Not a lot, it would seem.

Do you use variations on any of the following to describe how your firm stands out?

• We provide a partner-led service
• We don’t just prepare your accounts and tax returns
• We aim to be your long-term business partners
• We avoid surprise fees
• We specialise in helping SME businesses
• We keep in touch with you throughout the year

Good, good. But what’s really memorable, special and different  about your firm? Why should a prospective client who is comparing you or your firm with another one choose you? In what ways do you or your firm stand out as different to the other options? By ‘different’, I mean in what ways will a client benefit more from working with you than with any of the other accountants out there?

If you haven’t thought about this you should do – assuming you want to win more clients.  And you can only do this if you know what the competition are claiming make them memorable, special and different. Do you?

This is also a critical issue when networking. How easy do you make it for the people you meet to act as your advocate? Even if they like you and want to help you, what do you expect them to say? “I know this ‘great’ accountant” or “I know this ‘great’ employment lawyer” or whatever. What can they say to evidence what makes you ‘great’? What makes you stand out? What would you want them to say about you? How do they know this?

Few accountants or other professionals have thought about HOW they market themselves, WHAT messages they project and WHY anyone else should recommend them. Too many focus simply on an ‘elevator’ type statement that simply sets out what they do and who they do it for. It’s a start, but’s not enough.

Do share your thoughts below as comments or get in touch direct to let me know what makes you standout from the crowd.

There is little point in simply pursuing these metrics. You need to have key business focused targets. It may be that you want to raise your profile and to become a go-to person for media comment in your area of expertise.  Perhaps you want to keep in touch with existing clients who are active users of one or other of the main social media platforms. Or, perhaps you are like most accountants and are experimenting with social media in order to generate additional fees.

And that is the key metric that you need to measure. How much of the additional fees you generate can be attributed to your online social media activity? There will rarely be a quick or short payback in this regard.

It is also important to note the 3 factors that will influence the speed with which you can gain a payback. These factors are all relevant whether your social media activity is focused around facebook, online forums, blogging, twitter, Google+ or Linkedin. And yet these 3 factors are commonly excluded from all the promotional talk, articles and blog posts about social media.

The 3 factors are:

1 – Effective use

How effective is your use of the social media platform? How consistent and congruent are your messages, your profile and your online activity? Are you copying good habits? relevant habits or are you following generic advice that doesn’t translate well into the world of accountants seeking new clients?

I saw a statistic quoted recently suggesting that “for 95% of accountants’ social media is a complete waste of time. The reason for that is a lack of a focused strategy.”

2 – Your website

Most accountants using social media will include links back to their website.  Your social media activity may be exemplary but your website could be the weak link. Does it reinforce the messages you have been promoting on social media? Does it engage visitors? How easy does the page they have reached on your website make it for them to get in touch with YOU (as distinct from a faceless ‘admin’ person)?

3 – Offline follow up

Just like with any other form of networking, personal contact is crucial. If you are not leveraging your use of social media to meet with people face to face, you will wait longer to secure a valuable ROI.

Agree? Disagree? Do you think that there any other critical factors that will determine the success of your social media activity?

Last year I outlined 5 blogging myths for accountants; my blog post also put the other side of the argument. I had to do that as I enjoy blogging and have been a regular blogger here for nearly seven years. My conclusion though was that all too often blogging is not a worthwhile allocation of time for accountants in practice. Yes, you can derive some benefit from it but this will typically only follow if blogging forms part of a structured marketing plan.

Having said all that, the question arises as to how do you know when a blog is worthwhile? By this I mean, how do you know when the blog has a sufficient following and that if you stopped blogging it would be disproportionately detrimental to your reputation?

In December I explained why I think that: Only one website metric really matters to accountants. The same is probably true of an accountant’s blog. If it’s not evidently helping you secure profitable work then it’s probably not worthwhile.

I stopped writing my Tax-Buzz blog at the end of 2011. I had posted over 400 items over a 4 year period, but for reasons I have explained elsewhere, I concluded there was no point continuing the blog.  Almost no one seemed to notice or to care when I stopped blogging there. Despite my best efforts the visitor numbers rarely peaked above a few thousand a month. I had also noted that the majority of readers were in the US (not a target market for me). This is an important issue. If the people visiting your blog are unlikely ever to become clients what’s the point?

What about this blog then for ambitious accountants?

Well  we had significantly more visitors (>19,000) and more page views (>30,000) in April than ever before. My wordpress stats are not identifying any specific blog post or page of the website as having become more popular than the others so the increase seems to be more generalised.

