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

Social media is not about distributing your law firm’s content to people

Social media not distributionPeople do not create accounts on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, or any other social media site to hear from your law firm. Social media is about engagement that arises out of listening and resulting conversations. Engagement that results in trust and relationships.

The problem is that law firms are being told that social media, whether it be Twitter, LinkedIn, or Facebook is all about pushing your content at people. Social media is wrongfully being looked at by law firms as a distribution channel.

An AP story yesterday morning regarding law firms’ use of social media reported that “Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney recently hired a consultant to train its lawyers on social media tools and established a policy for how to use sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn.” Why? “…[T]o use Facebook and Twitter to feed news releases, announcements and advisories,” per Tracie Gliozzi, Buchanan’s director of communications. (emphasis added)

JoAnna Forshee reports that Adrian Dayton, a speaker at least week’s MyLegal social media conference spoke on, among other things, how content, via blogs and websites, can be distributed via Twitter, LinkedIn and other social networks) for sales leads and new business. (emphasis added)

If a company created a solution that would have a hand pop out of in-house counsels’ monitor and shove unwanted law firm blog posts, articles, alerts, and email newsletters into counsel’s face, law firms would pay millions for it. No matter that in-house counsel found the practice rude and tasteless.

Social media is about engagement. Engagement to nurture and build relationships. Engagement by its very nature requires listening. Only once you listen are you in a position to offer value. It’s this sincere process of listening and offering value that breeds trust. Trust that you’re yearning for as a lawyer and law firm.

Trust and relationships are what you’re after in your law firm’s use of social media. You don’t build trust and nurture relationships by using social media as a distribution channel to feed content to people.

Do that and lose trust and destroy relationships.

Note: I don’t have first hand knowledge of how Buchanan Ingersoll is using social media nor what Adrian Dayton may have said in his speech. I’m strictly relying on what’s been reported.

  • http://www.theprlawyer.com Laura Powers

    I agree wholeheartedly that building trust and relationships are two key factors when law firms and lawyers engage in social media. However, another key factor is sharing and distributing news, announcements and advisories that inform and educate an audience. Distribution of this information via social media channels such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter can and should be helpful and informative to people.
    As Kevin points out, simply sharing news and resources via social media is not an effective way to utilize these tools. Lawyers and law firms must be willing to invest their time and effort in engaging in meaningful conversations on these platforms as well. If they do, they truly will have the opportunity to become trusted resources and build genuine relationships by using the distribution channels of social media. If the intention to share and educate is genuine, trust and credibility will follow.

  • http://adriandayton.com Adrian Dayton

    Kevin,
    Thanks for mentioning me in your article, and just to correct your post, my presentation was not about content distribution- and while I mentioned a few tools for distribution, the point of social media has always been conversation and engagement.
    Blogs, Lexology, JD Supra and even Twitter are useless if they don’t create conversations, appointments and relationships.
    In fact the final point I made in my presentation was to listen and engage in conversations because that is the only way to build high value relationships and to understand which content resonates with people.

  • http://www.mauslawfirm.com Joe Maus

    I completely agree with what you are saying. It makes so much more sense to work with people that need something than simply spamming twitter with articles and news briefs they will probably ignore. Engagement is key because like you said, it builds trust.

  • http://blog.joyspoon.com John S. Robinson

    Kevin, I agree with the basic premise of your article that social media is not about broadcasting but I think it’s important also to highlight that you don’t have to engage everywhere. Social media gives you the freedom to choose how you interact with people online and if you try to jump into everything at once you’re going to be overwhelmed.
    I feel that lawyers should choose what they’re most comfortable with and grow from there. A lawyer may not feel comfortable expressing him or herself in 140 characters but may still want to use Twitter as a way to attract people to their blog where they feel more comfortable engaging readers in a deeper manner.
    I think broadcasting publications and news items where there is no social element after the click-through mirrors your point nicely but I also think we should distinguish and encourage the distribution of social based content (i.e. blogs) because people need to have the choice of where they engage.
    After all, I found this article after clicking on a tweet and while we’ve never exchanged tweets, here I am engaging with you on your blog where I’m better able to express my opinion.

