A Topic That Refuses to Die - What Drives the Law Blogger?
The "why" of law blogging has spawned lots (and lots) of commentary. You would think everything that could be said about it will already have been said, but that's not the case. Via Max Kennerly I came across Gretchen Sween's piece in the Texas State Bar Section of Litigation's News for the Bar: [pdf; pp. 7-9] "If a Blawgger Blawgs in the Forest and No one Hears ...," along with Blawgletter®'s follow up thoughts ("Blawgging for Peanuts"). Both are worth checking out.
Sween looks at the many challenges in blogging (or law blogging specifically) and asks why "so many lawyers, while tending to busy practices, elect[] to shoulder the burden of a regular, extracurricular, pro bono writing obligation?" Despite the many challenges associated with law blogs, she notes that law blogs are "proliferating at a rate ordinarily associated with fruit flies." [I sense a slight pejorative tone here (fruit fly proliferation is not exactly a good thing), not that there's anything wrong with this.] Ultimately, she concludes that law blogging may be useful for a reason other than revenue-generation: it makes you a better lawyer.
Sween's article is worth reading, as is Blawgletter®'s follow up post. A key bit:
I'll also add two more reasons to why people blog. First, because it's fun. Bloggers are an opinionated crowd, and we like to get our opinions out there. Second, lawyers are creatures of affirmation. We live and die by the proverbial pats on the head, or by knowing we've gotten the better of someone's argument. For better or worse, these are rewards in themselves. A third reason may be to contribute to the "collective consciousness," but I don't have any delusions that I have the necessary altruistic instincts for this to be a legitimate reason.
Finally, I'll agree with both of them on the core point. Revenue isn't even on my list of reasons of why to blog. Your mileage may vary, and I'm no "rainmaker consultant," but the fact that no one has coherently put forth any data on what blogs clients read, or anything persuasive on the relationship between blogging and revenue should tell you all you need to know. An even more compelling metric for me (and I've said this before) is that when I sit down and tally the hours spent blogging, I can't even think about doing the cost/benefit. It's easily 3 or 4 vacations worth. And I take my vacations seriously.
Added: The Trial Warrior comments (and adds some other reasons) here: "Why Bother Blawging?" (And thanks also to Lance Godard for the link.)
Loosely related:
ATL: "Above the Law Launches a New Column for In-House Counsel" (Mark Hermann has "been out of blogging for nearly a year, and . . . was starting to suffer withdrawal symptoms.")
Paris Review: "What Bloggers Owe Montaigne"
The Atlantic: "I am a Blogger No Longer" (Marc Ambinder) ("Blogging is an ego-intensive process. Even in straight news stories, the format always requires you to put yourself into narrative.")
Sween looks at the many challenges in blogging (or law blogging specifically) and asks why "so many lawyers, while tending to busy practices, elect[] to shoulder the burden of a regular, extracurricular, pro bono writing obligation?" Despite the many challenges associated with law blogs, she notes that law blogs are "proliferating at a rate ordinarily associated with fruit flies." [I sense a slight pejorative tone here (fruit fly proliferation is not exactly a good thing), not that there's anything wrong with this.] Ultimately, she concludes that law blogging may be useful for a reason other than revenue-generation: it makes you a better lawyer.
Sween's article is worth reading, as is Blawgletter®'s follow up post. A key bit:
I can't disagree with either of them, but I thought one point was worth noting. When people talk about the efficacy of law blogs, people typically cite to the experiences of other lawyers - e.g., "what law blogs do my lawyer friends read?" No one ever thinks to survey the clients. Also, the blogging lawyers never seem to track the relationship between client development and blogging. (It's no surprise, for the reasons noted in the post linked above.) The only (meager) efforts in this regard have been by the marketers and practice consultants.Almost no one tracks the economic plus side of blawgging. We'd guess the track-lack happens either because the aspiring tracker can't figure out how to do it in a reliable way or because he or she doesn't really want to know the answer.
Sometimes you can tie a contact directly to a blawg post or to the blawg more generally -- as when someone emails you about a post and invites a response. But what value does such a contact produce? A chance to look at a case counts for something. surely. But unless the look results in retention and the retention generates a fee, you can't assign to the post, or the blawg, a dollar value.
What about indirect results? What if a subscriber knows you already and, at the moment he or she needs the kind of legal help you provide, reads an on-point post you've just written -- and calls you? Or a potential client looking for a lawyer reads your web profile, clicks on the link to your blawg, confirms a positive image of you -- and asks for a meeting? Those should count, of course. But imagine the challenges of putting an economic value on the part the blawg played.
The dollars and cents analysis of the cost side, on the other hand, goes much easier. Multiply the number of your posts by the average time you spent writing them and multiply the result by your hourly rate, and -- presto -- you have a good idea of what you've invested.
No wonder no one can say whether a blawg pays for itself.
I'll also add two more reasons to why people blog. First, because it's fun. Bloggers are an opinionated crowd, and we like to get our opinions out there. Second, lawyers are creatures of affirmation. We live and die by the proverbial pats on the head, or by knowing we've gotten the better of someone's argument. For better or worse, these are rewards in themselves. A third reason may be to contribute to the "collective consciousness," but I don't have any delusions that I have the necessary altruistic instincts for this to be a legitimate reason.
Finally, I'll agree with both of them on the core point. Revenue isn't even on my list of reasons of why to blog. Your mileage may vary, and I'm no "rainmaker consultant," but the fact that no one has coherently put forth any data on what blogs clients read, or anything persuasive on the relationship between blogging and revenue should tell you all you need to know. An even more compelling metric for me (and I've said this before) is that when I sit down and tally the hours spent blogging, I can't even think about doing the cost/benefit. It's easily 3 or 4 vacations worth. And I take my vacations seriously.
Added: The Trial Warrior comments (and adds some other reasons) here: "Why Bother Blawging?" (And thanks also to Lance Godard for the link.)
Loosely related:
ATL: "Above the Law Launches a New Column for In-House Counsel" (Mark Hermann has "been out of blogging for nearly a year, and . . . was starting to suffer withdrawal symptoms.")
Paris Review: "What Bloggers Owe Montaigne"
The Atlantic: "I am a Blogger No Longer" (Marc Ambinder) ("Blogging is an ego-intensive process. Even in straight news stories, the format always requires you to put yourself into narrative.")
Comments