In 2000, Qantas faced an existential threat. Virgin Blue had entered the Australian market with aggressive pricing and a no-frills approach that was rapidly capturing market share. The national carrier could have slashed prices and triggered a destructive race to the bottom. It could have ignored the threat and watched customers defect. Instead, Qantas did something far more strategic: it launched Jetstar.
What followed is now considered one of the most successful fighter brand strategies in corporate history. Within five years, Jetstar had captured 22% of the domestic market while contributing over $300 million to Qantas’s bottom line. More importantly, Qantas maintained its premium positioning while neutralising the low-cost competition.
For Australian law firm —whether you run a family law practice watching clients drift toward $299 online divorce services, an estate planning firm losing simple wills to DIY kits, a commercial practice competing against alternative legal service providers, or a compensation firm facing high-volume claim factories—the Qantas playbook offers a masterclass in strategic brand architecture. But before you rush to launch a budget subsidiary, there are critical lessons to absorb. For every Jetstar success story, there is a Saturn or Song disaster.
The Strategic Dilemma Facing Australian Law Firms
The legal services landscape has fundamentally shifted across every practice area. According to Thomson Reuters, the alternative legal services provider (ALSP) market reached US$28.5 billion globally in 2023, with continued growth expected. In this context, most firms wrongly assume the turbulence relates solely to commercial work and the big end of town.
But disruption is not limited to that practice vertical. Government-backed platforms like amica now use artificial intelligence to help separating couples divide assets and create parenting plans without lawyers. Online divorce services offer complete applications for $299 plus court fees. DIY will platforms let Australians create legally valid wills in under fifteen minutes for as little as $35. Contract automation tools handle NDAs and standard commercial agreements that once generated reliable fee income. Mediations Australia is leading the charge to dissuade people from litigation to ADR.
This creates a genuine strategic dilemma regardless of your practice area. When amicable divorcing couples no longer need you for consent orders, opting for the fixed fee option following a mediation, when young families grab a will kit instead of booking an appointment, when in-house counsel send routine contracts to ALSPs, when straightforward claims flow to volume-focused firms—you face an uncomfortable choice. Do you reduce prices across your entire practice and destroy both margins and the service quality that defines your firm? Or do you maintain premium pricing, hope clients see the value, and watch market share erode?
As marketing professor Mark Ritson noted in his seminal Harvard Business Review article on fighter brands, both alternatives are often equally unpalatable. A third option exists: the fighter brand strategy.
A fighter brand is a lower-priced offering designed to combat specific competitors while protecting your premium brand’s positioning. When executed well, fighter brands can eliminate competition and open entirely new market segments. When executed poorly, they become expensive distractions that accelerate decline.
At Practice Proof, it’s not unusual for us to work with law firms considering a fighter-brand option. WE worked with one firm who had a very successful general practice of which conveyancing was key. However, their fees dictated to the market the calibre of client they wanted and rejected the rest. So, we worked with them and ultimately executed another practice, heavily productised to keep margins low and then, referred the rejected work to this practice and opened it more broadly to budget conscious buyers and sellers. It worked, not without a plethora of discussions over the board table with partners who were reluctant.
How Qantas Got It Right: Six Principles for Law Firms
Principle 1: Exhaust All Alternatives Before Creating a New Brand
Qantas did not rush into launching Jetstar. The leadership team conducted exhaustive strategic sessions to confirm that the Qantas brand itself simply could not compete with Virgin Blue’s low-cost model without destroying its premium positioning. Only after ruling out internal solutions did they conclude a fighter brand was the “only option.”
For your law firm, this means asking hard questions first. Can your existing firm compete on price for commoditised work without damaging your brand for complex, high-value matters? Could different pricing models—fixed fees, subscriptions, or alternative fee arrangements—address the competitive threat? Would better technology adoption, streamlined intake processes, or AI-assisted client experiences solve the problem without requiring a separate brand?
Many firms discover that smart process redesign can restore competitiveness without the complexity of a new brand. A family law firm might offer a fixed-fee “amicable separation package” under the same brand. A commercial firm might create productised contract packages with transparent pricing. Only proceed with a fighter brand if low-cost competitors are actively eroding your market share and no internal solution can restore your competitive position.
Principle 2: Build a Structurally Cheaper Operating Model
Qantas’s detailed financial projections showed that Jetstar could achieve a 20% cost advantage over Virgin Blue by offering no frills rather than merely low frills. This structural cost advantage enabled sustainable undercutting while maintaining acceptable profits.
For a law firm fighter brand, you need to model the economics ruthlessly. Build a profit-and-loss projection using lower-cost delivery: more paralegals handling document preparation, junior lawyers conducting initial consultations, standardised templates reducing drafting time, technology platforms like Settify automating intake, and strict scope boundaries preventing scope creep.