I’m hoping that the increasing level of interest in my website and blog is because readers find what I have to say of value. The level of feedback is pretty low – which is very common I understand. I do appreciate and acknowledge all those who take the time to comment. I hope I continue to share ideas that are of interest and value. If you have any suggestions for topics I might address here by all means let me know by email or by comments below. For the moment though I reckon this blog is worthwhile and so I will continue to update it at least once a week.

Committee chairman Margaret Hodge said accountants seconded to government represented a “ridiculous conflict of interest” that should be ended. She had clearly made up her mind based on no real evidence and was determined to use her position to grab a few more headlines and to make sure accountants become the new bogeymen (sorry – I cannot find a gender neutral word).

Hodge referenced just ONE (non) example to justify her sweeping criticisms. Despite the paucity of her arguments the media is gleefully repeating Hodge’s criticism of all the Big 4 firms and, implicitly, accountants in general. Re Hodge’s single ‘proof’, what really happened I suspect is this:

The last LABOUR Gov’t wanted to introduce a tax relief to reduce taxes for those who qualify for the patent box regime. To ensure the relief worked as intended they sought outside help (from KPMG). Could have been any of the Big 4.

Once the law was introduced, KPMG (and all the others) then helped promote the concept so that the regime (introduced by LABOUR) would be a success. There were no loopholes to exploit. The advice given to clients was to ensure they could benefit from the new regime – as the Government intended.

I listened to Mrs Hodge being interviewed on the Today programme on Friday and was frustrated by her outrageous slurs on our profession. The Treasury also disagreed with the criticisms saying the PAC’s analysis and conclusions:

“bear almost no resemblance to the reality of what government is doing or what is happening. In particular, as a matter of principle, the suggestion that government shouldn’t work with business, and indeed anyone affected by its policies, is totally absurd.”

Treasury Minister, David Gauke, was also critical of the report, saying:

“The idea that we shouldn’t make use of private sector expertise in developing a tax system that would bring investment and development to the UK is absurd. They’re not going out to advise clients on how to dodge the legislation, they’re going out to advise clients on how to abide by the legislation.”

As the FT noted, also critical of the ill-informed PAC report were ICAEW, CIOT and the trade union that represents senior staff at HMRC (The Association of Revenue and Customs). But of course most of the media have chosen to ignore such criticisms. They seem to like having someone new to criticise even if the facts do not support this. The media have got fed up of criticising MPs and the bankers.  I fear that accountants are to be identified as the new bogeymen. What do you think and what can we do about it?

ps: The other thing that worries me is that I know how biased and inaccurate Hodge and the PAC are on this matter. It makes me very cynical as to the reliability of other reports produced by the PAC and, indeed any Parliamentary committee. If this one can be so far off the mark, it’s likely that others are too. How much reliance should be placed on any of them?

Some of the recent headlines:

• Accountants seconded to government are ‘abusing position’
• Accountants helping “the rich avoid tax” using insider knowledge, MPs claim
• ‘Big four’ accountancy firms too cosy with government, says MPs
• Treasury accountants accused of helping rich to avoid tax
• Britain’s ‘big four’ accountants deny tax loophole claims

As I share many of Professor Susskind’s views I thought I would pick out one theme for this blog. He has been suggesting that technology and standardisation would make lawyers less important. Even five years ago, in 2008, he felt that this was already having a major impact on the structure and future of law firms. Professor Susskind was clear that he thought the same principles would also apply to other service professionals. Could the same be true of accountants and tax advisers for example?

Professor Susskind effectively urges readers to ask yourself, with your hand on your heart, what elements of your current workload could be undertaken differently – more quickly, cheaply, efficiently, or to a higher quality – using alternative methods of working? The challenge we face is to identify what distinctive skills, talents and capabilities you possess that cannot, crudely, be replaced by advanced systems or by less costly workers supported by technology or standard processes, or by lay people armed with online self-help tools.

Professor Susskind’s view is that the market is unlikely to tolerate expensive advice that can be better provided through automation, low cost online facilities and the support of modern systems and techniques. I would agree. He also suggested that the legal profession will be driven by two forces in the coming decade:

1. by a market pull towards the commoditisation of legal services, and
2. by the pervasive development and uptake of new and disruptive legal technologies.

Again, similar changes have been impacting the accounting profession over the last five years. However I don’t think the changes have yet been as dramatic as Professor Susskind was predicting. But in essence I am sure he was right and that there lessons here for ambitious accountants.  I’m not sure that ‘technology and standardisation’ are making accountants less important but the role is evolving – in much the way that some accountancy commentators have been predicting for a lot more than five years.

