Law firm marketing services: every item, and its form

A marketing service is a list of objects, not a list of intentions. Buying one should produce named things a firm can point at: a written scope, a page schedule, built pages, analytics properties, a monthly report. Of 40 suppliers read in full on 3 August 2026, 12 published a price against any of it.

Last updated: 5 August 2026

What actually arrives when a firm buys marketing services?

A defined set of items, each with a form and a point at which it lands.

Below is our own list, described rather than counted, so a partner can read it against whatever a competing proposal contains. What is not included, and what the firm has to supply itself, sits on what is excluded from the fixed price and is deliberately not repeated here.

How do you tell a deliverable from an activity?

By three tests: it has a form, it has a date, and it survives the supplier.

An object can be emailed, opened by somebody who was not in the meeting, and read a year later by a partner who has never spoken to the supplier. An activity cannot. "Ongoing optimisation", "monthly search work" and "content strategy" describe real labour, but a firm cannot point at any of them, cannot check whether they happened, and holds nothing when the relationship ends.

The useful exercise is to take a competing proposal and ask, line by line, what object each line produces and by when. Lines that convert cleanly are deliverables. Lines that cannot be converted are either activities that should be reported rather than listed, or padding.

The admission that costs us: a good part of our own month is activity. Reading Search Console, changing a title, rewriting an opening paragraph, checking whether a page renders on a phone. None of that produces an object. What it produces is the monthly report, and the report is the object — which is why the report has to say what was done rather than only what happened.

What form does each item arrive in?

One of four, and each form fails in its own way.

The last row is the one that carries risk rather than waste. Structured data must match what a reader can see. Markup asserting reviews, ratings or scores a firm does not have invites a manual action rather than a better listing, and no supplier should be putting it on a firm's site. The account row is covered properly on who owns the accounts when a contract ends.

Which product contains which items?

All of them, at four fixed prices, with the retainer buying repetition rather than new categories.

Prices are fixed and published, never per enquiry, per case or per client. The retainer adds no item that the builds do not contain; it adds more of them, every month, for as long as it runs.

Which item do firms want first and receive last?

The monthly report, and there is nothing to be done about it.

Evidence that the work is paying is the item a partner most wants, and it is the only item on the list that cannot be manufactured — it requires the pages to have been live long enough to have produced data. Month one is a build month, and our month-one report says what was built and nothing about results, because there are none.

The mirror image is the written scope. It is the item nobody is excited by, it arrives before any money has produced anything visible, and it decides whether every later item is the right one. A firm that skips it to get to the build faster buys pages nobody agreed to.

Which of these suppliers publishes a list you can match to a price?

Fewer than publish a price at all, which is already only 12 of 40.

When we read all 40 on 3 August 2026, idr.legal and lexisnexis.co.uk had a price on the page; legal-marketing.co.uk and novicell.com did not. Five of the twelve who did showed a range rather than a figure. We record who published a number, never what it was — the values our tooling picked up mixed genuine fees with case values, and attributing one to a named business would be publishing something unverified.

A price without a list and a list without a price are equally unusable. The first cannot be checked against what arrives; the second cannot be budgeted. Ask any supplier for both on the same page, and treat a refusal to put the list in writing as the answer.

Where is another supplier the better choice?

In three situations, plainly.

A larger general agency such as novicell.com is better resourced where the site has to connect to something else — a case management system, a client portal, a second language. That is integration work rather than publishing work, and it is not what we build.

lexisnexis.co.uk and idr.legal serve a different need altogether: research tooling and professional directory presence rather than a build. If what the firm actually wants is to be listed and cited in the places its peers look, that is a different purchase and we are not part of it.

Any supplier that manages advertising spend. We do not, and a firm that wants one party accountable for both organic and paid work should buy from one that does.

Before you shortlist anyone

We read 40 legal-marketing suppliers in full in August 2026 — including several on this page. Twelve published a price. One offered work with no minimum term.

The free report gives you the full count, named, so you can repeat it rather than take ours. It also shows how many people search for your practice areas in your town, and what those clicks cost to buy at Google's own prices.

Get the report — five questions, about two minutes →

No call required. Our own prices are on that page.

Where should I read next?

On the same purchase from other angles: lawyer firm marketing compares hiring somebody against retaining somebody, and law firm internet marketing puts the channels in order for a UK firm.

If you are working out where the money goes rather than what arrives: law firm online marketing splits a fixed monthly budget, and law firm web marketing decides whether the site or the campaign is the constraint before anything is spent.

On why several of the items above are worth building at all: why the transparency rules are a search asset rather than an administrative burden.

Frequently asked questions