How many law blogs are too many? Greenfield vs O'Keefe
That's the question my friend Scott Greenfield asked this morning in response to my prediction that the number of law blogs presently in the ABA Journal's law blog directory of 1,600 would double in the coming year. That's right, 4 a day.
Maybe Scott and I get a little long in tooth, but thought those of you interested in the growth of blogs would enjoy the exchange between Scott and I.
Scott, never one to hold any punches, leads off.
Is it just me, or does that seem like a lot of blogs? Is there anyone with the time to read 1600 blogs, no less 3200?...... I hate to be the wet blanket of the blawgosphere (well, not really), but the idea that there can be an ever-expanding universe of blogs strikes me as insane. I recently figured out how to use RSS feeds to monitor the blawgs that interest me on a regular basis, and it has definitely helped to keep track of new blog posts. But even so, it's a bit overwhelming. And I limit my interests to blogs that offer substantive content. None of these pretend blogs that are only there to scream "hire me!" make the cut. And still there's just too much.
ost of these new blogs will bring nothing to the blawgosphere. They will sporadically post primarily self-hype of no interest to anyone, under the mistaken understanding that everyone who gets a blog gets business from it. My notion is that too much garbage in the blawgosphere will drive away anyone who comes by for a look, only to find junk, crap and garbage (or what I would call "marketing")....... If 1600 people want to create real blogs that contain real content over the next year, then I will welcome them with open arms. I won't read them all because it just isn't possible, not even if I dedicated every waking moment to read blog after blog after blog. But I support their right to blawg 110%.
Somehow, I expect that not all the 1600 blogs are going to offer substantive content, or "join in the conversation" as we like to say.
And now our exchange.
O'Keefe: Saying it's unlikely that there can't be 3,200 lawyers writing about niche topics on blogs is like saying we ought to cap lawyers with opinions and lawyers doing conference presentations at 3,200. Unlikely to happen.
If there is a lawyer who blogs on the defense of civil rights for municipalities in one state, should we not have at least one for every other state? There are of course multiple lawyer experts in each of those states. What about the defense of government agencies on workers comp claims? Same thing.
And if there is one expert on those why not a panel of experts just as you would have a panel of experts on a conference panel at a conference of municipal/government agencies. Panels are about 4 in size. Right there, 2 very niche topics, 4 bloggers each, and 50 states.
That's 400 lawyers blogging to exchange ideas, insight, and advance the law on the topic. (I believe there are 2 right now) If they get some legal work because they are viewed as thought leaders, that's great. Far better way of marketing than saying 'I'm a great lawyer, hire me,' the implication of websites and brochures.
Will I read any of these blogs? No. Will you read any of them? No. Will some alderman, mayor, or corporate counsel for a municipality read them. Probably.
Greenfield: So we agree, good substantive blogs? Fabulous. Garbage self-promotional blogs? Forget it.
400 more blogs? Possibly, though unlikely to survive. 1600 more blogs? Death by 1600 knives. But the good news is that there will never be 1600 new substantive blogs in the next year. The vast majority will be pure marketing and will die an untimely death. Will alderman, mayor or corp counsel read them? Maybe once, and then they'll either find a real blog or just turn their computer off and never look again.
Kevin, success in promoting blogs will be the death of the blogosphere. The strongest argument against it is that the vast majority will open a blog, post a couple of times and then disappear into well-deserved obscurity. But they'll leave all their blog garbage floating in orbit around the blawgosphere, and it will those who remain who will be dodging blog detritus and cursing those who told the hypsters that this was a bright idea.
O'Keefe: I've never found that promoting others to take action so that they achieve greater heights, so that they are better equipped to serve others, and so that begin to feel incredibly good about themselves as something likely to bring the death of anything.
It's called dreaming the big idea. We need more dreamers in our society. We need more people who don't listen to those who say it's not possible.
People told me 4 years ago that I could not be successful with the enterprise I was launching. What do you think you would have said if I had said I'll have over 300 law blogs and over 700 lawyers, the vast majority of which writing some great blogs, in a few years?
Has my dream of thousands of lawyers blogging hurt the legal profession or the legal blogosphere? I don't think so.
