. .
It’s great seeing the varied, thoughtful and lively responses to my request this week for opinions about “turnkey” and ghost-written weblogs. and about the marketing potential of lawyer weblogs. Folllow this thread for the original posting, “Does Your Weblog Attract Clients?”, and for comments by hands-on webloggers Carolyn Elefant, Ken Lammers, Kevin O’Keefe, Evan Schaeffer, Bryan Gates, Steve Minor, Matt Hommann, Martin Schwimmer, and Denise Howell, with (naturally) some replies from myself (one of which became its own post, “Selling the Appearance of Expertise”).
Special thanks to Denise for posting on this topic at Bag ‘n’ Baggage, to Carolyn for doing so at MyShingle, to Nancy at Stark County Law Library and Evan at Notes from the (Legal) Underground, and to Kevin Heller for highlighting the issue at Law Tech Advisor.
(04-16-04) Blawg.org weighed in today with a very positive blurb about LexBlog.
Update (04-16-04): Denise Howell and lexBlog‘s Kevin O’Keefe had an enlightening discussion yesterday evening in the comments section of Bag ‘n’ Baggage.
For example, Denise stated: “ I do think there are differences between weblogs and conventional web sites, and that while one can use the software however one likes, it’s missing the point (the point being an easy and fast way to communicate the site owner’s actual expertise) to pretend someone else’s blog posts are one’s own.”
Kevin replied: “The content that is licensed to the lawyer will be marked by copyright so as to make clear that the lawyer did not write it and in some cases, if the lawyer agrees, we can say such content is provided courtesy of or on the sponsorship of the lawyer or firm.“
Editor’s Note: Kevin’s point about making it clear “that the lawyer did not write” lexBlog-supplied content is important, and does not yet appear on the lexBlog website (after what I believe was a thorough search of everypage).
Please add your perspective on these issues, which we believe are important to the integrity and health of weblogs (as an art, craft, community and business) and to their marketing.
Update (04-22-04): I’m pleased to report that Kevin O’Keefe has re-written the lexBlog premium services page, removing a quotation from author Rebecca Blood, which we have noted was taken out of context (leaving out the importance of hands-on weblogging for achieving expertise and authority status), and which seemed to suggest that Ms. Blood endorsed lexBlog’s services.
I can’t say that my weblog has had any measurable results from a marketing point of view. I’ve gotten about 16,000 hits since last August, whatever that means.
So far, the benefits of writing it have been to force me to keep up better with my professional reading, which I should be doing in any case. Also, I’ve discovered that a blog is an excellent way to collect and digest content that can then be used in our firm newsletter.
The weblog also does drive a small amount of additional traffic to my law firm’s website.
Does that mean that it makes no sense to hire Kevin O’Keefe’s new firm to design a weblog? No — I do believe there is probably a minimum advertising spend level to get a commercial payoff from a website, as referenced in this article:
http://www.lawmarkets.com/articles/art-legal-web-budget.htm
Comment by Dave Stratton — April 16, 2004 @ 3:10 pm
I can’t say that my weblog has had any measurable results from a marketing point of view. I’ve gotten about 16,000 hits since last August, whatever that means.
So far, the benefits of writing it have been to force me to keep up better with my professional reading, which I should be doing in any case. Also, I’ve discovered that a blog is an excellent way to collect and digest content that can then be used in our firm newsletter.
The weblog also does drive a small amount of additional traffic to my law firm’s website.
Does that mean that it makes no sense to hire Kevin O’Keefe’s new firm to design a weblog? No — I do believe there is probably a minimum advertising spend level to get a commercial payoff from a website, as referenced in this article:
http://www.lawmarkets.com/articles/art-legal-web-budget.htm
Comment by Dave Stratton — April 16, 2004 @ 3:10 pm
I have a few comments on this at Netlawblog; more to come:
http://www.netlawblog.com/archives/000716.html
The main reason people see this as an issue worth arguing about is differing expectations of what a blog can be:
* Some people think blogs are/should be only Rebecca Blood-type forums for the expressions of sometimes idiosyncratic personal opinion–the form in which they first attracted widespread notice.
