Category Archives for "Feit Consulting"

Sole Provider Trend: Alive and Kicking?

By Michael Feit | Feit Consulting

Today, less than half of larger firms retain both LexisNexis and Westlaw.

When we last surveyed information services professionals in 2016, here is how that data looked:

We were curious when we launched the 2019 Legal Information Vendor Market Survey how this panned out for the law firms – and from the data we are gathering so far, the sole provider trend is still very much alive at 54%.  Even more importantly, however, firms that have gone sole provider are more satisfied with the remaining vendor as shown below:

Don’t miss out on the complete results!  ALL participants receive a complimentary copy of the Survey results and participating takes less than 10 minutes. Click here.

Should You Cancel When Your Contract Renews?

By Michael Feit | Feit Consulting

Contract cancellation and changing vendors doesn’t happen overnight.

These changes occur sometimes over years of dissatisfaction, poor services, price increases.  We’ve asked our survey respondents to tell us how likely they are to cancel when their contracts renew – and the results are telling.

We’ve noted in other posts in this blog series about the satisfaction rates of Westlaw, so these do not surprise us – but Lexis and Bloomberg have cause for concern.

Do these statistics mean your firm should question your services?  Not necessarily.  Don’t miss out on the complete results!  ALL participants receive a complimentary copy of the Survey results and participating takes less than 10 minutes.  Click here.

The 2019 Survey So Far: Check out the Surprising Preliminary Results!

By Michael Feit | Feit Consulting

Thus far the survey has produced some very interesting findings, like these surprising preliminary trends in vendor sentiment:

Did Bloomberg overplay its hand?  Can Westlaw do no wrong in the eyes of information professionals?  The impassioned sentiments we are capturing in our current Market Survey are very polarized compared to our 2016 survey.  We are seeing a market that has, in fact, changed considerably.

Clearly Bloomberg’s bundling move and revised price structure is coming up short and incurring a huge amount of dissatisfaction that may prove impossible to overcome.  With regard to Westlaw Edge, most firms are adamant that they will not pay for the new, technologically advanced services offered, but will wait until Westlaw Edge is included in their current subscriptions.

Westlaw and Bloomberg may have been playing the wrong game on the wrong field – but we will have to see how the data continues to paint this picture.

We hope you take a few minutes and participate in the Survey here.  The Survey is closing soon on December 15th so don’t miss out!  ALL of our Survey respondents receive a complimentary copy of the full results, and this alone will be more than worth your while as you develop your strategy for 2019.

Will Westlaw’s Edge be Undone by its Pricing?

By Michael Feit | Feit Consulting

In July, Westlaw launched its AI-technology powered, predictive legal search tool Westlaw Edge.

Westlaw has long been considered the leader in comprehensive legal information services, providing a comprehensive package of services at premium prices. Early results of our annual market survey show a continued high level of satisfaction with Westlaw:

However, despite their popularity, the survey also shows that many firms are going to postpone consideration or adoption of Westlaw Edge until the pricing falls.   To date, less than 20% of firms who have responded have noted that they intend to go forward with Westlaw Edge in the next 12 months.

Compounding the situation, Westlaw Edge is entering the market at nearly the same time that LexisNexis and Bloomberg BNA, are competing with their own enhanced AI products, with similar technologically advanced features.  In the case of Lexis, their pricing tends to be much lower than that offered by Westlaw, and as a result Lexis is likely to be more palatable.

When competing products include many of the same analytical features, pricing becomes more important.  Westlaw is fine with only 20% of customers purchasing Edge at the high, introductory price as it stands to see a considerable increase in revenue due to this.  Westlaw is risking that firms will try the AI alternatives at a lower price and Westlaw will lose future business altogether.

As law firms are experiencing long term downward pressure on price, the Edge pricing strategy is out of synch.  There are myriad stories of market dominant companies that don’t heed the call of price sensitivity or shifts in the market place – Sears, Blockbuster, Blackberry, remember Kodak? To regain market share, Westlaw’s competitors–principally LexisNexis–have made adjustments, not only to their prices, but also to their product offerings.

Due to Westlaw’s tremendous product loyalty, prices have grown to a point where their customer’s are being forced to try alternatives.  Edge could help Westlaw retain its popular position if pricing was perceived to be less aggressive.

Share your thoughts on Westlaw Edge and the market!   Our Survey is closing in just over a week on December 15th and all participants receive a complimentary copy of the full results.  To join, start here.

Edge Put in Context

By Michael Feit | Feit Consulting

It’s almost difficult to recall pre-2008 when law firms were able to pass invoices and include back and middle office costs through to clients and clients paid, a world where a law firm would rather have some overlap between providers, say its research services vendors LexisNexis and Westlaw, than to be without any niche product, no matter how esoteric.

