Does Blogging Favor Smaller Firms?
Drug and Device Law has a great post that asks "Why Big Firms Don't Blog Well." Mark Hermann takes a look at the ABA 100 and sees a dearth of blogs by larger law firms. (Congrats to those nominated by the way.) He sees two (SCOTUS Blog and Drug and Device Law) on the list. He offers a few reasons as to why bigger law firms don't seem to see the same "success" in blogging as smaller firms, but his key point is that one of the keys to success is to write in a "distinctive voice." This ties into the issue of big firm lawyers being less likely to be opinionated. I like Mark's take on this:
There's also the fact that "interesting," usually equates to disclosing your particular personality quirks or your policy stance on an issue beyond the rule and implications of a particular case or piece of legislation. Some clients may agree with you and be drawn to your blog as a result. Other clients may be turned off. This can be tough to predict.
I'm curious about something else that's related to this topic. Most law bloggers seem to blog for their peers or for themselves. (I know I rarely take into account a client or potential client's perspective when I blog. If I did, I'd make my blog posts a lot easier to read and digest! But this would probably increase the costs of blogging significantly.) Do any firms really blog with clients in mind? Even if they do, do clients find these blogs useful? I guess a good place to find out the answer would be to ask the clients, but so far I haven't seen many good data points on this.
Added: don't I feel like a dolt after reading Randazza's succinct post about this.
More: see more in posts by Scott Greenfield ("Blawgospheric Darwinism"), Kevin O'Keefe ("Big Law Firms Don't Blog Well, Says Who"), Carolyn Elefant ("Why Big Firms Don't Blog Well: Not Too Much Risk, but Too Little Passion"), and Mark Bennett ("Born to Fail, But on Life Support"). A fine example of lawyers being lawyers . . . arguing over the finer points of inside inside baseball. (Hey, it's fun . . . that's why we do it!)
I should add that there are a slew of blogs by larger law firms on my regular reading list, for example "Proskauer's New Media & Technology Law Blog," and David Johnson's "Digital Media Lawyer Blog" (to name a couple). Both are excellent resources.
Mark's take happens to be roughly in line with my thoughts from a chat I did with the WSBA Young Lawyer's Division in 2005:Crafting a distinctive on-line voice entails risk; most lawyers at big firms (perhaps intelligently) choose to avoid that risk; and so most big firm blogs just dangle out there, twisting slowly in the wind.
It's a crazily painstaking endeavor in my opinion to maintain an up-to-date, relevant blog which contains substantive posts that add to the conversation. Coupled with the fact that it's far from clear that there's a direct correlation with revenue and blogging (and the fact that most - if not all - law firms do not credit lawyers for time spent blogging) it's no surprise that few large firms maintain interesting and relevant blogs (at least as recognized by the ABA).marketing can be a byproduct of a blawg, but at its root, blogging is more about finding your unique voice and participating in a community. It is a grass-roots medium, and as with any other grass roots phenomenon, the "pure marketing approach" is rarely effective. A blawgger who is primarily marketing (rather than having a conversation with his or her readers) is also likely to find a tepid response from the blogging community.
..
the appeal of a blawg is mostly the personality of the blogger (or bloggers), so it doesn't make sense to have a "corporate blog". Even the more successful blogs affiliated with corporations are run by individuals (for example, both GM and Boeing have blogs). Corporate blogs should still heavily reflect the personality of the individual blogger. Blogging to me is a bit counter-culture. On that level, it's tough to imagine a blogosphere where corporate blogs live in the center and not on the fringe.
There's also the fact that "interesting," usually equates to disclosing your particular personality quirks or your policy stance on an issue beyond the rule and implications of a particular case or piece of legislation. Some clients may agree with you and be drawn to your blog as a result. Other clients may be turned off. This can be tough to predict.
I'm curious about something else that's related to this topic. Most law bloggers seem to blog for their peers or for themselves. (I know I rarely take into account a client or potential client's perspective when I blog. If I did, I'd make my blog posts a lot easier to read and digest! But this would probably increase the costs of blogging significantly.) Do any firms really blog with clients in mind? Even if they do, do clients find these blogs useful? I guess a good place to find out the answer would be to ask the clients, but so far I haven't seen many good data points on this.
Added: don't I feel like a dolt after reading Randazza's succinct post about this.