As I have long maintained, most accountants evolve and change only when they absolutely need to do so. This often means that the extent of the changes are only obvious when we look back and think how different things were even just a few years ago. If you don’t think much has changed then perhaps your memory is playing tricks on you. Or are you resisting the impact of ‘technology and standardisation’? How much longer is that approach sustainable I wonder?

I am relieved that Professor Susskind believes that there will continue to be a market for bespoke advice and that many people will continue to be willing to pay for expert judgment, intuition and the application and communication of complex expertise. I was relieved to hear that in 2008 and I think it is still true now. After all, that’s just what the Tax Advice Network is all about!

Starting at 5.30pm on the evening of 13 May at One Moorgate Place in London, this event will be of use and value to other chartered accountants considering or planning a portfolio career. The areas being addressed by the 5 speakers include:

• what a portfolio career is
• how to identify what motivates you
• how to effectively use networking to build your portfolio (This is my slot)
• a detailed look at the role of a non-executive director
• what it’s like working as an interim manager, and
• how one member built a varied and very successful portfolio career

The evening concludes with drinks and light bites from 8.30 – 9.00pm

To book your place, please follow this link to the ICAEW website which contains full details. And do please come and say hello during the evening.

Ten years ago Rex Bretten QC devised a tax scheme that was within the letter of the law and he sought to take advantage of this. HMRC were not happy and the dispute went to Court. As so often happens many years have passed since the tax planning was put into effect. Times have changed and the tax tribunal has disagreed with Mr Bretten’s analysis. He is not entitled to any tax relief for the £475,000 loss he was claiming would reduce his tax bill for 2002/03 by £190,000.

Shock; Horror. It seems Counsel’s opinion was wrong. Not for the first time. (That’s a comment re Tax Counsel in general. Sometimes their analysis holds up, sometimes it doesn’t. The one thing on which they are generally correct is when they confirm that it is legal to take part in such a scheme – assuming  that the taxpayer and the promoter of the scheme make full disclosure of all salient issues).

Last year I wrote a series of posts to which this latest development is effectively a postscript that endorses my views. In effect, tax avoidance schemes are risky and are rarely worth an accountant’s time and effort. Such schemes MAY be legal but this does not mean that the hoped for tax savings will be secured. And, if the scheme fails then, for most people, the final outcome will be worse than had they not undertaken the tax planning involved in the scheme.

As tax avoidance schemes are often over hyped and do not always work, these days it rarely makes commercial sense for professional accountants to devote time and effort to checking out each new scheme or variation that is promoted to them.

Related stories:

• Failed tax avoidance schemes and dissatisfied clients
• Accountants discouraged by ICAEW from advising on aggressive tax schemes
• Ten things accountants need to understand about tax schemes
• Why weren’t all accountants promoting those tax schemes?

It can be quite instructive to write down the three words you choose and then to ask other people how they would describe you too. Ask friends and family – people who will be honest with you; ask business contacts and colleagues too. But bear in mind that some people find it hard to be honest.

The words that appear on these lists of three adjectives will vary enormously. What happens when you compare these lists with your own choice of adjectives?

If no one has suggested the words or characteristics you have chosen then perhaps you need to reflect on the implications.  You could always ask people to indicate what they mean by each of the three adjectives they have chosen. Perhaps they have focused on the same characteristics as those you highlighted, but simply chose a different word to describe this.

You may be lucky and find that no one honestly thinks you are boring. That would be great. And, of course, you can’t please all of the people all of the time.  But if other people do consider you to be ‘Boring’ then you are the only person who can take action to change their perception of you. And it will take time.  This blog contains plenty of tips and advice to help you. Good luck!

It seems that I have yet to include on this blog the opening summary in which I share what seem to me to be the only six ways in which accountants can make more money from their smaller clients:

You can:

1. Increase your charges for doing the same work (which often means increasing the perceived value of what you do);
2. Speed up the collection of your fees (this includes adopting more commercial billing strategies);
3. Reduce the time you spend doing the work but keep the fees the same;
4. Provide more services and charge accordingly for these;
5. Encourage existing (good) clients to introduce new prospects (just like them);
6. Sack the duff D-list clients who get in the way.

Of course this advice can be adapted to help clients make more profits in their businesses too. But it would be a shame to do this before applying the advice to one’s own practice wouldn’t it?

 * Variations on the same talk can be presented under a variety of titles, either in-house, at conferences or seminars, as required.

Kid President is actually 9-year-old boy, Robbie Nova, who was born with Osteogenesis Imperfecta (“Brittle Bone syndrome”). His video has been seen by over 17 million people at the time of writing and is just one of many ‘Kid President’ videos produced by the people at Soul Pancake.