May 17th, 2010

Legal Advertising – Reaching For The Toilet (Or At Least the Urinal)

Advertising over a urinal has one thing going for it: A captive audience.

But is that really the association that you want for your law firm?

From Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, the Joye Law Firm apparently doesn’t have a problem with it, as you can see by these two pictures.

I thought this part of their website ad copy, where you can choke on all the SEO going on, was interesting:

When you come to the South Carolina personal injury lawyers at Joye Law Firm after a serious injury or accident, expect to be treated with the utmost respect, compassion, consideration, and care.

So how do you respect someone that advertises professional services over a urninal? Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice likes to write about much of legal advertising being a race to the bottom. Which means that, to beat this ad, someone will have to advertise inside the stall.

Talk about timing. It was just last week that I quoted federal judge Frederick Scullen when he wrote:

Without question there has been a proliferation of tasteless, and at times obnoxious, methods of attorney advertising in recent years. New technology and an increase in the types of media available for advertising have exacerbated this problem and made it more ubiquitous. As a result, among other things, the public perception of the legal profession has been greatly diminished.

OK, so this isn’t new technology run amok; just good old-fashioned tastelessness. Perhaps the Joye Law Firm was hoping, while men held onto themselves, for a play on the firm’s name?

Photos courtesy of my spy who wishes to remain nameless.

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.

February 6th, 2010

Caveat Jurista! (Let the Lawyer Beware And Welcome ABA Journal Readers)

Maybe someone that knows Latin can help me. I’m looking for the proper way to write “Let the Lawyer Beware!” much the way the buyer must beware (caveat emptor). An online dictionary tells me that consultus is the Latin for legal expert, and from which consultant is derived; though jurista seems like a possibility and it also looks and sounds better.

So this post has nothing to do with being afraid of lawyers, but rather, as a warning to those with the juris doctorate.

Frankly, I’ve always hated the use of Latin phrases in the law, as it always seemed pretentious. My usage is usually de minimis, limited to res ipsa loquitor and a few other well known phrases. But if using Latin helps save someone from outsourcing their marketing (and ethics) to others, it will be a good thing.

Why write on this again? Because I’m featured in the ABA Journal this week, in an edition that deals with online activities, Wired! The article is part of The Business of Law section, entitled Search and Deceive, and dedicated to comment spam and the problems hiring marketers for law firms. (Kevin O’Keefe is featured also, and as you can see from the picture they used, he’s clearly more photogenic than yours truly.)

Their piece is inspired by Martindale-Hubbel’s use of comment spam that I wrote about late last year (Martindale-Hubbell Apologizes For Blog Spam; Suspends Spammer; Promises to Answer Questions)

The essence of the article is this:

With the proliferation of social media forums and fly-by-night legal directories, lawyers need to be even more cautious when they enlist the services of outside sales and marketing firms to improve website traffic and search engine rankings.

The many problems with FindLaw, of course, equally apply, but the FindLaw postings occurred after the original article was written.

It’s good to see these problems now leaking out of the legal blogosphere to mainstream legal publications.

But I still need that Latin phrase. Though I’ll accept Middle French, Middle English and any other dead language. Anyone? Bueller? (Yeah, I know, like he’d ever know Latin…)

January 29th, 2010

FindLaw’s Continuing Problems with its "Blogs"

FindLaw continues to have problems with its so-called law blogs. Today’s problem: Their writer doesn’t appear to know a damn thing about law.

Why does FindLaw continue this charade of having blogs by producing crap content?

From its Philadelphia Personal Injury Law Blog (coded “NoFollow” so it doesn’t get Google juice) comes this mega-screw-up of a headline:

Doctor Found Innocent Of Malpractice

Oy. That’s what happens when non-lawyers try to write law blogs. Legal terms get thrown around willy-nilly without the writer knowing what they are doing.

It’s always been one of my pet peeves in newspapers when I see a headline declaring that someone was found “innocent” of a crime. Criminal juries, of course, don’t determine innocence. (Nor do civil trials.) Criminal trials just determine whether the prosecution sustained its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But at least when I see newspapers do it they aren’t conflating the criminal with the civil.

Memo to writer Emily Grube who continues to churn out this awful dreck at the behest of her employer: This was a civil trial and you used the language of the criminal world by waltzing into the guilt-innocence issue. That’s a whopper of a mistake, as we say in legalese.

But it’s clear this wasn’t an inadvertent mistake, because it continues in the content with this gibberish:

It took the jury less than an hour to find that Dr. Robert Stratton was not guilty of providing poor emergency room care to Dennis J. Kowalick.

Civil juries don’t determine “guilt.” That is a criminal law term. The civil jury in a malpractice case will determine negligence. And I can’t believe anyone would hire a writer for a law blog when that writer didn’t understand such fundamentals.