Greenfield: Thousand of lawyers blogging? Some would argue that it's more of a nightmare than a dream. But we can't tell yet, because thankfully it has not yet happened. When it happens, we shall see.
Remember, you make your living hyping blogs, so "dreaming the big idea" means $$$. But bear in mind that the last time we went through some of those "big idea" blogs, like the Kansas divorce lawyers, there had been no posts for months. They were dead as blogs, and brought nothing to the "conversation".
It's like real estate brokers, hyping that no one will ever lose money in the housing market, until it crashes. But that could never happen, could it?
O'Keefe: Ah, the cynic. No good dead goes unpunished. Everyone has an ulterior motive. No one could be trying to make a difference. Couldn't resist the jab Scott. ;)
The Kansas family law blog worked so well for a small town guy with a small family that he is off starting his own business as a result, with blogs playing a large part of it. If I played a small part in that, that makes this guys day.
Greenfield: Kevin, you know that I think what you're doing is worthwhile. My "issue" is twofold: First, I keep arguing that they need to actually blog, not just pretend to blog. As long as they add something, I'm behind them (and you). But eventually, the well is going to run dry.
The blawgosphere will become saturated. If that happens organically, then there's nothing to be done or said about it. But if it collapses under the weight of garbage blogs, then it will be a shame and we will all be worse for it.
O'Keefe: Agreed across the board Scott.
And that's why we try, and there will be failures, to identify good lawyer candidates for blogging. Our client services director, worries more about keeping up the quality of blogging more than anything else.
Greenfield: Amen, brother Kevin.
Great debate you guys.
I can't help feeling though that, to some extent, the debate concerns something happening in the future that's already here and has been here for a long time, namely, lawyers who issue online marketing documents with tasters of what's new rather than substantive content that may be of assistance to clients, potential clients and others. That's been happening more or less since the birth of law firm websites and it increased as more and more law firms came to appreciate the relevance of marketing.
Those firms that distinguish themselves, in my opinion, are those who shake the often irrational fear of giving away some helpful intellectual capital. Many firms did that before blogging came along and will continue to do so on their orthodox websites and on blogs (which, of course, are simply a different type of website).
It's true, of course, that the ease of blogging may only exacerbate what's already here on the "tasters" front. But at the same time, there is already ample evidence that blogging is taking lawyers in new directions, not only in terms of providing useful, substantive material via blogs, but enabling them to publish material more or less instantly and often in a more user-friendly, digestible way (rather than hacking down the planet's trees and sending hard copy mailouts months after the relevant event). Moreover, and this is a significant point that many people forget or underplay, the production of RSS feeds gives subscribers a consumption and filtering power they didn't previously have.
Sure there will be more sites. Sure some will be crud. That, I suggest, is an inevitability. But the good ones will rise to the top and new services will emerge that sift the wheat from the chaff. With RSS and today's filtering tools, that's actually pretty straight-forward.
Open the gates!
Kudos for sharing this exchange. I'd also add that nothing looks worse for a lawyer's profile than to have an abandoned blog as their web centerpiece.
That blog may hit #1 in google for their name, but what does it say to prospective clients? besides run...
I have to believe we've already exceeded 2,000 legal blogs. Clearly, the ABA list is not exhaustive. Back in 2006, I guesstimated the number of legal blogs at well over 1,000 (So how many law blogs are there?). As for how many we can stand, that will be decided by how many readers have an interest in a blog's content.
The beauty of blogging is that it really isn't necessary to read 1,600 blogs, let alone 3,200 blogs. Why in the world would anyone do that? But each of those blogs has an opportunity to garner their own audience whether it catapults you to "A" list status or whether you just serve your local market on a niche topic.
I do agree that purely marketing blogs will never make it. People will eventually see through the hype and gravitate towards those blogs that provide valuable content.
I don't agree however that we cannot have another 1,600 or more substantive law blogs. Do today's blogging lawyers really believe they are the end all, be all? Perhaps some of us might be taking ourselves a little too seriously?
Whether you are a divorce lawyer in Kansas, a business lawyer in Iowa or even a criminal lawyer in New York, I would encourage lawyers from all over to consider blogging. It is the single best thing I have done in my legal career to attract clients and become a respected authority in my state.
Rush