Twitter is something
CBS’s Late Show with David Letterman regularly features different sketches that follow the monologue and precede interviews with guests.
One of the ones I always enjoyed is whether it’s “something” or “nothing.” The stage curtain is raised to reveal an individual or team performing an unusual flakey vaudeville-like stunt, often accompanied by music. Flanking the performer, who varies, are two previous performers who became regulars for the segment: The “Hula Hoop Girl”, who spins numerous hula hoops around different parts of her body, and The “Grinder Girl”, who operates a hand-held grinder against metal parts of her costume, producing sparks.
After about thirty seconds the curtain is lowered and Letterman discusses with bandleader and sidekick Paul Shaffer whether the act was “something” or “nothing.”
I look at my role for lawyers and the Internet much the same way. Is it “something” or “nothing.”
I see an awful lot of Internet marketing and business development stuff being sold to lawyers. I also see a ton of stuff popping up being labeled for lawyers as the best and greatest in social networking and social media. By looking at the stuff, and often playing with it, I share what I think is worthwhile for lawyers and law firms (“something”) or what is not worth your time (“nothing”).
I figured out Twitter was something. The discussion in the comments following my post yesterday that ‘Twitter success awaits savvy lawyers,’ referencing Neil Rose’s article on Twitter in The Guardian, reinforced my belief.
One of the comments to my post was from Venkat Balasubramani, a good Seattle IP lawyer.
I’m a huge fan of Twitter, but I use it mostly for fun. It’s a fun chatty way to talk to people in your community and your industry.
To me, it’s a mistake to even ask about its “business development potential.” If you’re not willing to expend (waste) 20-30 (100?) hours getting your feet wet and experimenting, I wouldn’t bother. I’ve talked to many many lawyers, business people, journalists, and just random people (etc.) on Twitter, and I don’t think any two people use it the same way. This means that you’re going to have to play with it and figure out what works for you. And this takes time. Probably a short vacation’s worth at least, if not more.
I agree with Venkat that Twitter can take some experimenting with to figure it. It’s far from obvious when you start playing with it. Remember, I conceded that I thought Twitter was a total waste of time for lawyers a couple years ago. And how could something called Twitter be worth anything to lawyers?
But as I commented responding to Venkat, why is it a mistake when someone talks about the “business development potential” of Twitter?
If I said that I have gotten business from coaching little league and roller hockey by meeting great people over the 10 or 12 years I coached would you imply there’s something wrong about that? How about when I sit on civic or charitable boards and meet people and build relationships that lead to business?
All we’re talking about is getting to know people as people, building relationships, and sharing some knowledge. People come together because of common interests. They then interact in many ways. Whether it’s face to face or online.
During such social interaction a person’s reputation as a being a good person, knowledgeable about particular matters, and someone you can trust grows. It’s only natural that business relationships ensue.
Just yesterday, a great guy I met through little league called me and wanted to discuss how his professional services firm with an outstanding group of managing principals should address the issue of their partners blogging on individual blogs, as opposed to the firm’s blog. We reviewed the plusses and minuses of the practice and various options to consider. Though I never said why don’t you hire LexBlog, it’s possible business may ensue at some point. In turn, he introduced me to a candidate for an operations head I’m looking to find for LexBlog. Good stuff.
Sometimes lawyers look at the terms ‘networking’ and ‘business development’ as bad things when applied to social interaction.
You wouldn’t believe the visceral reaction people had, including many lawyers, when I said blogs could be used for client development in 2003. You would have thought I killed someone. “How dare you see these mediums of conversation, sharing of knowledge, and getting to know each other be used for something that sounds like marketing.”
I saw blogs as a natural way of networking, sharing of knowledge, and building a reputation. You couldn’t help but get work as a lawyer if you blogged with that philosophy. It turned out to be true.
Twitter’s the same thing. Social interaction. Good stuff.
And for the name Twitter? It felt a little silly telling my team at Prairielaw.com in 2000 about how cool this website I was using called Google is. Heck, it was called ‘Google.’