FindLaw obviously continues this crap because it thinks it will get SEO juice. These “blogs” are merely ads designed to dump as many SEO friendly terms onto the web, quality be damned. And if FindLaw need to use a dead child for its self-promotion, well so what, because the ends of self-promotion and making money are more important than anything else, right?

I assume that no one at FindLaw cares, since they’ve permitted this stuff to go on for months now. I would have thought that its professor-contributors from Writ: Anthony Sebok, Marci Hamilton, Michael Dorf, Carl Tobias, Sherry Colb, Joanna Grossman, Neil Buchanan, and Julie Hilden, to name a few, would have raised a ruckus since they are now associated with these shitblogs. Perhaps they don’t care either.

If FindLaw can find professors to write Writ, you would think they could find a lawyer or two to write blogs. But then, FindLaw would have to actually give a damn. Marketing appears to trump all else and remains the holy grail; produce quantity and not quality.

As Scott Greenfield discusses, anyone can have a blog, but not everyone should.

The wonder of it all is that there are lawyers that actually outsource their marketing to FindLaw. I assume that they remain utterly clueless as to what this company does in their names, though if they find out they could save a bundle (and their reputations) by taking their business elsewhere.

And a final obligatory note: You don’t have to be a lawyer to write a law blog, as Walter Olson shows at Overlawyered and Point of Law.

More:
Are FindLaw’s “Blogs” Tainting Its Clients, Commentators and the Profession of Law? (1/4/10)

January 13th, 2010

FindLaw – How To Leave and Save Your Reputation (and Money)

Today I have a guest blogger that shows you how to save thousands of dollars a year. Those savings take place if you made the mistake of hiring FindLaw as your law firm’s marketing company (or are contemplating doing so).

The company hit my radar big time, of course, when FindLaw decided it would be fun to rip-off my blog name. A deeper look discussed how FindLaw‘s “Blogs” were tainting not only its clients, but its professor-commentators and the profession of law as a whole.

Today’s guest is a former sales rep that left on less than amicable terms because he couldn’t make an absurd sales quota selling a product that was so heavily over-priced. Today he has his own company. The financial analysis of FindLaw‘s offerings now follows:
——————————————————-
By James Eichenberger
(co-owner of Swell Sites, a small, Minnesota web design company)

There’s been a lot of chatter, mostly disgust, around the ethics and quality of FindLaw‘s blogs as well as what I’ll considerately call a lack of creativity in naming them. I’m sure that this, like the linking scandal of 2008*, will evoke a variety of reactions from people involved in the legal marketing community. The great majority of lawyers will read these posts and feel self-assured in the fact that they don’t do business with FindLaw.

However, I’m afraid that current FindLaw customers will have one of two reactions. Some will look at it as an issue that is isolated to the blogosphere, and therefore doesn’t effect them and their products with FindLaw. The second group will realize that, whether or not they have their names posted on these blogs, this is yet another incarnation of FindLaw‘s questionable ethics, and it’s time to move.

So the question for current FindLaw customers (the group that is willing to acknowledge that their reputations are at stake) becomes how do you transition out of your current site and retain some of what you’ve already paid for? To that end, I’ve put together a group of questions that can jump-start the idea that you can indeed rescue your website from being held hostage and save thousands of dollars a year.

1. What am I really getting from the FindLaw Directory?

In reviewing traffic reports with your sales rep or account manager, it’s common to see the traffic delivered by FindLaw rolled into one big number. To be clear, there are two distinct elements that bring traffic to your website from FindLaw. First, your FindLaw profile, (which will typically include “pview” in the URL on your traffic report) and then any directory placements, which can run from $30 to upwards of $1,000 per month. [Ed. note, FindLaw links coded as “nofollow” to avoid giving link juice.]

It’s important to understand the average price per click that you are paying for traffic from FindLaw‘s top listings. In many cases, those coveted clicks from FindLaw cost well beyond $100 each. Tracking how many of these clicks actually convert to contacts by following the pages they access on your site is a very easy task with many common (and free) traffic programs. It’s troubling that FindLaw‘s traffic reporting is unable to follow these users and show conversion for this extremely expensive traffic.

2. Why am I paying monthly for my website?

There are really two answers to this question, depending on where you are in the life of your website with FindLaw. FindLaw websites are billed monthly, so the idea is that they take the cost of a website and prorate it over 12 monthly payments. So if you are in the first 12 months of your contract, it can be argued that you are still paying for the creation of your website.

Outside of those 12 months is where the math gets blurry. The monthly rates don’t change (significantly, anyway) based on the length of the contract, and what you get in terms of content or SEO doesn’t really either. Unless you are engaged with your website to the point of calling to ask what you are eligible for on a quarterly basis, your website just gets more and more expensive the longer you keep it with FindLaw. A former FindLaw General Manager said on his way out (before having moved back over to West) that the best way to get real value from a FindLaw website is to buy one and then cancel it as soon as possible.

