Stop blogging? Thinking of starting a blog, forget it?
Wired Magazine's Paul Boutin has some advice for those thinking of starting a blog.
Don't. And if you've already got one, pull the plug.Writing a weblog today isn't the bright idea it was four years ago. The blogosphere, once a freshwater oasis of folksy self-expression and clever thought, has been flooded by a tsunami of paid bilge. Cut-rate journalists and underground marketing campaigns now drown out the authentic voices of amateur wordsmiths. It's almost impossible to get noticed, except by hecklers. And why bother? The time it takes to craft sharp, witty blog prose is better spent expressing yourself on Flickr, Facebook, or Twitter.
That's right. If you're a lawyer thinking of starting a blog to join the thousands of lawyers who are further enhancing their reputation as a reliable and trusted authority in a niche and growing their business through blogging, forget it. Put out 140 character 'tweets' on Twitter, post pictures of your kids on Flickr, and start posting on your old college roomate's wall on Facebook.
Boutin's reasoning is that blogs are too impersonal, that it's too hard now to rise to the top 100 most read blogs, that blogs now only draw the insult commenter, and that blogs require more than the 140 characters of text Twitter allows for.
None of the reasons touted by Boutin apply to you as a lawyer. Getting known 'as a person' by prospective clients is a side benefit of blogging. But personal relationships is not the driving goal of a lawyer. Sharing helpful information and commentary. Entering into a conversation with other thought leaders in your niche. Getting found on the search engines when people search for a lawyer of your ilk. All much more important than getting up front and personal.
Who cares if you're in the top 100 blogs? I'm a VC looking for insight on nanotechnology issues in Northern California. You blog on the subject. That VC, academics, engineers, entrepreneurs, and referring lawyers with an interest in nanotechnology throughout the Bay Area and Silicon Valley read every post you write. And you're supposed to trash your blog and chase a popularity contest?
Insult commenters? A well trafficked law blog draws 2 or 3 comments a month. The only people more scared of ethics, liability, and privacy issues arising from comments on a law blog than you as a lawyer are members of the public who don't want to share confidences and who don't trust lawyers.
LexBlog hosts over 500 blogs and works with over 1,500 blog authors. Insult comments have never been an issue. Plus all comments are moderated. Comments don't get live unless you approve them.
Twitter's great. It's one of the leading traffic generators to my blog. It's been an excellent way for me to get to know other professionals, bloggers, reporters, conference coordinators, and referral sources.
But I'm going to trash my blog where I share my insight and commentary on how to use blogs and social media for law firm marketing for Twitter? And I'm no longer going to have a place where people looking for relevant information find me via Google in a New York second? And my blog posts are no longer going to be cited by main stream media reporters and other legal professionals in their blog posts and 'tweets.' Get real.
If Boutin's goal was to write a controversial piece drawing commentary around the blogosphere so as to drive traffic to Wired, mission accomplished. If his goal was to provide helpful information to readers, this is a bunch of horse pucky.
Good response Kevin. I think that Paul's over-generalization of what you can do with a blog is being met with the skepticism that it deserves. If Twitter is considered micro-blogging, the blogging should be considered micro-publishing. Seems that Paul and others on the "stop blogging" campaign are thinking that blogs are micro-journalism, and they are missing the promise of sites that have small, but appreciative readership. Even those that don't generate any comments can still be effective for the reader.
This is called link-baiting, and all the tech bloggers worth their weight called him on it.
Excellent post on Mr. Boutin's controversial article. I particularly agree with your final comment and believe Mr. Boutin hit his intended paydirt. But for those who understand and appreciate blogs and utilize them to their best advantage, Mr. Boutin's critiques have no merit. I'll keep writing my blawg and reading yours, as well as follow interesting Twitter feeds and grow my social networking connections, because it's ALL good.
Regards
Only 2 or 3 comments? Nuts, I'm doing that wrong too?
Kevin,
I nearly always agree with you, but on this I think the Wired writer as a point. The reality is that if there are already 100 blogs out there on employment law and 10 of those already have a really good following, it is going to be very very difficult for the newbie to get an audience. The other reality is that 98% of all law blogs suck because they are written by lawyers who either do not know how to entertain or are flat out afraid to do so. It just seems to me that nine out of ten law blogs end up closing up shop within six months of their inception.
So I'm throwing down the gauntlet on this one.
Your point is well taken Dan. You're right there with Scott Greenfield, another lawyer and prolific blogger I have a lot of respect for.
I'll agree not all law blogs are good ones. Many lawyers have not mastered the concept of blogs being a conversation, as opposed to just publishing info ala alerts and newsletters. Then there's also those offering no value or just touting their services.
I don't agree that the goal of a blog is just to become one of the most widely read, ie, in the top 3 or top 10 in employment law. Blogs can be used very effectively for networking, reputation enhancement, and business growth even where there are other popular blogs on the subject.
If there were already 3 lawyers in Seattle doing empoyment work for small businesses with less than 100 lawyers, should the lawyer conclude it's too late to do employment work here. 'I'll never be in the top 3, these guys have been doing it for years. I wanted to do employment law and I think I'm pretty good at it, but no can do.' I don't buy it.
Lawyers with a desire and passion to blog in an area of law will find having a ready network of lawyers publishing on a subject to be an advantage. It's like having a panel discussion on the subject going on every day.
As a new employment law blogger, you enter that discussion, the lawyers already blogging will reference you and your content, and you'll get seen as an authority by employers and those who influence them. Work follows.
Sure, there's an advantage being first to blog on a topic, just like there is an advantage being the first lawyer in town to begin networking one's practice in a niche. But no lawyer should decide not to follow their passion because someone is already covering it. God knows, we need all to good passionate and caring lawyers we can find.
I'm backing down a bit. The reality is that it has gotten a lot harder for the mediocre blog to get anywhere at all, but there will always be plenty of room for the really good blog.
This is a great discussion with good points on all sides. But I would have to agree that the Wired article is hyperbole. And, although I would hope anyone would undertake any web publishing effort with a goal to create a good product/service... even a mediocre blog is better than nothing. It's like saying you should have abandoned your web site for a blog and now you should abandon you blog for Twitter. They all have their purpose... it is a continuation of the splintering of mass media. What's next, IRTNOG?
I completely agree with you, Kevin.
Especially for attorneys, blogging is about much more than making a human connection. It's about giving substantive information and insights that actually prove your credibility. Twitter and Facebook are just not up to the task.