Category Archives: Blogging

 

April 15th, 2010

Does Blogging Bring Business?


Two weeks ago Lance Godard posed this question to me in Blawg Review #257:

You’re an active Web 2.0 participant. What specific impact on business, if any, have you seen from your online activities?

Since it’s a question I’ve heard a hundred times before it must be a reasonable one, and one worth discussing.

The answer, however, is impossible to quantify, and this is why: When potential clients I ask them how they got my name. I’m required to ask because, if I take a new matter, I must report that piece of information to the Office of Court Administration.

But what if the answer is, as often happens, an embarrassed “web” or “Internet” or “computer,” then what? It’s possible that they hit my website, a Google ad that I sometimes run, or that they stumbled on this blog. Or its possible that a friend or relative found me one of those ways and then passed the information on.

Which site they hit first is the type of question a marketer would want to have answered. And in theory a lawyer could try to find out which one by asking all manner of follow-up questions while the subject was fresh in the caller’s mind.

But I never ask. Because the answer is completely irrelevant to any issue that the caller has. They called because Mom’s cancer wasn’t diagnosed in time or little Johnny was hit by a car. They didn’t call to talk about marketing, web ads, blogs or any of that other stuff. They called because they have a problem. That which may be interesting to marketers isn’t interesting to the potential client.

And if it isn’t interesting to the client or relevant to any issue that they have, then it doesn’t matter to me. The moment when someone is distraught over a family member in the hospital is no time to satisfy an idle intellectual curiosity.

The reality is that, before I had this blog, I already had a number of people find me due to my website, which is pretty extensive. That wasn’t the primary way, of course, because I received referrals from former clients and lawyers that knew me.

The calls that come from “the web” tend to be cases I’m less likely to take. That’s because the calls haven’t been screened by someone else that knows me. Many of the web callers have previously been rejected by others, a conclusion that is generally pretty easy to divine within moments of the call starting.

There are, in other words, way too many variables for me to figure out what exact effect this blog has. The only time I know for sure is when attorneys that find this blog call me, as they will introduce themselves that way. Lawyers can be dispassionate about legal issues and chat for a moment or two before getting to the reason for the call. Potential clients, on the other hand, want to talk immediately about the incident.

So if it’s impossible to determine what effect a blog might have on marketing, why spend so much time on it? And the answer is easy; because I enjoy it. No one should blog if they don’t find the actual activity rewarding for itself, for it is immediately apparent from the writing if the person is doing it simply to game Google for clients, as opposed to writing for enjoyment.

When lawyers who enjoy the medium blog, you see personality. You see passion. You see opinions. You see people interviewing George Bush’s dog after he bit someone. You see stuff that they don’t teach in law school, and they don’t teach in marketing school.

Sis months ago Scott Greenfield wrote, regarding all the law bloggers coming to town:

Most new blogs are doomed to death from the outset, created for the wrong reason and certain to fail to achieve their creator’s purpose. Most offer neither insight nor viewpoint, as their creators are scared to death that taking a firm and clear position might offend a reader, a potential client. After all, the vast majority of blogs are born solely as a marketing vehicle, even if the creators follow the sound advice not to make them look too “markety.”
….

The barrier to entry into the blawgosphere has increased dramatically. It’s not one of cost, or concept, as much as one of merit, focus and purpose. If you have the desire to write, the guts to write something worth reading and the stomach to deal with the constant onslaught of stupid and crazy readers, there’s a place for you in the blawgosphere. If you think it’s the path to success in your law practice, you will be sorry and your blog will fail.
…..
When I did a CLE with Kevin [O’Keefe], who was busily promoting blogging as the way to expose lawyer to the world, I responded to his enthusiasm with a caution: Anyone can have a blawg. Everyone cannot.

Thus comes Greenfield’s Law: Everyone can blog, but not everyone should. Because if you aren’t enjoying it, it will show.

So the answer to the question — What specific impact on business, if any, have you see from your online activities? — is this: I have no idea, though I know that there are many lawyers around the country that now know who I am, and that the fun I have in writing in this tiny corner of cyberspace has raised my general profile. That is a form of indirect marketing that I discussed last year, and can also result, for example, in a law blogger being quoted in the paper if they can talk authoritatively on a subject.