* Others see blog software as a protean sort of platform that can be used for any number of purposes.
For what I think is a push-the-envelope effort to advance the latter proposition, here’s the URL for a site I developed on a volunteer basis for the Interagency Ethics Council, an interagency working group that deals with issues involving misconduct by federal employees:
http://iec.typepad.com
(will be accessible at http://www.iecjournal.org as soon as I figure out Godaddy.com’s arcane “CNAME” domain mapping system).
This uses blog technology, but it’s not really a “blog” as most people know it. It’s more like a cross between a newsletter and an extranet with private sections (also using blog technology).
Comment by Jerry Lawson — April 17, 2004 @ 9:34 am
I have a few comments on this at Netlawblog; more to come:
http://www.netlawblog.com/archives/000716.html
The main reason people see this as an issue worth arguing about is differing expectations of what a blog can be:
* Some people think blogs are/should be only Rebecca Blood-type forums for the expressions of sometimes idiosyncratic personal opinion–the form in which they first attracted widespread notice.
* Others see blog software as a protean sort of platform that can be used for any number of purposes.
For what I think is a push-the-envelope effort to advance the latter proposition, here’s the URL for a site I developed on a volunteer basis for the Interagency Ethics Council, an interagency working group that deals with issues involving misconduct by federal employees:
http://iec.typepad.com
(will be accessible at http://www.iecjournal.org as soon as I figure out Godaddy.com’s arcane “CNAME” domain mapping system).
This uses blog technology, but it’s not really a “blog” as most people know it. It’s more like a cross between a newsletter and an extranet with private sections (also using blog technology).
Comment by Jerry Lawson — April 17, 2004 @ 9:34 am
Jerry, thank you for joining the discussion.
My concerns are not so much about definition as about whether terminology is being used in a manner that is deceptive. “Weblog technology” is merely one platform upon which to build a website and it offers many improvements that website owners can and should consider adopting/adapting to suit the goals of the site.
Thus, I just went to the Interagency Ethics Council website that you referred to. It may very well use “weblog technology,” but no one would confuse it with what we commonly call “weblogs”.
On the other hand, the noun “weblog” [or, shudder, “blog”] has come to have a meaning that raises certain expectations — especially, that the editor-owner is heavily involved in finding, choosing, analyzing, commenting upon the content of the site.
When terminology or nomenclature is used in marketing (whether vendor to lawyer or lawyer to client) in a way that is contrary to the common understanding of the words, the potential for deception is great, and I believe the marketer needs to either find nondeceptive alternate terminology, or to prominently explain to the intended audience that the words are not being used in the commonly accepted manner (with a clear description of the differences, disclaimers, cautions, etc.).
To take the hands-on chooser-creator of content out of the definition of “weblog” is to fundamentally change the usage of the word, while taking advantage of surveys and expectations and potential (e.g., for impacting on visitors to the site) that are based primarily on the existence of such a hands-on editor.
To my mind, lexBlog, for example, is offering to create and maintain websites that utilize the very easy-to-use and flexible “weblog technology.” But, if it is going to call the resulting website a weblog, it needs to make clear to lawyers buying the service that their results may differ greatly from the personal, traditional weblog, and let the visitor to the site know clearly and unambiguously when the purported owner-editor is not the actual producer of the content.
P.S. I do not think that Rebecca Blood limits the term weblogs to forums for idiosyncratic personal opinion. Even the sentences from Rebecca quoted by Kevin O-Keefe at lexBlog are talking about weblogs that transmit useful, organized, authoritative information — that can build professional reputations not just celebrity status
Comment by David Giacalone — April 17, 2004 @ 1:12 pm
Jerry, thank you for joining the discussion.
My concerns are not so much about definition as about whether terminology is being used in a manner that is deceptive. “Weblog technology” is merely one platform upon which to build a website and it offers many improvements that website owners can and should consider adopting/adapting to suit the goals of the site.
