There are no free lunches has become a cliché to express the idea that it is impossible to get something without giving anything in return.
From a while back, even a famous Swiss coffee brand has hitched a ride on this purpose and, by offering free espresso in its chain of shops, provokes the best visual, sensory and tasting experience in the customer, to the point of leading him to purchase several other coffee capsules, under the label of exotics. All paid for, of course.
The method is not new. The pharmaceutical, cosmetics, food, buy one get one free, e-commerce industries, with free delivery, are all surfing the wave of free.
Chris Anderson, former editor of Wired Magazine, says that last century’s free, from the atoms industry, was a powerful marketing tool. In the current century, in the middle of the bit industry, free is a business model. And there is no shortage of examples. Dropbox, Gmail, Spotify, Youtube, MySpace, Snapchat, Instagram, Waze, Wikipedia, LinkedIn, and many others, allow the user the feeling of experience, of tasting in different levels of services and tools, without the initial payment, but captivating them in such a way that they will become paying customers soon. It is from there, under the premium status, a series of other services, previously inaccessible, become paid.
Free has psychological power, attraction, to generate audience traffic and interest. The reference newspaper New York Times, for example, was the pioneer in the segment to adopt, on the web, the free model combined with a payment. It works like this: the virtual user has access to the publications without any retribution (unlike users of the printed newspaper) and, at a certain moment, climbs a wall, limiting that access. The tasting ends and, if he wants to continue and take down the wall, it is mandatory to subscribe to the newspaper, hence the paywall.
On the other hand, it has been commonplace to witness the debate between the old business model, based on matter (atoms), versus the new business model, virtual, founded on bits, in various sectors, such as urban transportation, housing, the consumption of music and movies, even labelled as a war. It does not need that much. A way is possible, after all Nicholas Negroponte, professor at MIT, already predicted the enormous impact of the migration between these models, reshaping the economy and directly altering the centre of power and social interactions.
The web, whether by those who exploit it commercially or those who consume it, is free territory for economic reasons, as a result of the very dynamics imposed by the technology companies that orbit it. The cycle is virtuous but, to enter the wheel, it is necessary to rethink or adapt the traditional model of doing business, abandoning the Cartesian method that everything has to be paid for.
The legal market itself is no different or should not be indifferent to this movement, specifically in the relationship between lawyers and clients. The former, be they freelancers, who assume the autonomy and direction of their careers, building initiatives, or in companies, strong as a boutique or solid as law firms, to meet, for example, the demands of a startup will face, without distinction, the dilemma of adopting a traditionally static billing model, applicable to a traditional company/client, against a startup company/client, dynamic by nature.
As Tiago Mattos, considered a specialist in futurism in Brazil, says, it is as if this traditional charging model adopted a causal thought, with a pre-defined script, based on pro labore, billable hours or specific fees, when what we will have is an effective thought of the entrepreneur, whose business will change plan, format or even commercial strategy all the time. In addition, there are the budgetary uncertainties affecting these startups, some of which are in an early stage and are not so willing to spend large sums on legal advice, concentrating their skills primarily on getting their business off the ground, which is a mistake, by the way.
This will make both of them unviable, i.e. the fee proposal will not fit the profile of the entrepreneur, who will also not be willing to assume that traditional model. It is, therefore, in this sense that the business model based on the freemium format will prove to be feasible, and which will, in turn, respect the rules governing the profession.
Like a gold rush, change, in fact, is already happening, with professionals reviewing this classic model, making it more flexible and willing to assume hours not billable, unknowable time and client care in their charts, giving up metrics and performance in exchange for innovation. For this context, it is worth the bets and risks, partnerships with incubators and accelerators, creation of internal nuclei, such as intra-entrepreneurship, in search of new businesses and finding and captivating clients like Bill Hewlett and David Packard in their early days or having a Steve Wozniak and Jobs still rebellious and in the garage. Or, who knows, conquering the trust of Brazilian Mike Krieger, as a student, and at a later stage participating in the operation that sold Instagram for over a billion dollars (either dollars or euros) to Facebook.
On the other hand, and in this freemium model of service for start-ups, the search for strategic positioning is not ruled out, giving visibility to the client portfolio that it is practicing innovation and better understanding the language and dialects of the ecosystem. Perhaps even generating internal business between startups (raised thanks to this model) eager for capital and clients, investment funds, already existing in one’s own portfolio.
To quote another Wired Magazine editor, Kevin Kelli, there is no point in resisting. The ways we shop, learn, communicate and, most importantly, work with each other will be completely (even more) revolutionised. What we can do, according to him, and in a logical and obvious statement, is to understand and embrace them in order to increase the probability of benefiting from them. Even because, if we consider the evolution of a startup in the manner approached by Steve Blank, hardly a venture in its discovery and validation will have the culture to assume the hiring of legal services until the moment of its escalation, if at all. Hence, the need to debate and evaluate new ways of advising this type of business, which by nature lives from risks and uncertainties.
In short: it is as if the charging model for lawyers is still based on atoms, when startups need a charging model based on bits. And don’t be surprised if, soon, it is in bitcoins.