But that type of general profile-raising isn’t the kind of “specific impact” that can be quantified anymore than one can quantify the effect of writing an op-ed for the local paper or law magazine.

 

March 19th, 2010

Name That Law Blog!


A number of posts have now appeared in the legal blogosphere about moving blogs to new platforms and potentially re-naming them. Marketing folks like to call that re-branding.

I’m one of those people wrestling with a move. Blogger is forcing me to change. Blogger is the platform I’ve used since I went live in 11/06 and they will no longer use FTP publishing. I’m not certain what that actually means, but I do know that I either have to let Google be the host of my blog or I have to move on to another blog platform.

I’m not happy about moving, but if I have to move I want to make the most of it. One thing to consider is features, and the one lousy part of Blogger is that I can’t edit comments. So if someone adds something interesting, but throws in gratuitous vulgarities or links, I can’t cut it out. It’s all or nothing.

[Others who are wrestling with the moving/naming issue and commenting on it are Venkat Balasubramani @ Spam Notes; Bob Ambrogi @ Law Sites, and again; Ron Coleman @ Liklihood of Confusion; Bruce Carton @ Legal Blog Watch]

But the bigger issue is the name of this blog. If I have to move, I might as well wrestle with the name of this joint and try to upgrade everything at once. When I started in 2006, I figured that the format of [region][practice area] would quickly communicate what this blog was about. The name certainly does that.

But the name does more than communicate a topic. The format seems, to many, to scream self-promotion. That is likely the sense many get before a word of content is even read. So every post represents an uphill battle against that notion, and forces me as the writer to be far more wary than others might be when mentioning their own practice. I have no doubt that there are some bloggers out there that would rather stick needles in their eyes than link to a site with a name like the one I use.

I didn’t give all that much thought to the name when I started, with one exception. If you look at the URL you will see it is different than the blog name. I was going to first use the word attorney in the title, then made a last minute edit to use “law” instead. Because the blog shouldn’t be about me, but about the subject.

Kevin O’Keefe doesn’t think names such as mine are a problem, writing in a post entitled: Focus on engagement, not the title of your law blog, for blogging success:

The importance of the name of a blog is overhyped. Listening to your target audience and engaging them in a strategic fashion is key. You’re then known by your name (the one your Mom and Dad gave you), not the name of a blog.

While O’Keefe has a lot more experience at the blog name game, I still disagree with him. I think that the name can turn people off very quickly and folks won’t ever see the content. As as often been said, you only get one chance at a first impression.

And by choosing a name such as mine, you also might have to worry about rip-off artists like FindLaw‘s wretched dreck-blogs, even if your name has acquired distinctiveness over the course of 3+ years of blogging. All of a sudden you risk confusion with a blog that happily uses the name of a dead child for SEO benefits. FindLaw is enough to make your skin crawl, and it continues to amaze me that anyone trusts the company to market for them. FindLaw, of course, isn’t the only scummy company out there. You may think I’m digressing, but if you see your name get ripped off, like FindLaw did with me, then you’ll understand what can happen down the road to your name.

So back to the name game. The goal, if I do this, would be to retain as much of my blog name as possible, yet add some other distinguishing element to personalize it a bit more. Some names I’ve toyed with:

Turkewitz on Personal Injury Law:
A New York Attorney’s Perspective

Turkewitz on Personal Injury Law and Practice:
A New York Attorney’s Perspective

Turkewitz
New York Personal Injury Attorney

Turkewitz on Torts:
The New York Personal Injury Law Blog

The Turkewitz Times
Perspectives of a New York Personal Injury Attorney

Turk’s Torts

Turkfeasor

Tortewitz

They each have three things in common:

First: They use my last name — I think there are only four other Turkewitz lawyers in the country and I’m related to three of them.

Second: They retain some of the “brand” that I’ve already built around the subject area; and

Third: They all suck, big time.

If anyone has any ideas on how to deal with those issues, I’m wide open to them.

 

January 3rd, 2010

Twitter Followers and Stalkers — Can You Tell the Difference?


[This post was edited 7/30/10 as some links went dead]

In 1993 The New Yorker published this now-classic cartoon with the caption, “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” Initially created for a little chuckle, it’s turned into a prophetic warning. Anyone could be lurking on the other side of that keyboard.