Thus, I just went to the Interagency Ethics Council website that you referred to. It may very well use “weblog technology,” but no one would confuse it with what we commonly call “weblogs”.
On the other hand, the noun “weblog” [or, shudder, “blog”] has come to have a meaning that raises certain expectations — especially, that the editor-owner is heavily involved in finding, choosing, analyzing, commenting upon the content of the site.
When terminology or nomenclature is used in marketing (whether vendor to lawyer or lawyer to client) in a way that is contrary to the common understanding of the words, the potential for deception is great, and I believe the marketer needs to either find nondeceptive alternate terminology, or to prominently explain to the intended audience that the words are not being used in the commonly accepted manner (with a clear description of the differences, disclaimers, cautions, etc.).
To take the hands-on chooser-creator of content out of the definition of “weblog” is to fundamentally change the usage of the word, while taking advantage of surveys and expectations and potential (e.g., for impacting on visitors to the site) that are based primarily on the existence of such a hands-on editor.
To my mind, lexBlog, for example, is offering to create and maintain websites that utilize the very easy-to-use and flexible “weblog technology.” But, if it is going to call the resulting website a weblog, it needs to make clear to lawyers buying the service that their results may differ greatly from the personal, traditional weblog, and let the visitor to the site know clearly and unambiguously when the purported owner-editor is not the actual producer of the content.
P.S. I do not think that Rebecca Blood limits the term weblogs to forums for idiosyncratic personal opinion. Even the sentences from Rebecca quoted by Kevin O-Keefe at lexBlog are talking about weblogs that transmit useful, organized, authoritative information — that can build professional reputations not just celebrity status
Comment by David Giacalone — April 17, 2004 @ 1:12 pm
Mr. Jegede is a very good man. But I don’t think there is any need to extend the duration of the Nigerian Law School. I attended it over six years ago. A lot of graduates of Nigerian Law Schools have pursued graduate studies at the top law schools in the U.S., like Harvard, Chicago, and Yale.
In 1990 the duration of studies at law schools in Nigeria was increased to 5 years. After that you them go to the Nigerian Law School for one year. That is six years in all. I don’t even see why there has to be 5 years of University law schooling. IMHO four years is enough.
Comment by Anchor — April 29, 2004 @ 3:44 am
Mr. Jegede is a very good man. But I don’t think there is any need to extend the duration of the Nigerian Law School. I attended it over six years ago. A lot of graduates of Nigerian Law Schools have pursued graduate studies at the top law schools in the U.S., like Harvard, Chicago, and Yale.
In 1990 the duration of studies at law schools in Nigeria was increased to 5 years. After that you them go to the Nigerian Law School for one year. That is six years in all. I don’t even see why there has to be 5 years of University law schooling. IMHO four years is enough.
Comment by Anchor — April 29, 2004 @ 3:44 am
Very nice blog.
Comment by Anelia — September 2, 2005 @ 1:06 am
Very nice blog.
Comment by Anelia — September 2, 2005 @ 1:06 am
Cleaning Product
Comment by Upholstery Cleaning — September 7, 2005 @ 11:53 am
Cleaning Product
Comment by Upholstery Cleaning — September 7, 2005 @ 11:53 am
The Mirror
Comment by Security Mirror — September 7, 2005 @ 12:25 pm
The Mirror
Comment by Security Mirror — September 7, 2005 @ 12:25 pm
Chicago Hotels
Comment by Cologne Hotels — January 13, 2006 @ 7:38 am
Chicago Hotels
Comment by Cologne Hotels — January 13, 2006 @ 7:38 am
Savannah Hotels
Comment by Vancouver Hotels — January 27, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
Savannah Hotels
Comment by Vancouver Hotels — January 27, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
Amsterdam hotels
Comment by Amsterdam hotels — March 2, 2006 @ 3:50 am
Amsterdam hotels
Comment by Amsterdam hotels — March 2, 2006 @ 3:50 am