Yesterday saw an influx of comments by people who have never contributed an iota of substance to Simple Justice before, but suddenly appeared to offer their thoughts on the subject of lawyer marketing. Without repeating the details of my position, I am strongly antagonistic to active marketing by lawyers.
Not surprisingly, two groups rallied against me, lawyers who market and those whose incomes depend on lawyers who market. They were offended by the vehemence of my attack on a person who posted a comment attacking lawyers who do not believe that blatant self-promotion maintains level of the dignity and professionalism that lawyers should reflect, calling such lawyers “elitists” who still think of lawyers as some “medieval guild.” Idea like this are, in my view, not merely fundamentally wrong, but the root of many of the problems that have undermined the legal profession.
Obviously, others disagree with me. That’s fine, but that’s not the end of the problem.
The reason Simple Justice exists is so that I have a forum to express my thoughts on whatever issue catches my interest. In other words, it is my home. Others do not have a “right” to come to my home and express their ideas on equal footing. They can say what they want on their blogs. They can say what they want on a blog where the owner allows them. They have no right to do so here.
What compels me to state the obvious is that some commenters devolved from the silly, the arguments in favor of lawyer marketing, to the ridiculous, asserting not merely a right to express themselves but a proprietary right in their comments, including the right to link to themselves in order to drive traffic to their own websites. This comes from people who do not seek to contribute to the substantive issues on Simple Justice, but rather to defend their own financial interest.
In the past, Simple Justice had but one overarching rule. While this remains the case, it appears prudent to emphasize one aspect of this rule. No one gains a right or proprietary interest in what appears here by commenting. Not in the name a commenter selects, nor the url a commenter includes, nor in the content of the comment. You have no right to have your comment published, nor published as written.
I don’t ordinarily make changes to comments. Sure, I delete some of the most ridiculous and offensive, and I have long refused to allow spam comments to be posted. I also do not generally permit commenters to include links to other blogs or websites, as I reserve the decision of which blogs and websites get links from Simple Justice for myself. This is because it is my blog, not yours. I do not delete comments because they disagree with me.
The comments to my posts are not available for others to use as a marketing tool to their blog. If you post a comment using your blog name with a link to your url, except in certain instances where you are someone on my blogroll or otherwise a regular source or substantive contributor to Simple Justice, I will change or delete it. If you find this disagreeable, then don’t post a comment here.
To be blunt, I have been pushed beyond the breaking point on the subject of lawyer marketing. The many who disagree with me, I truly don’t care. This is my belief, and this is my blog. To those who say that if I won’t let you play the game your way, you won’t come here anymore, I can only say goodbye.
Unlike those who blog for self-promotion, I blog to write. Read Simple Justice if you want. If not, don’t. The number of readers I have on any given day has absolutely nothing to do with whether I post or what I post.
Someone told me yesterday that I don’t understand, that Simple Justice has taken on a life beyond just this old, grumpy lawyer posting his thoughts on the internet. I was told that people pay attention to what I write, and that I therefore have an obligation to this audience. While I appreciate that anyone reads Simple Justice at all, no less returns to read it another day, and while I enjoy the thoughtful discussion that happens here regularly, I reject the notion that because Simple Justice has developed a following I somehow owe it to others to provide them with an opportunity to post their thoughts here as well. I do not.
I noted with approval that the ABA Journal had decided to ban a commenter who had, in essence, tried to hijack control of its comments. No matter what other readers thought of the commenter’s posts, it was the ABA Journal’s home, and they maintained the right to decide who to let inside, and when a guests conduct crossed the line. I retain that authority here, and I will exercise it as I see fit.
For those of you who think I’m overbearing, or just plain wrong about this, no one forces you to come here. This is not fodder for debate or discussion, at least not here, so please do not tell me what you think. This is how I intend to run my home, so your choices are limited to accepting it or going elsewhere. So that there is no further issue, Simple Justice will be a “no marketing” zone, and that’s that.
Update: I’d been told that my response to legal marketing guru Mark Merenda had caused outrage in the marketing blogosphere, but hadn’t seen anything to that effect until now. At yet another blog dedicated to teaching lawyers how to package themselves, Legal Ghostblogger (“Improve your business with quality blogging”), I’ve become the poster boy for “childlike behavior” in the blawgosphere.
As a professional writing a blog, whether you like it or not, people are coming to you for education and guidance. Your visitors are making themselves vulnerable by admitting that they may have something to learn from you, a gap in their own knowledge. To throw that back in their faces with vitriolic rants and name-calling is worse than immature and disrespectful, it’s pernicious.
Apparently, in the eyes of the marketers, I have failed in my duty to please and appease anyone who shows up here and leaves a comment. Lawyers, and blawgers, abdicate control of their voice and blawg to satisfy the demands of all comers. Though Merenda certainly didn’t expose his vulnerability by hyping marketing, reducing this quote to an abstraction, let’s pretend that this marketer’s thoughts were bogged down by facile resort to fantasy and deal with them as if they had substance.