One example played out on the websites of two law bloggers who were being cyber-stalked. The stalker happened to be a convicted rapist, and Twitter was his tool.

And this is worth writing about as a lesson to newcomers to the blogosphere and those who think acquiring a jillion Twitter followers, or a bazillion Facebook friends, will magically lead your nascent law firm down the Yellow Brick Road to Oz. It doesn’t work that way. And it could even be dangerous.

You would be foolish not heed the dangers of the web. Don’t be so quick to add Twitter and Facebook buddies under the pretension that these networks give you a level of familiarity with others if that familiarity doesn’t actually exist. If you don’t know how to say no then you aren’t an adult.

Just as social networks are used by the innocent, so too are they used by trolls, malcontents and criminals. You don’t want to learn the hard way about the difference between a follower and a stalker. This is particularly true since, as Kevin O’Keefe points out, there is software that will help buy Twitter followers. He issues his own mea cupla on once touting the benefits of large numbers of followers.

I’ve never been a fan of Twitter and the blizzard of garbage it sends over the transom at the user. If you use the service (or any other) quality must take precedence over quantity.

As Sergeant Phil Esterhaus used to say on Hill Street Blues, “Hey, let’s be careful out there.”

     

    December 4th, 2009

    ABA Blawg 100…And the rise of the personal injury law blogs

    I’ve been chosen by the ABA Journal for the second year in a row as part of its Blawg 100, the 100 best law blogs as decided by their editorial staff. That’s nice. I’m deeply flattered to be in such company. They’ve placed me in the “Geo” category if you are inclined to vote in these types of things. And it would be nice if you were so inclined.

    But two other things about the list are worth noting: Its metamorphosis over the course of its three-year run with respect to personal injury blogs, and the fact that inclusion (or exclusion) isn’t something to brag about too much.

    First, let’s look at the changes from Year 1. In the 2007 inaugural issue there were no personal injury blogs — none, nada, zippo — a subject that I wrote about and caught the attention of others (ABA Blawg 100 Gets The Conversation Going). Many niches were excluded. At that time I noted several worthy personal injury blogs:

    It’s not a question of one blog being picked over another since this is, after all, just another vanity contest that small niche blogs don’t have a shot of winning. No, the significant thing is that the vaunted American Bar Association simply doesn’t think that this field of law is relevant. The decision to ignore a vast segment of the law speaks volumes about the organization.

    In Year 2, 50 of the initial selections were replaced, and there were now two personal injury related blogs, this one and Drug and Device Law.  Nice to be included and nice to see that this substantial area of law was no longer being ignored by the ABA.

    And now this year there are six, count ’em six, different law blogs that are related to the personal injury field. In addition to mine, the ABA has selected:

    Addendum: And if you include the Namby Pamby Attorney’s comic rants, there are seven.

    (If you go back and look at my 2007 post on the subject, by the way, you will see that D&D, Marler, and Schaeffer are all on my list of who should be included. The PopTort and Hochfelder blogs didn’t yet exist.)

    So six out of 100 is pretty fair representation. Well done, ABA Journal.

    But…there were many notable blogs that aren’t on the list. Just perusing my blog roll, for instance, Overlawyered and Lowering the Bar really jump out at me. What happened?

    I have to assume that cutting the list to 100 is a pretty tough job — they want both big and small, profs and practitioners, regional and national, quirky and serious — and that part of the problem is trying to put blogs into categories. I’m in the “Geo” category, for instance, and that befits the name of this tiny corner of the web, despite the fact I go elsewhere often. I stretch that definition often to include attorney marketing, judiciary issues, ethics, and related subjects.

    So here is what I think the ABA did to solve the problem. They narrowed the list of 2,000 – 3,000 law blogs down to about 150-200. Then they printed out the names of each one on a piece of paper, removed Above the Law and Volokh to make sure they made the cut, and chucked the rest at a staircase. Those that landed on the top stairs were stuffed into the ABA categories.

    Now one last item, if I still have your attention. Voting. Its worth noting that when you go to vote in this beauty pageant, you can vote for all the PI blogs, even if we are in the same category. You get 10 votes, and you can spread them out any way you wish. So I say vote for all the PI blogs.

