Legal Rebels Boycott Twitter
Scott Greenfield takes a step back from Twitter and critically evaluates his Twitter experience: "No Signs of Intelligent Life on Twitter." Brian Tannebaum does the same: "Twitter - Still The Worst Place To Find A (Real) Lawyer."
I've posted before on the overdose of positive sentiments that Twitter seems to engender ("Twitter and the cult of positivity"). Not only do people not seem to take a critical look at much on Twitter, people seem to not want to take a critical look at Twitter itself or their own experiences with Twitter. This is partially explained by the fact that people supposedly respond well to positive feedback and kudos on Twitter. Since most people are concerned with follower counts and perception, this naturally leads everyone to say positive things on Twitter, including about their Twitter experience. This is not to say that people don't say critical things about Twitter, but much of this comes from people who haven't really used Twitter or who have dabbled, and who as a result prompt the predictable criticisms in response. (See, e.g., "Malcolm Gladwell Doesn’t Get Twitter (Because He Doesn’t Use It).") However, at 10,000 Tweets in Scott's case and 18,000 in Brian's case, it's tough to dismiss their posts as the criticisms of outsiders or dabblers. (Someone criticized Scott's post because Scott does not follow many people on Twitter, and this was the reason why Scott was down on Twitter. Sure, Scott doesn't follow many people on Twitter, but being the uber-technologist that he is, he did put tools like Tweetdeck to use, so he was keeping track of discussions.)
I've seen a few other posts about the "hype" surrounding the legal profession's use of social media, coming from some interesting quarters. Ron Friedmann posts on a conference where Steve Matthews and Tim Corcoran (both established and credible legal marketing types) talked about whether social media for law firms was "over hyped" ("Social Media - the Ultimate Business Development Tool or a Huge Waste of Time"):
Is Social Media Over-Hyped?
Steve Matthews
- Lots of press, but that does not equate to value. So yes, it’s over-hyped.
- Tendency in S/M to create an audience without having a clear message
- Quantifying S/M is hard. Followers is not necessarily a good metric. More followers does not equal bigger share of voice.
- But if your existing contacts and sources of biz are online, you should nurture those connections in S/M
Tim CorcoranMy purpose is not to inspire another round of discussion of whether it is overly hyped. Hopefully the profession can figure out for itself the answer to this question over time. Setting the hype issue aside, I think it's equally important (if not more so) to focus on whether there are any other downsides to adoption of this new tool, either on an individual level or a profession-wide level. At the very least, I think it's worth asking yourself this question. I also think it's worth noting that this sentiment is trickling around, and that credible people in the industry who are using the tool are voicing concerns about it (or more precisely, the profession's use of it). You would think this would be newsworthy, right? Although I must confess that I'm not a voracious reader of the legal press, I haven't seen much mention of this anywhere. This is not surprising, given my thoughts above on our reluctance to criticize Twitter, and the fact that much of the legal press has itself flocked to Twitter in droves. Meanwhile, people continue to churn out articles like this one: "How Lawyers May Use Social Media in the Future" and this one: "Tweet disposition - the tech-savvy lawyers making social media work for them." A note to anyone writing an article such as these: talk to Brian or Scott, or someone like them. Your credibility will go up like a zillion-fold if your article includes a comment from one of them, or from anyone who says anything negative at all about the legal profession's experience on Twitter. (The effect of Twitter on the media and the downsides of widespread embrace of this medium by journalists is an interesting topic as well. Although this topic is well above my pay-grade, and outside my realm of experience, I hope to post on this later.)
- Yes, over-hyped. Equivalent of an echo chamber
- It’s a tactic, not a strategy. You need a strategy first; S/M may be a good tactic to reach audience.
Back to Scott’s and Brian's posts. Both are worth reading and giving serious consideration.
Added: no sooner than when I hit publish on this post did I see this piece in the ABA Journal by Paul Lippe: "Should Lawyers Tweet." My reaction to this is the same as my reaction to the other articles linked above.
[I'm still a pretty avid user of Twitter. I think it's fun and a great way to keep abreast of developments in the space and connect with people. I should note that for me personally, among other downsides, it has tended to sap my blogging energy. More on that later!]
Update/correction: I chatted with Scott Greenfield and it turns out my characterization of a supposed "boycott" was inaccurate. Mea culpa!
Venkat, it's hard to say when the perception of Twitter as a broadcast medium, a way to reach a lot of people, started to gestate, but I think Twitter's excitement and the perception of its potential started to diminish when that view became normative. Twitter now seems to buy into that. What excited me the most about it, what I still value it for, is the content and the people I discover there who are not selling or promoting anything. It was, could have been, the anti-marketing channel?
Reply to this
Thanks for your comment William. I agree with you, it seems like Twitter is getting away from the serendipity, and is using algorithms to suggest things to find and people to follow. As your posts noted (and as alluded to by Jaron Lanier), this is a poor substitute!
Reply to this
4,156 tweets in, I still like Twitter but I do more reading than posting these days. It's a great news feed of links pre-filtered (by the fact that I follow someone) to be of interest to me.
I also find it useless as a legal marketing platform - most of my online friends are bike racers, not lawyers, so that's what I tend to talk about online. YMMV.
Reply to this
Jay: I enjoy following non-lawyers a lot (more so than lawyers, for sure) as well, and I don't see it as a marketing platform either. Come to think of it: I'm not sure what I see as a marketing platform.
Reply to this
This is a good article, including a number of great links- those by Scott and Brian are more of the same though.
For years they have been tweeting like crazy, "social media is not an effective marketing tool." And then they take a week off from Twitter and they return to say the exact same thing in a blog post as if it is some sort of an epiphany.
There are plenty of things that social media is not a good fit for: self promotion, spam, and juror disqualification- but for sharing content and building new relationships, Twitter is a pretty unique platform capable of organizing and disseminating information in a way that wasn't possible before.
Twitter is certainly no panacea, but it deserves more credit than Scott and Brian give it.
Reply to this
I see their perspectives as valuable. They are pretty avid users of social media and are critiquing the prevailing perspective. I instinctively give them credit, and think it's worth paying attention to them.
Reply to this