Call me naiveEsq for not expecting this. I’ve recently discovered a big difference between lawyer weblogs that were created primarily as marketing tools and those written for the sheer joy of sharing ideas and information, or presenting a point of view: The marketing and reputation-oriented lawyer weblogs appear to remove Comments, pings and blogroll listings that might make their “product” look less valuable or useful. Of course, a lot of them simply don’t allow unfiltered comments or pings.
This has been on my mind the past couple of weeks, because I’ve seen a Comment or two, a TrackBack, and a listing of mine disappear from a couple of e-blawgs. Frankly, this takes a lot of the fun and sense of community out of weblogging. I guess that’s what happens when a great form of communication is turned into a “hot” marketing tool. Maybe I’m just lucky to have it happen so infrequently, given my somewhat atypical views on lawyering and marketing.
Does anyone have thoughts or experiences to share on this topic? (“Duh, David!” won’t help much, but won’t be deleted.)
P.S. Going from watching your words to Word Watchers: You ought to check out an interesting post from the non-censoring Evan Schaeffer, of notes from the (legal) underground, titled Beware the Cynic Incubators. Evan warns of evil word-abusers and co-opters (especially bemoaning the fate of the terribly overused word “reform”).
David, I think you are incorrectly making two things mutually exclusive “blogs created primarily as marketing tools and those written for the sheer joy of sharing ideas and information, or presenting a point of view.” The later type of blog, which you seem to be more fond of is in fact a blog that will work better for marketing purposes.
Lawyers by nature should be marketing themselves based on their knowledge, passion and idealism. Lawyers willing to get off their ass and use a blog, which is far easier to use than a Web site, and tell the world what they think and what they do based on their ideals will serve themselves well in attracting new work and in bonding with existing clients.
Of course there will be abuses like you describe but hopefully they will be the exception.
Comment by Kevin O'Keefe — February 8, 2004 @ 2:09 am
David, I think you are incorrectly making two things mutually exclusive “blogs created primarily as marketing tools and those written for the sheer joy of sharing ideas and information, or presenting a point of view.” The later type of blog, which you seem to be more fond of is in fact a blog that will work better for marketing purposes.
Lawyers by nature should be marketing themselves based on their knowledge, passion and idealism. Lawyers willing to get off their ass and use a blog, which is far easier to use than a Web site, and tell the world what they think and what they do based on their ideals will serve themselves well in attracting new work and in bonding with existing clients.
Of course there will be abuses like you describe but hopefully they will be the exception.
Comment by Kevin O'Keefe — February 8, 2004 @ 2:09 am
Two years later, I find myself writing “poor steve bainbridge” — http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2006/04/20#a6512 — after more trackbacks to f/k/a disappeared from Steve’s weblog. Might have to revise my “law professor” theory.
Comment by David Giacalone — April 22, 2006 @ 9:22 am