In the instant example, as a sponsor LN has the right to deny you a bully pulpit where you may (or may not) bash their products or policies. Stacking panels with friends and family happens every day and I have no problem with it. What they may overlook is that you already have a bully pulpit, and while including you on a panel isn't going to "buy" your silence or secure your public endorsement of their policies/products, excluding you from the panel certainly won't win them any PR points and certainly doesn't reflect a willingness to engage in constructive dialog.

I left LN a couple years ago but because LN and I have some unfinished "business" I am generally mute. (I could earn a helluva living counseling clients in their LN negotiations or alternatively help LN articulate its message to the legal marketing community of which I'm a visible participant.) But I'll break my self-imposed silence to say this: The LN client development group (which includes Martindale) has some bright people with some bright ideas, some that even this community would consider highly innovative. The brand is not dead by a long shot! But its ability to act is constrained by its parent company's constant cost-cutting, endless hand-wringing caused by years of unsophisticated execution by its sales leaders and an inward-facing culture rather than a customer-focused culture.

My advice to LN leaders -- make capital investment in the client development business (at lower margin expectations) priority one, and open the kimono and make engaging marketplace thought leaders in their forum, not yours, priority two.

My advice to Kevin -- keep pushing the buttons, but recognize that there's a way to do so constructively so everyone gains, and a way to do so that comes off as a vendetta, where the message is lost because of the style of delivery.

MH does have a strong brand and some fine people. Agree wholeheartedly that LN's reducing expected returns to relieve undue pressure on management could result in good long term gains. It's not realistic to expect the profit margins a directory used to realize when every firm in the free world felt pressuredto be in it.

I'm open to a dialogue with LN MH, but to have a conference you sponsor invite presenters and then tell conference employees to later bump a presenter who's already accepted is low class and speaks the world of the LN organization today.

LN appears inept at handling the Web 2.0 world when it comes to PR and social media. This is another example. Twitter discusssion among lawyers and legal professionals on this issue went all against LN. Rather than get involved as any innovative company would today, LN ignored the discussion.

This at a time when LN MH wants firms to buy into its Web 2.0 client development. Seems nuts.

my experience of lexis is simple - re- hash their press releases and they are happy

write or say something with an independent viewpoint .. that (gosh) might even criticize them and then they act like a 5 year old

eg: it is automatically assumed you hate them

I'm told by many colleagues and contacts in the legal library, KM and legal publishing world that lexis mnagement think i hate them and have some sort of mafia vendetta against them. True i'm not a fan of their corporate culture and the way they deal with their clients .. but happy to admit they have decent products.

What i don't understand is why such a huge organisation is afraid of dealing with independent media or individuals who don't praise them at the drop of a hat

my personal view is that until a few of us started publishing online a few years ago - and opening some of the doors that illustrate how all the major legal publishers operate.. there was zero reporting on the legal publishing industry - now there is a modicum of reporting they seem to be unable to deal with the reality that many other industries have to deal with - eg the finance industry.

I have been publishing LLN/eu for almost 7 years and not once has any level of mangement at west or lexis offered to speak with me..or returned calls. I gave up about 3 years ago trying to contact them.

It's a shame really .. but there you go

Sean Hocking

Honestly, after the Martindale Hubbell incident did they really think that uninviting a prominent blogger from a conference was the best response? It's only providing more fuel for the fire, as well as making them appear petty.

I believe they have missed an opportunity to engage with you in a constructive manner, as well as putting Incisive Media in a very awkward position.

I expect Timothy is right, and there are people in LexisNexis shaking their heads over this decision.