What might this look like across different practice areas?
- Family Law: Online intake, fixed-fee uncontested divorces with paralegal-led preparation, template-based consent orders, scheduled video consultations rather than open-ended appointments
- Estate Planning: Questionnaire-driven simple wills, standardised packages, annual review subscriptions, video-witnessed execution. We built a complete online Will Kit for a firm chasing this work.
- Commercial: Automated NDA and basic contract generation, fixed-fee company incorporations, template-based shareholder agreements with limited negotiation
- Compensation: High-volume WorkCover claims with automated case tracking, paralegal-heavy file management, strict matter criteria excluding complex disputes
This is where General Motors’ Saturn fighter brand failed catastrophically. Despite strong sales and customer satisfaction, Saturn’s cost structure was fundamentally broken. Total losses exceeded $15 billion. If you cannot design an operating model that is structurally cheaper than your main practice, your fighter brand will become an unprofitable distraction.
Principle 3: Start with Client Research, Not Competitor Analysis
Before making any key decisions, Jetstar’s executive team attended focus groups across Australia. They wanted to understand what customers actually wanted from a low-fare airline, not just how to differentiate from Qantas or copy Virgin Blue.
This customer-first orientation stands in stark contrast to United Airlines’ Ted, a fighter brand designed primarily by benchmarking against United’s own operations. Ted was effectively identical to its low-cost competitors while priced 15% higher. It folded within five years.
For your practice, interview clients who have chosen online services, DIY options, ALSPs, or high-volume competitors. Ask what they genuinely value and what they willingly sacrifice.
What price-sensitive clients typically value:
- Predictable costs with no surprise bills
- Speed and efficiency
- Basic risk coverage—ensuring work is legally sound
- Professional service despite the budget price point
What they willingly sacrifice:
- Partner-level attention on straightforward matters
- Bespoke advice on issues that do not apply to their situation
- Flexible scope that expands as new issues emerge
- Ongoing relationship with a senior trusted advisor
Use these insights to define your fighter brand’s service promise—not merely “a cheaper version of us” or a copy of what competitors offer.
Principle 4: Move Fast and Choose the Right Initial Scope
Jetstar launched in 2004 with 14 planes flying to 14 destinations. The speed took Virgin Blue by surprise. Equally important, Jetstar entered a market that was still growing, which reduced cannibalisation of Qantas’s existing customer base.
For a law firm fighter brand, launch first in one to three clearly defined productised services where low-cost competitors are gaining traction:
- Family Law: Uncontested divorces, simple consent orders for amicable property splits, basic parenting plans
- Estate Planning: Simple wills for individuals and couples, standard enduring powers of attorney, basic estate planning bundles
- Commercial: NDAs and confidentiality agreements, standard terms and conditions, simple shareholder or partnership agreements, company incorporations
- Compensation: Straightforward WorkCover claims, motor vehicle accidents with clear liability, TPD superannuation claims with strong medical evidence
Start with matter types where processes can be tightly standardised and demand is sufficient for volume to offset lower margins. Speed matters—every month of delay means more clients developing relationships with alternative providers.
Principle 5: Control Cannibalisation Through Clear Separation
This is where most fighter brand strategies fail. Kodak launched Funtime film at Fuji’s price point to win back customers. But consumers saw Funtime simply as “Kodak at a lower price.” The fighter brand cannibalised premium sales more than it damaged the competitor.
Qantas avoided this trap through deliberate separation. Jetstar took over tourist routes where Qantas had been losing money—cannibalising revenues but not profits.
For a law firm fighter brand, design separation on several dimensions:
Strict Matter Criteria: Define clear boundaries. An estate planning fighter brand might only accept clients with net assets under $2 million, no family trusts, and no blended family complications. A commercial fighter brand might handle contracts under $500,000 in value with standard terms only. Work outside these criteria must stay with the premium practice.
Different Service Model: The fighter brand experience should be noticeably different—not worse, but clearly “good enough” rather than “gold-plated”:
- Online intake rather than in-person consultations
- Scheduled video calls rather than office appointments
- Paralegal contact for process questions, lawyer review only at key stages
- Fixed scope with clear boundaries—additional issues quoted separately
Separate Branding: Create a distinct name and visual identity with an optional subtle endorsement that provides initial credibility while maintaining distance. Clients choosing the fighter brand should understand they are getting a different service level.
Like Procter & Gamble’s Luvs versus Pampers strategy, your fighter brand’s value must be intentionally limited so clients still perceive compelling reasons to engage the main practice for complex, high-stakes matters.
Principle 6: Reinvest in Your Premium Brand
Jetstar’s success allowed Qantas to refocus on profitable business routes. Subsequent profits funded overhauls of Qantas’s business lounges and cabins, sharpening the distinction between the two brands.