Clients were paying the costs for the most part hence the ability for firms large and small to have dual information service vendors. Things changed, as we all know so well.  Downward pressure on price brought margins down to razor thin levels and not just tremendous pushback on recovery, but the law firm’s own C-suite needed to push lean efficiency in every department of the firm could not afford that kind of lux decision making any longer—thus giving rise to the sole provider trend.

The sole provider trend reached an all-time high last year at a remarked 68% of firms going sole provider and 62% of those firms having opted for Westlaw.  However, our survey’s preliminary results are showing that change is afoot!  In fact, firms who dropped Lexis for Westlaw are seeing Lexis come back with pricing and services so attractive, that firms are taking them back!

Westlaw’s price increases may have proved to be short-sighted, and overconfident.

Context, the new tool recently launched by Lexis Nexis rolls in much of the features from Ravel Law.  Using AI and machine learning to power visualization technology, provide quantitative data and anticipate behavior.  Context delivers a seamless search experience, allowing lawyers to access analytics within Lexis Advance. Cumulatively Context’s research functions and solutions deliver a compelling, competitive alternative to Westlaw Edge.

Perhaps more importantly, LexisNexis has not only kept up with its competitors in features, but we anticipate that Context will be offered at a considerably lower cost than Edge.  While Westlaw is focused on price-protection, Lexis is striving to grow market share and increase product adoption with more reasonable pricing.

We can’t wait to see how the data plays out in this area.  If you haven’t participated yet, there’s still time.  The Survey is closing on December 15^th and all participants receive a complimentary copy of the full results.  Start here.

Inside Bloomberg BNA’s Fall Pricing Surprise

By Michael Feit | Feit Consulting

This article appeared in Legaltech News on 11/13/18.

By Michael Feit
mike@feitconsulting.com

This fall, law firms who subscribe to a handful of BNA reporters and electronic newsletters are receiving a surprise: renewal proposals with unexpected price increases. This comes on the heels of the discontinuance of key products these firms rely on. Early reports from law firm information professionals are describing the proposed price at a substantial 30 percent, 40 percent, or even 50 percent. To justify the upcharges, BBNA clients are being forced into unplanned upgrades with either full or limited BLAW access.

This had not been the standard for BBNA, although it is reminiscent of tactics by their competitors Westlaw and LexisNexis. Up until recently, Bloomberg had abstained from aggressive pricing negotiations. The cost per seat for Bloomberg products may have been high, but annual price increases were within standard range and the prices themselves were more or less transparent. This policy change indicates that BBNA has not been successful illustrating to firms the value of their products beyond what firms may already be receiving from Westlaw and/or LexisNexis.

At certain firms, Bloomberg has the ability to leverage the high value and regard for a small set of their content, which is now enabling them to be more aggressive in negotiations. How far can BBNA push the market and their prices before people walk away?

BBNA is also presenting firms with confusing options, bundling completely different arrays of products, pricing and terms. Firms are reporting that it is taking weeks just to understand the proposals. In addition, when the bundles are fully understood, many are realizing that none of the options actually meet the firm’s needs—and all deliver a big bump in cost. Bloomberg knows that many of these reporters are deemed essential, and this allows them to apply unprecedented pressure.

With no significant advance warning, firms have little recourse in this round of negotiations. Firms have few immediate alternatives, although they exist to a degree thanks to competitors like Wolters Kluwer. With no warning, and no time to negotiate, research or prepare, de facto options are essentially nonexistent.

From a broader perspective, as Bloomberg has had little success penetrating the firm-wide market as a competitor to Westlaw and Lexis, it seems to have decided to leverage the strengths of its unique assets. However, it is unknown if this short-term thinking will be sustainable in the long run.

In the end, the outcome may resemble what has transpired in other similar markets. Alternatives and new competitors will spring up. Customers will be on the alert to seek out more reasonably-priced options. And when the pain of these price increases—and presumably, additional increases to come—becomes too great to bear, firms will simply begin to walk away.

In the meantime, however, this rearguard pricing action is nothing more and nothing less than an information imbalance. It’s basic economics. Markets operate efficiently when everyone has a reasonable degree of information. In this case, Bloomberg currently has all the information and is leveraging that advantage (for now).

In our view, the worst response a firm could have is to default into accepting the new deal. The best response firms can have to these tactics is to increase their own information storehouse. Arming yourself with information about substitutes creates the best possible environment for negotiating, and if necessary, saying “no” is a negotiator’s best friend. This means taking steps now to determine whether the Bloomberg suite of products is absolutely essential, or whether there are alternatives to fill some (or all) of the resulting gaps.