Header graphic for print
Real Lawyers Have Blogs On the topic of the law, firm marketing, social media, & baseball

Is streaming law content how you build relationships through social media?

I just saw another web application that allows law firms to distribute their documents onto social media. Court filings, legal articles, email newsletters and alerts. All going out onto places like Facebook.

What am I missing here? Does it make any sense to you for a law firm to go out on social media and hand out (maybe push in people’s faces) law content that people may not otherwise want?

Social media, whether it be Facebook, Twitter, a blog, or LinkedIn is about building relationships through engaging people. It’s no different than networking at a legal or industry conference. You listen to conversation, preferably among people you want to get to know better, and engage in conversation by offering insight and commentary of value.

Imagine a lawyer who’s approach to networking and building relationships is passing out court pleadings and law articles to everyone at a conference cocktail party. Of course each document would be branded with the law firm’s name and contact info.

It would take five minutes for the lawyer to be the best known person in the room. Everyone would see the lawyer running around passing stuff out of a box. Everyone would be talking about the lawyer. Those who didn’t know the lawyer and what law firm they were firm would be asking others who this chap was. The lawyer would be the talk of the conference.

Do you want to have people talking about you because you don’t have common social etiquette? Do you want people avoiding you because they’re afraid you’re going to push something at them?

Perhaps I don’t get social media yet. But I don’t see what’s to gain for you as law firm by distributing static content that’s not part of discussion through social media – even if people can find the controls on a social media tool to turn you and your content off. Why do you want people looking for a way to avoid you?

Maybe there’s value in having a repository of content at social media sites so long as you are not streaming it to people. I don’t know.

What do you think?

  • Keith Goben

    I think you’re right. It’s pushy and completely out of context. The party conversation metaphor is right on the money. It’s social media, not business media or political media.

  • http://blog.martindale.com Mike Mintz

    You definitely get social media Kevin! I’m not sure I agree with you about there being no value in a law firm distributing content on social media sites. While the party analogy is a good one to describe etiquette on social sites, generally, it under-describes the use of social media as a communication tool.
    For law firms looking to build relationships on social sites like Facebook and Linkedin, sharing generously from the content they offer that can solve a need for a potential client on those sites is the essence of social media. It is when they pepper these sites with any crap they have lying around that it becomes social spam. To be successful in this space a law firm needs to know who they are reaching in which area and provide content that can solve a problem for that target client.
    For example, streaming a pleading or court filing to a consumer facing Facebook group might not resonate as well as an FAQ or basics of practice area article. More in depth materials might strike a cord with a group frequented by corporate counsel clients, where you are sharing resources such as forms or memorandums. It all depends on the context and usefulness to your audience.
    The tone in which it is shared can say a lot too. Are you sharing this content so someone can adapt it for their practice or so a client can ask intelligent questions when they come to you for advice (or not need to come to you at all for a simple matter)? Are you asking for feedback, trying to start a sharing wave (I’ve shown you mine, now you show me yours), or stir up a conversation with something spicy like firm newsletter on a controversial topic?
    Social media has no rules. We are at the beginning of a revolution. Think of what it would be like to have been around in 1463, just 5-years after Guttenberg invented the printing press as we know it. At that time, people were just figuring out that printing existed let alone how to use it commercially and socially. Law firms who jump into the social media game now, define the rules, and lead with useful participation will be in a great position to develop business in the new online world.

  • http://nylawblog.com Fred Abramson

    I think that the information the lawyers disseminate through social media should be balanced. I agree that it is important to use social media to engage.I also hate following lawyers on Twitter who only post legal material that links to their website/blog.
    However, social media is also a great place to publish and educate the average layperson about the law. It also demonstrates expertise. Your bright line rule seams to miss these points.

  • http://socialclick.wordpress.com saar siklai

    NO (Is streaming law content how you build relationships through social media?) but When done right as part of Social media activity In addition to other Action, it’s a way to establish expertise

  • http://scoop.jdsupra.com/ Adrian Lurssen

    Kevin,
    I came to this post from Facebook, where you had, ahem, streamed it.
    If I’d missed it on Facebook I would’ve seen it on LinkedIn or Twitter, where you also stream it.
    These days, I don’t visit your blog. It visits me. And even though I don’t always agree with you (as today) I am really glad for the convenience.
    Content among friends can help to build relationships. Content among strangers does not replace relationships, but it sure can start them. Many of the influential friendships I have today began after I read work by a particular person
    We have an app that sounds a lot like the one you’ve described in this post – until that part about the lawyer running around the room with a box full of papers… you lost us there.
    We’re building two kinds of tools. 1) Those that help lawyers share their expertise with the people they’re connecting to online (self-syndicating *wherever* they choose), and 2) those that distribute the legal work on behalf of those same lawyers, so that they can – among other things – start new relationships.
    That, very broadly, is how we see content fitting into the online landscape.
    Looking forward to your next post (as seen on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn).
    Yours,
    Adrian
    @jdsupra

  • http://www.impirus.com/ Kelly Spradley

    Kevin,
    I think lawyers had this same discussion when email was invented. The potential to abuse email, and spam everyone on your list is the same as the potential to abuse social media content applications. You aptly used the analogy of a lawyer dispersing articles to everyone at a party. This kind of marketing is not effective through email, nor would it be through Facebook. However, another means for sharing content is valuable. Maybe a lawyer has seen that one of his “friends” needs legal information, and has even requested information. The lawyer could provide his “friend” with pertinent articles through Facebook, instead of through email. It just makes it easier to have alternatives for sharing content.