Esq." are now just north of 250,000.

Many of you also took the time to provide thoughtful, truly useful comments and observations about the site.  (My crack Marketing Director, who has seen her share of surveys over the past 25 years, tells me that the extent and depth of response was most unusual—you all are a "hot bench.")  Of course, I'm delighted and gratified by the many compliments ("unique," "thoughtful and erudite," "spot on," "very out of the box,") etc., but of even more value to me—and hopefully to you, going forward—were suggestions for slightly different emphases or approaches to my subject matter. 

(Digression that's not really a digression:  I've served over ten years as President of our Upper West Side co-op [86 apartments, a 1903 building, 7 full-time staff] and often in my role as leader of the co-op I find myself impelled to remind people that while good news is all fine and dandy, it will take care of itself:  What I really need to hear, ASAP, is the raw and unfiltered bad news—then at least I have a fighting chance of doing something about it.  I've often thought too many managers get into trouble by ignoring this principle.)

That said, many of your suggestions have given me much to chew on.  For example:

• "I wish you had more stuff.  I'm a bit disappointed when I come by and nothing new has been added. [...]  Maybe once a week you could provide links to articles you're reading, without commentary:  A 'what I'm reading' post would be nice."
• "This is not a criticism.  Your work seems to focus on the largest, elite, law firms.  There are a huge number of boutiques or specialty firms that practice at a very high level and are very profitable.  I think they often have interesting lessons about focused strategies and different problems; perhaps more occasional coverage of these types of firms would be of interest to your readers."
• "More empirics."
• "Great job overall.  Please cover a single issue in depth periodically, e.g., revenue growth...."
• "I would like to hear your views on legal consultants and how they have shaped the market."

Again, thanks to one and all for participating!  I learned a great deal, and the strong response was very gratifying.

The last word comes from my stalwart Marketing Director, who insists (and I dare not cross her) that I mention in closing that the "Adam Smith, Esq." audience, i.e., you, is very attractive to marketers seeking to reach the cream of the AmLaw 200 (not to mention that you're an affluent crowd).  If you have any suggestions for her, please drop her an email.  Advertising is one obvious way that I can defray the costs of "Adam Smith, Esq." and help ensure the continued viability of the site.