  • http://massrealestatelawblog.com Richard Vetstein

    Kevin, why slam Adrian Dayton and take him out of context? If you bothered to read Adrian’s stuff, you would see that he agrees with you in large part about engagement.
    This isn’t the first time you’ve taken a snippet of what someone said (or in this case, what someone else said Adrian said–remember the hearsay rule, Kevin?), and used it as a launching point for you to make a point. I think the more persuasive technique is to refrain from denigrating your colleagues and just make your point.
    On the topic at hand, there is no question that social media is an effective method for attorneys to get their message out. Call it “distribution,” call it whatever you want.
    But let me ask you this. If you are listening all the time, as you advise, exactly when, where and how do you have a chance to talk?
    Best, Richard Vetstein, Esq.
    The Massachusetts Real Estate Law Blog

  • http://kevin.lexblog.com Kevin OKeefe

    Laura, I agree that ‘sharing and distributing news, announcements and advisories that inform and educate an audience’ is a key factor in the use of social media. But law firms would be best served to share and distribute news and info produced by others, not primarily their own stuff. That’s how you build trust and social media equity.
    Most law firms, legal marketers, and PR professionals look at the net as a means of getting ‘their message’ out. Lawyers do as well. Look no further than Richard Vetstein’s comment above in which he says no matter whether you call it distribution or not, social media is an effective means of getting a lawyer’s message out. If that’s the primary goal (getting your message out), you’re missing the point of social media.
    Does a lawyer join a civic board to ‘get their message out?’ No, the lawyer does it to serve others and build relationships – the type of activity that may lead to work and further networking opportunities. Social media is much closer to that.

  • http://kevin.lexblog.com Kevin OKeefe

    Thanks for the comment Adrian. I should have said I’m not sure this is what you believed – that being distribution vs conversation and exchange. I was referencing only what was reported.
    Richard, I’m not looking to slam anyone. I do my best offering insight and commentary when I can. I’ve come to learn that you give your best, and you get kicked in the teeth. You still give your best anyway. ;)

  • http://www.LawPracticeStrategy.com Donna Seyle

    Kevin: I don’t think anyone who personally participates (as opposed to hiring someone to do it for them)in social media disagrees with the notion that concept that it is about engagement and relationship. One of the most exciting aspects of having an online presence is that you get to interact with people you would not have otherwise had the opportunity to meet. On the other hand, let’s not deny that we all (yes, that includes you) use it to also distribute content. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. In fact,another exciting aspect to being online is to gain access to information you would not have come across on your own. If you create content that is useful & provides value, distributing it through social media channels serves your connections and clients. If you come across a post or article that is informative, posting a link to that content also serves them. Using social media is not an either/or proposition.
    That being said, if you do post content, it is your responsibility to insure its accuracy. In your post you discuss Adrian Dayton’s presentation at The Case for Social Media conference in DC last week. You admit to not being there and relying only on what was reported. Unfortunately, what was reported was only one part of Adrian’s presentation. Having attended the conference, I can tell you that he spent a great deal of time talking about engagement and building relationships and trust on social media. Directly referencing his presentation inaccurately to prove a point, without checking out what he really did say, is irresponsible. Particularly when you not only post about it but also use social media channels to distribute your post.

  • http://massrealestatelawblog.com Richard Vetstein

    Kevin, do you believe that social media is a form of marketing? Or do you believe it is something else entirely?
    I agree with you that social media does create fantastic relationships. I met one of my best mortgage partners who provides me with tons of clients because he had a nice blog and I commented on there. Next thing we are at Starbucks pouring over his blog and heading off to a Boston Celtics game. I wouldn’t have met him otherwise.
    But I also generate quite a bit of business when potential clients reach me through Google-ing a particular real estate topic. That’s pure content generation right there.
    So social media can serve many functions. It’s simply not black and white as you postulate. And there’s no governing authority; there are no “rules” despite all these experts (you included) trying to formulate rules. The rules are what works and what doesn’t work.
    For me and I suspect many other attorneys, social media can be used both for “content generation” and “building relationships.” There ain’t nothing wrong with that….

  • http://jaybradley.net Jay Bradley

    Yes engagement on social media sights is all about relationship building. From there people get a sense of who you are and would be more likely to go to you for your services.
    Of coarse “content” is the key to engaging them.

  • http://www.InsideLegal.com JoAnna Forshee / InsideLegal

    Hi Kevin,
    It was my recap post on InsideLegal that you refer to in your post and our exact statement was ,”Designed to appeal to social media newbies, Dayton’s session covered Twitter basics but also made the connection of how stellar content (via blogs and websites) and strategic distribution (via Twitter, LinkedIn and other social networks) can lead to direct sales leads and new business.” Our point was not that Adrian was preaching content distribution as the main reason for social media, but was (correctly) stressing that STELLAR content combined with STRATEGIC distribution was the key to getting your message out without alienating your network.
    The broader point being that social media is not just about law firms spamming people with their news, but strategically distributing stellar content. Again, that wasn’t the only focus or reason for social media that Adrian spoke to, but we thought it was a very good point for beginners so we included it in our recap.
    I wish you had been able to attend as I think you would have been a great addition to the discussion. MyLegal also offered live streaming for everyone that was unable to be onsite.

  • http://kevin.lexblog.com Kevin OKeefe

    Thanks for the comment JoAnna. I too wish I could have been in DC for the conference. I had a previously scheduled engagement in Toronto by the time I heard of the conference.