For your practice, use freed capacity and incremental profit from the fighter brand to enhance your premium offering:
- Family Law: Complex property matters involving trusts and business interests, high-conflict parenting disputes, collaborative law expertise, trauma-informed practice
- Estate Planning: Sophisticated tax and succession planning, testamentary trust design, business succession, elder law specialisation
- Commercial: Complex M&A advisory, bespoke joint venture structures, strategic regulatory navigation, cross-border transactions
- Compensation: Complex liability disputes, catastrophic injury specialisation, medical negligence, maximum compensation strategies
Continually calibrate pricing and positioning so your main practice becomes even more clearly associated with complex, high-stakes matters requiring genuine expertise. Understanding marketing measurement means recognising that protecting profit margins, not just revenue, is the metric that matters.
The Five Hazards That Destroy Fighter Brands
Before proceeding, understand the strategic hazards that sink most fighter brand initiatives.
Hazard 1: Excessive Cannibalisation
If your fighter brand steals more revenue from your premium practice than from competitors, you have merely shifted your profit mix downward. Test carefully to validate that price-sensitive clients will choose the fighter brand while premium clients remain with the main practice.
Hazard 2: Failure to Actually Compete
Overprotecting your premium brand can produce a fighter that fails to win business. Merck’s Zocor MSD was priced only slightly below the original drug. When generics entered at 30% of Zocor’s price, the fighter brand missed sales targets by 50%. Your fighter brand must be priced aggressively enough to genuinely compete with online alternatives and high-volume competitors.
Hazard 3: Unsustainable Losses
Saturn demonstrates the catastrophic potential of a structurally unprofitable fighter brand. A firm that launches a fighter brand but staffs it with expensive lawyers and maintains separate overhead may find the economics simply do not work. A fighter brand must achieve acceptable profits using an operating model suited to high-volume, lower-margin work.
Hazard 4: Missing the Mark with Clients
Fighter brands originating from competitive threat rather than client insight tend to fail. Build your value proposition around what clients genuinely want from a streamlined legal service, not merely what differentiates you from competitors.
Hazard 5: Management Distraction
Launching a fighter brand while running a premium practice divides resources at precisely the moment you may need to concentrate. Consider whether resources devoted to a fighter brand would generate better returns invested in strengthening your core practice. As Practice Proof has explored in why consistent marketing execution matters, focus often beats diversification.
Is a Fighter Brand Right for Your Firm?
The Qantas playbook offers powerful strategic insights, but a fighter brand is not appropriate for every firm facing competitive pressure. Before proceeding, work through a structured decision process.
First, confirm that internal solutions genuinely cannot address your competitive challenge. Technology adoption, process improvement, and alternative pricing structures may restore competitiveness without requiring a new brand.
Second, validate that you can design a structurally cheaper operating model capable of sustainable profits in the low-margin segment.
Third, conduct client research to understand what price-sensitive clients genuinely value—and what they are willing to sacrifice.
Fourth, define clear boundaries that prevent excessive cannibalisation while ensuring the fighter brand is competitive enough to win business.
Fifth, commit to ongoing investment in your premium brand to maintain clear separation.
If you cannot confidently address each of these requirements, a fighter brand is likely to become an expensive distraction. Understanding why law firm marketing strategies fail often comes down to insufficient strategic discipline—and fighter brands demand exceptional discipline to succeed.
The Counter-Intuitive Path Forward
For many Australian law firms, the most strategic response to low-cost competition is not launching a fighter brand but rather doubling down on premium positioning. Not every market segment is worth defending, and not every client is worth retaining. Sometimes the correct strategic choice is to let simple matters flow to online services while investing in building distinctive brand assets that command premium pricing for complex work.
The research from marketing scientists like Jenni Romaniuk and Binet and Field suggests that long-term brand building almost always outperforms short-term tactical responses. A reactive fighter brand launched without strategic clarity may accelerate the commoditisation you were trying to escape.
However, if your competitive analysis reveals that low-cost providers are genuinely threatening your core business—not merely skimming the low-margin edges but capturing clients who would otherwise become long-term relationships—then the Qantas fighter brand strategy offers a proven template.
Your Next Step
The Qantas story demonstrates that fighter brands can be extraordinarily effective—but only when launched with strategic clarity, operational discipline, and genuine client insight. Before deciding whether this approach suits your firm, assess your current marketing strategy to understand where you truly compete, which clients you genuinely want to retain, and whether a structural response is necessary.
Whether you run a suburban family law practice, a regional estate planning firm, a CBD commercial boutique, or a personal injury practice, the question is not whether disruption is coming—it is already here. The question is whether you will respond strategically or be swept along by forces beyond your control.
The god of war, as Euripides noted, hates those who hesitate. But so does the god of strategy. Move decisively—but only after you have done the strategic work to know you are moving in the right direction.
