This article appeared in Legaltech News on 6/25/18.
Sometimes, there's not much that can help the medicine go down, and when there's not, it becomes clear the rather repugnant taste of it (the medicine). This is a metaphor for the now center-stage discussion taking place regarding the pricing practices of LexisNexis and the cease and desist letter prepared by AALL which argues that Lexis's recent tactics breach anti-competitive covenants rendering the new sales practices illegal or at least render the tactics at odds with the AALL Guide to Fair Business Practices for Legal Publishers.
LexisNexis and Westlaw dominate the lion's share of online research and print platforms for all law firms of all sizes; in fact, most large firms historically adopted a practice of providing both services to its attorneys. Today, less than half of larger firms retain both. Prior to the recession law firms were able to pass-through and recover >80% of their Lexis and Westlaw costs. However, since the recession, both vendors have been in defense mode. Online cost recovery has dropped to <35% and firms have been increasingly realizing retaining both vendors is unnecessary. The evaluation of the sole provider option is not just a viable option for most firms—it is a necessity.
Having discontinued the ideal world of standardized pay-as-you-go retail pricing by 2010, both have been operating in secretive pricing practices and leveraging terms that vary greatly from firm to firm—not the least of which is pricing Am Law and NYC firms disproportionately higher than the rest of the market, albeit ad hoc.
Therefore, LexisNexis recently leveraged the power of a certain suite of its products–including Lex Machina, Law 360, Wall Street Journal and American Lawyer subscriptions–to the sale of Lexis Advance; an unpopular move within the information services community, the move is a tactical effort to win sales over Westlaw abut which subsequently triggered the outcry from the information services community.
What Lexis is doing is really not that unusual in this market. In an ideal world, yes, the industry's two dominant players–Lexis and Westlaw–would publish retail pricing, and firms could pick and choose buffet-style which products they wanted based on their practice needs and budget. Unfortunately, that ideal world does not exist, and has not existed for some time. Both Lexis and Westlaw are mature products in a saturated market trying to hold on to a revenue stream that has nowhere to go but down.
Ever since the release of WestlawNext, Westlaw has been the more popular platform. Lexis, for some time, had an inferior interface that made Westlaw the go-to vendor at many firms that continued to have both vendors. Lexis, as a result, was then easier to cut because of low usage. Even when Lexis was retained, it typically was in the context of a large price concession.
On top of this, and symptomatic of a mature market, there are now many new tools and efficiencies that are cannibalizing usage–and new tools will continue to emerge and continue to cannibalize. Lexis has invested in several analytical tools, but artificial intelligence products, savvy analytical tools are all going to erode the use of Lexis and Westlaw, unless, of course these vendors continue to purchase all the new products entering the market.
For all these reasons and more, firms are vigorously debating the viability of operating with just one platform—and for the first time since the early 90's, retaining just one of these vendors has become the norm. Our data shows 54% of large law firms have now, in fact, opted to retain only one vendor, with about 60% choosing Westlaw.
In a tangible way, there are winners and losers. Lexis would not be able to recover 7+ years of usage lost to WestlawNext without this tie-in tactic. Tying Lexis Advance to core products, such as Lex Machina, Law360 and print has made Lexis competitive once again versus Westlaw. While doing so is not building good will, customer service and satisfaction are not the primary aim of a mature vendor—the products just need to be indispensable and, for at least some firms, it appears that some are.
Elimination of Lexis is no longer easy. Firms that have recently eliminated Lexis have found it uncomfortable to live without the peripheral products. Some have come back into the Lexis fold and others are contemplating coming back. Firms who would have eliminated Lexis are now thinking twice about that outcome.
Does this make Lexis the winner? In the short run, potentially yes—meaning, this strategy is working for Lexis to preserve its client base and revenue stream for now. However, Lexis runs a huge risk that firms who are forced to live without their other products might find that life-style relatively easy and may never return. Currently, Lexis is banking on that not being the case but only time will tell.
This article appeared in Legaltech News.
Spring brings about the opportunity to do things differently. Technology and the buzz word – modernization, are on the mind we enter into this new year. There are tactical things you as an Administrator or Librarian can do to stay ahead of the game this coming year, and make technology and modernization optimized within your Library.