3. What do you get beyond the initial development of your site?

That’s a question that FindLaw was trying to answer the entire 5 years that I worked there, and to my knowledge, they still haven’t figured it out. If anyone reading this can tell me of an experience where they received real value outside of the initial development of a new project I’d be interested in hearing about it. My guess is that most FindLaw customers will struggle to recall ever being proactively helped with their sites. They will tell you about “refreshes” which are additional content opportunities, but they are not easy to set up or completely clear on who is eligible.

The service is supposed to include additional search engine optimization (SEO) work, but at the time I left, they could also just have someone from the SEO team “audit” the site, and then determine whether or not they wanted to work on it. Same thing with content; unless you ask about the schedule, and then give specific direction on what content you’d like written, you likely will not get any. I’d liken the whole situation to trying to write step by step instructions on how to tie a shoe. Tying a shoe is easy, but when you try to tell someone else how to do it, it becomes infinitely more difficult than if you had done it yourself.

4. What elements of my FindLaw website do I actually own?

Here’s where there is actually some good news for FindLaw clients. There are three basic elements to your site:

Domain Name
This is the the name that brings up your site. Regardless of whether you owned that domain name before you purchased your site, it IS yours. At any time, for any reason, you can request that the ownership of your domain name be transferred to an account under your name. That gives you the ability to keep a site up and running should you decide to move away from FindLaw in the future. It also protects you from them holding on to it should you get into any type of a dispute over your contract term, cancellation date or total amount owed to the company. Your domain name is the online version of the front door to your law firm…your law firm should be the sole owner and controller of that domain name.

Content
The content on your site that was “custom written” is yours to keep. Because you directed the writing of this content, and it was written about your firm, it is yours. The content includes the meta data which is a large part of their search engine placement strategy. Transferring your content, as well as the 3 or 4 lines of coding aimed at search engine placement, onto a new server space will typically yield the same, if not better, results on Google.

Not ALL of the content belongs to you. If you have any FAQs, eNewsletters, Practice pages or practice centers, those are actually leased from FindLaw. Re-publishing that content on to a new hosting space is a violation of the contract and licensing of the content.

Design
The design is owned by FindLaw, but can be purchased for a fee defined as 4% of the annual value of the website. So if you were paying $12,000 a year for your site, buying the design and all images used would typically cost about $500. For that cost, you get a disc or a link to download all of the HTML files and graphics that made up your site. What you get isn’t going to be easily rebuilt by a novice, but someone with a general knowledge of websites could reconstruct it in 2 to 6 hours, depending on the complexity of the design and number of pages.

5. How much should I expect to pay for a website from FindLaw?

There are hundreds of variations, but a template, 8 page site tends to run about $500 a month on a 12 month contract. So at a minimum, the site is about $6,000.* The second year monthly fees typically drop to about $350, so a 24 month stint with FindLaw with an 8 page website will cost right around $10,000.

This price increasing over time with the relatively low service level in the second year and beyond, is really where the opportunity to save some real money comes in to play. If you already have a FindLaw website, there are several ways to get it set up on your own hosting space. Attorneys who are very web savvy may be able to handle the migration themselves. If you are not very comfortable with web development it may be far more efficient to hire someone to do it for you.

6. How much does it cost to get my FindLaw site rebuilt on another platform?

There is no perfect answer for this, but you should expect to pay somewhere in the range between $1,000 and $4,000 depending on the size and complexity of your website. Whether you are setting up a new website or working to get your FindLaw site migrated, here are a few things you’re going to want to make sure have been taken care of (in no particular order):

a. XML Sitemap Submission
b. Traffic Reporting that shows where people are coming from (a counter is not enough)
c. Domain validation through Google (available in their Webmaster Tools)
d. Meta Data on each page of your site that you would like included on Google
e. Keyword rich content that reflects the approach and feel, not just the practice area, of your law firm.

I hope this information is helpful to people who are looking to gain a better understanding of exactly what they purchased from FindLaw, or looking to start up or advance their web marketing. I hope none of this came across as “axe-grinding” but at the same time, the reason that FindLaw can continue to get away with these other questionable projects is because there are thousands of lawyers who are paying thousands of dollars for what’s basically a trumped up web hosting plan.
——————————————————-

*Ed. notes:

1. For more info on the prior scandal with FindLaw selling links, see FindLaw gaming Google, and possibly scamming lawyer customers? Also see: Is the FindLaw Story Getting Distorted? where former FindLaw reps out the company’s disreputable policies in the comments.

2. This blog and my firm’s website were built by a small provider for a fraction of the cost of FindLaw’s services. The idea that lawyers would pay such ridiculously high rates to build a website, and then pay hundreds of dollars more per month to host it, is bizarre.

All the content on my two sites (for better or worse) comes off my keyboard.