More: see more in posts by Scott Greenfield ("Blawgospheric Darwinism"), Kevin O'Keefe ("Big Law Firms Don't Blog Well, Says Who"), Carolyn Elefant ("Why Big Firms Don't Blog Well: Not Too Much Risk, but Too Little Passion"), and Mark Bennett ("Born to Fail, But on Life Support"). A fine example of lawyers being lawyers . . . arguing over the finer points of inside inside baseball. (Hey, it's fun . . . that's why we do it!)
I should add that there are a slew of blogs by larger law firms on my regular reading list, for example "Proskauer's New Media & Technology Law Blog," and David Johnson's "Digital Media Lawyer Blog" (to name a couple). Both are excellent resources.
Venkat, I especially like where you say "blogging is more about finding your unique voice and participating in a community." That has been my experience since starting blogging earlier this year; I feel better connected both with myself and my community. Maybe I don't write a blawg per se, though, as I think I write either for myself or my clients, and not for my peers in the legal profession. So I want to say, to one of your questions in the last paragraph, yes, I do blog with clients in mind! Then again, I'm not writing for my firm but on my own behalf.
Reply to this
William: I think that's great to write with clients in mind, and I notice that you do that.
I'm going to start making a conscious effort, although I know part of the fun of blogging for me is venting and just getting my opinion out there. Balance in everything I guess..
Reply to this
Just because a blog is not engaging does not mean that it isn't useful. Most of the big firm blogs provide a good deal of useful substance and content that are useful to clients even if not interesting to the wider public. And the content is delivered in a straightforward and yes, dull fashion, because that's often the easiest way to do it.
As I wrote in my own post on this topic- most biglaw attorneys blog because it's part of the job - something they do either to market or quite honestly, to serve existing clients (like a newsletter). Most of the blogs that we consider engaging are those where the authors blog because they want to, not because they have to and so, the passion shines through. And sometimes, if you are like Mark Herrmann and fortunate enough for your passion to coincide with your work, then you get the best of both worlds.
http://www.myshingle.com/2009/12/articles/blogging/why-big-firms-dont-blog-well-not-too-much-risk-but-too-little-passion/
Reply to this
Carolyn,
Thanks for your comment. It's up to a each particular lawyer/firm to figure how to deliver their content but I don't see a ton of benefit in just rehashing a newsletter in a blog format. If the same people who read the newsletter are reading the blog then nothing has changed. I imagine most law firms blog in order to expand beyond their newsletters and to try to engage with clients/potential clients and others in the space. As to whether larger firms achieve this or are better suited to achieve this I don't know. I do know that there are some structural issues that make it harder for larger firm bloggers. They have pressure to bill and do not credit for time spent blogging. They can't be as opinionated on issues and have to worry about taking positions that their clients may disagree with.
Blogging is probably in its infancy and many different people are experimenting with many different approaches. Many people talk about clients and blogging but no one seems to have any hard data on what blogs clients read and how useful they find law firm blogs (etc.)
On a personal note, I'm a voracious consumer of information and subscribe to numerous newsletters, blogs, etc. Sounds like you do too. The stuff without any personality seems to just go by the wayside. But that's just me.
Reply to this
Okay, maybe mine was succinct, but this is a quote I'll be using a lot:
marketing can be a byproduct of a blawg, but at its root, blogging is more about finding your unique voice and participating in a community. It is a grass-roots medium, and as with any other grass roots phenomenon, the "pure marketing approach" is rarely effective. A blawgger who is primarily marketing (rather than having a conversation with his or her readers) is also likely to find a tepid response from the blogging community.
Dead on right.
Reply to this
>It's a crazily painstaking endeavor in
>my opinion to maintain an up-to-date,
>relevant blog which contains
>substantive posts that add to the
>conversation.
Gotta agree with you on this one. I just started my blawg a few months ago. I'm only aiming for two of your four criteria (up to date and substantive) and even that takes a lot of time and effort. So far I haven't even worried about relevant...I write about what interests me. Not sure about "add to the conversation". I do purposely choose stuff that I don't find a lot of coverage on elsewhere, although of course I am inspired by and led to topics which I read about elsewhere.
My blog is written for peers. Probably far too much detail to be of interest to clients.
Reply to this