Budget – Two key words come to mind with regards to budget: collaboration and reporting. Work with Finance to more efficiently monitor budget and expenses. Establish a new schedule for collecting data, and the date of each month or quarter you will turn around that data. For example, receiving data on the 3rd of the month and providing a report to management on the 10th of each month.
Reporting – What metrics are you using to measure ROI and showcase value? Are you collecting feedback from library users? Are you using an Electronic Resource Management (ERM) tool? If so, are you utilizing its full capacity?
Contract Management Planning – Implement new deadlines for legal information management planning. Most of us mark contract expirations on a calendar or in a tracking program. Go a step further.
Month 1: Determine which tools you have in place that can provide data on usage, costs, and value. Such tools may include: Invoices, ERM, developing a survey for users, and scheduling one-on-one conversations with attorneys and staff to assess value and usage of products.
Month 2: Collect data. Based on the tools determined in month 1, begin collecting data. Work with finance to dive into invoices.
Month 3: Analyze the data. Understand what is your ROI for the expiring product(s). Look at as many metrics as you can: Spend per Attorney, usage, discount, etc.
Month 4-6: Begin the negotiation process by requesting a proposal from vendor. Remember, it is more beneficial for vendors to wait to the last minute for pressure to sign the new contract. It won't be easy but start early.
For firms and organizations considering eliminating Lexis or Westlaw, start this process 9 months to 12 months in advance of your contract expiration of either vendor. Assessing vendor preference and combating concerns is a lengthier process than one might think. While it has been done in a month, having more time on your side is always an advantage.
Feit Consulting's Optimizing Legal Information Pricing is an excellent resource. It shares detailed processes and steps for contract negotiation planning, knowing which metrics to use, and how best to strategize the negotiation process.
Prices for Westlaw and Lexis grew astronomically from the late 90's up until the 2008 due to usage growing so fast. After 2008, 30% of the market said it cannot afford to cover the costs of online research – not being able to pass off the full costs to clients.
Some firms were successful in getting concessions from both Westlaw/Lexis. However, in 2010 the Sole Provider trend emerged. Many firms started to move forward and eliminate either Westlaw or Lexis.
Right now; 55% of large law firms have one or the other. Of the 45% of firms that continue to have both Lexis and Westlaw, 20% have threatened to eliminate a vendor….or have eliminated a vendor but then took them back at best of market pricing.
Currently, 25-30% of market are still overpaying by greater than 50-100% of mid-market pricing (per Feit's Benchmarks). Is your firm getting the best market pricing? Click here to get more information from our experts.
What is the Lexis strategy of blocking Amlaw from buying other products?
In 2017, Lexis decided existing clients can no longer have access to Law 360 or any other products if they cancel core Lexis. This strategy seems to be working in about 20% of firms that might have otherwise canceled Lexis. For the most part, these products are too new and not that important yet to most firms for this new strategy to have a major impact.
We recommend that Lexis take advantage of Westlaw's arrogant pricing and try to partner with firms to show the value in their suite of products. It does not make sense to cut off revenue streams given firms' willingness to walk away from Lexis. In most instances, not allowing customers access to your jewel products is going to be more costly than the value of trying to retain products.
In 2018, Lexis will continue to purchase existing products. They are taking the lead in visual analytics. By acquiring great products such as Intelligize, Lex Machina, and Ravel Law, this momentum is expected to continue.
We anticipate that Lexis will further enforce their rules. If you don't have core Lexis you won't have access to their peripheral products (right now this is only being enforced with AMLaw firms). Rolling out of this policy to the entire market will be dependent upon their success rate.
More firms will choose Lexis this year, unless Westlaw corrects its tone deaf pricing model.
As Lexis and Westlaw usage declines at the firm level, we anticipate Lexis/Westlaw will try to aggressively lock firms into longer term contracts.
What does legal information management mean for firms in 2018? Recovery rates firms used to pass through to clients will continue to dwindle. We are seeing more firms seeking solutions to modernize their library, in search of great efficiencies and cost-savings. This is an illustration of a growing investment of time and money to improve and enhance the library and its role.