    Last year I came in second in the regional category to the China Law Blog, which really isn’t fair given the relative populations of New York and China. Also, Dan Harris over at China Law Blog was begging for votes like there was no tomorrow, and is doing the same thing today at his blog and repeatedly on Twitter.  I won’t beg, the way he does. I’ll just give you a picture of my chief supporter, Paris Hilton. Now really, is it any contest as to who you would vote for?

    Links to this post:

    December 7 roundup
    Woman jailed for “camcordering” after recording four minutes of sister’s birthday party in movie theater [BoingBoing]; Senate hearing airs trial lawyer gripes against Iqbal [Jackson and earlier, PoL, Wajert, Beck & Herrmann (scroll)] …
    posted by Walter Olson @ December 07, 2009 9:56 AM

     

    October 20th, 2009

    The Unseen Danger of Social Media (Twitter, Facebook, and More)




    The marketers and promoters love social media. They just don’t talk about the hidden risk. They think every lawyer should be involved and that those not involved just don’t get it.

    All I ever seem to read is how great it is for connecting with others and drumming up business. But never a word about how it can kill business.

    Yes, social media such as Twitter and Facebook can kill your business. And it’s better to learn that lesson now than later. Lawyers can lose clients, or simply miss the opportunity to be retained.

    I saw this today when I Googled myself. I did this after Scott Greenfield wrote a piece that created abundant commentary, centering on the fact that he types his posts up with exceptional speed, but never edits. Anyone that reads his Simple Justice can see this in many a post.

    And I wondered, if a potential new client was given my name by another, and that person Googled me, what would they see?

    Well, the first page of my results shows three separate social media sites: Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. They show up there despite the fact that I’ve not exactly been the biggest user of those sites over the last year. (My opinion that Twitter stinks remains unchanged, though I continue to drop links into it when I post something new here.)

    So this is what the potential new client will see, even if you have an active presence on the web. Since I’ve written over 800 posts in this space since I started in November 2006, and received thousands of inbound links, I probably fit the definition of active presence. And yet, those three sites still manage to crowd out links from so many others.

    So if social media sites will be on the first page of what your potential client sees, then those sites must be appealing to the client. And by appealing, I don’t mean that you have to strut your legal stuff. Rather, you have to make sure you don’t turn off the client.

    And that’s the danger; turning off the potential client by prattling away with all types of trite tidbits that only the most devoted of significant others could care about. Is this what you want your new clients to see? Because if that is what you are typing, that is what they will see.

    And not only will they see it, but they will see when you wrote it. Ten posts written during business hours will make a client think two things:

    1. Why is the lawyer writing about this stuff during work hours? I want a lawyer that is busy with a good book of business. (Crowded restaurants are usually crowded for a good reason; empty ones usually empty for a good reason.)
    2. Will the lawyer be Twittering instead of working on my case?

    The same risks, of course, may exist for blogs. And it is one that I often think about when writing. (For the record, I generally write at night or in early morning, but can edit the time stamp. I’ve composed many a post in my head while going for early morning runs on taking the train to/from the city.)

    While many lawyers write with the hopes that future clients will read their stuff, I often fear it, particularly when going off topic. It is that fear of clients reading my words that makes me kill many a story before it gets published. It may be one too many that goes off-topic or it tackles a subject in a way that just turns people off. Personal attacks on certain people, for instance, can easily lead to backlash.

    But at least I know that if I write something dumb, it will be quickly buried on the blog and (hopefully) forgotten in two months time. That won’t happen as easily with the big social media companies though. Those links, which likely contain “fluffier” stuff than a law blog would handle, will be right there on page 1 of your results. And you may lose the biggest case of your career because the client went elsewhere. And you never even knew.

    And one last thing to think about, since someone somewhere will holler, “But there are privacy options that allow me to shield the public from seeing my Facebook page!”

    Sure there are, but what will you do when a current client asks to friend you Facebook? Insult them by saying no?

    It’s often been said that you should never write anything that you are afraid to see on the front page of the local paper. The story of Flea made that clear.

    But let’s take that one step further: Never write anything that you don’t want your clients to see. Because you may not get to keep them as clients.