Denise Howell got it right: “Oy” is her response to the pumped-up ads that Law.com
has required for entry into its new Weblog Network. [The eight weblogs are all top-
notch and I hope their authors will resist any urge for self-censoring to avoid displeasing
It’s a little ironic that one of the new Networkians Commented here last year that
“I don’t like the idea of law bloggers posting ads at their site. I don’t
know whether it’s ethical or not, but it just looks cheap.”
(see the OJR article “Will Microads Save Online Content? The next big thing could be quite small,”
written by Mathew Honan, praising inobtrusive text ads and panning banner ads. Despite our
initial visual confusion, Honan, is not Matt Homann, proprietor of the Law.com Network weblog
I hope weblog readers will urge Lisa Stone of law.com’s Legal Blog Watch to lobby
on behalf of her Networkians to have the required ads greatly reduced in size. Such
(and ex-visitors). The silly flipping rolodex ad that is featured on many other law.com
pages today is even more annoying than EDDix‘ infamous “confounded scrolling
Law.com/ALM knows that bigger is not better. The Network weblogs are stuck with
an ad that is 3.25 inches wide and 5 inches high at the very top of their righthand margin.
There are no such monstrosities on Law.com own homepage. It’s Newswire page does
have a 2.75 inch ad, but it comes after links to the important stories in the day’s edition.
It is only on its non-substantive Index page and on its new Weblog Network pages, that
the 3.25 inch Big Box ads are found. I think we can deduce the real answer to Law.com’s
question “Why Blogs?”.
p.s. There’s an interesting piece on lawyer ads at First Amendment Center. In it, John Bates of
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona. is quoted (via Ambrogi): “It is the nature of the First Amendment
that there is going to be speech in every medium of communication that some people don’t like.”
while selling his dumplings
and such…
blossom viewing
morning frost–
yet still a child
sells flowers
by Issa, David G. Lanoue, translator
November 20, 2004
do ads subtract? big ones sure do!
4 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Though the names are similar, I’m pretty sure Matt Homann doesn’t write for the OJR.
Comment by Denise Howell — November 22, 2004 @ 4:44 pm
Though the names are similar, I’m pretty sure Matt Homann doesn’t write for the OJR.
Comment by Denise Howell — November 22, 2004 @ 4:44 pm
Denise, thank you very much for discovering my error. I’m very embarrassed. This is more evidence that my old eyes are spending too much time in front of a computer screen. The author of the linked article is Mathew Honan, not Matt Homann of the [non]billable hour. Please accept my apology, Matt! (both of you)
Comment by David Giacalone — November 22, 2004 @ 5:51 pm
Denise, thank you very much for discovering my error. I’m very embarrassed. This is more evidence that my old eyes are spending too much time in front of a computer screen. The author of the linked article is Mathew Honan, not Matt Homann of the [non]billable hour. Please accept my apology, Matt! (both of you)
Comment by David Giacalone — November 22, 2004 @ 5:51 pm