If people are coming to me for “education and guidance,” then here’s my message. Do not let the marketers seize control of you and turn you into a commodity. That marketers don’t like my message, or the collateral point that they do not have a “right” to spew at Simple Justice, is too bad. To that, I say, “tough nuggies” (because I’m so immature).
To the marketer, lawyers are a commodity to be packaged and sold like “new and improved” dish soap. If that’s your perspective, then her comments are on target, since no one sells dish soap by telling buyers (even if it’s not actually a buyer, but someone trying to sell a dish soap additive while standing inside your store that you’ve made clear you have no interest in selling) to go away.
The hallmark of a good marketer is the ability to make nothing sound like something. The hallmark of a good lawyer is the ability to recognize an insipid argument when you see one. So if you want to be sell a lot of dish soap, this is sound advice. If you want to be a lawyer, this will turn you into dish soap.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just passing by to say good morning. I’ll be on my way now.
You know, you should just remove the website field from the comment input box.
Or whatever.
I do think you have an obligation to people like me, though, to constantly link to us. Because that’s the only way I get any traffic.
In all seriousness, though, I agree. But you knew that.
OK, your Blog, your rules. I get that.
You and Brian above (good morning Brian) present another issue. You guys are engaged in the crimlaw community, here and at your own blogs, from which we all benefit. You and Brian bring great substantive ideas, news, issues to the front. I link to you because of this, and the fact that you are there for me to link to, for me to gain insight, is to my benefit rather than yours.
In other words, I am grateful that you guys provide me with great stuff to link to, to think about and to learn from. You do me the honor, not the other way around.
I appreciate your understanding.
For once, I’m speechless. Mainly because this is a test of the emergency broadcast system.
Also, because this topic is raging out of control, and I’m kind of in the middle on the whole lawyer marketing thing.
That said, Niki out.
Scott – well said. I don’t have any major issue with a degree of marketing – but it does seem to be out of control in some sections.
Social media is fine – but I still far prefer blogs. Developing a taste for US law blogs!
Scott, can I respond to your comment or is there a form I need to fill out for that? Can I also mention my free toaster for the next 10 people that read my ebook?
Scott, of course comments are yours to moderate and do what you will with – including deleting comments outright and deleting marketing-driven URLs – short of making substantive changes to the comment content itself (and the latter only because it can affect your credibility).
Rather than deleting the website field for comments, consider making it “no follow.” Most who post their URLs here are either doing so because (a) they’re just filling out the form, or (b) they’re trying to create a link they can get some SEO benefit from. Making the link “no follow” (as most advertising links are) eliminates any SEO value.
Yes, probably not the kind of thing a grumpy lawyer wants to deal with, but it is one way to still have links you think comment readers will find valuable without providing value to those who may be using your comments for marketing.
“The comments to my posts are not available for others to use as a marketing tool to their blog.”
Many (most?) other bloggers take the opposite approach. Except for obvious spammers, anyone willing to enliven my blog with a comment is welcome to put in their blog name and URL. I.e. I pay for comments with backlinks. Your blog, your rules, of course, but you shouldn’t be surprised that a lot of people don’t get it.
Sheesh. If I’d known about the overarching rule, I’d never have posted here at all; every time I’ve driven a car in your state, some other driver has helpfully informed me that I was precisely the kind of person who is forbidden here, although they didn’t actually make a reference to your blog.
Even more seriously, the part of this discussion I have trouble understanding isn’t the differences of opinion on marketing (in part, because I think sometimes people are pointing to kinda different things and thinking that they’re talking about the same thing), but the ones who don’t get the whole your blog, your rules, thing.
Just finished read your ebook. I want my toaster.
I’m not surprised by anything anymore. But that doesn’t change my position any.
Things got really stupid yesterday, and I got tired of dealing with really stupid things.
It’s always been “no follow,” but the fact that they aren’t getting any link love isn’t what disturbs me. It’s the smell of it that bothers me. It’s not the way I want my home to look and smell and feel. I cannot begin to express the depth of my lack of interest in whether someone else can get SEO benefit from commenting here.
On the other hand, I believe that it’s useful for commenters to include links to their blogs/websites so that I and others can know who they are and the basis for their ideas. Knowing the background of people is often very important in determining crediblity, so I don’t want to foreclose people from providing that information.
I don’t think that’s exactly what he’s saying, but he can correct me.
My position is this:
There is a blog URL field, because I’d like to know who my readers and commenters are if they have a blog where they say interesting things, I’ll go read it and start a discussion.
But I have never, ever thought of it as “payment” for comments. I don’t “bribe” anyone by offering them a link in exchange for a comment. Everyone has an online identity and most often is associated with the website. That’s simply it.
But when the comment itself starts veering into undesirable territory, they should get no ancillary benefit by having their URL displayed alongside the comment.
Did that make sense? It may not have.
It does, but maybe you and Mark are talking past each other. Mark’s a libertarian, and libertarians tend to talk about interactions in terms of payment, even when (as is often the case) the interaction isn’t what others tend to think of or speak of as economic.
Scott, removing the URLs from comments is a great way to get rid of the self-promoters.
Bravo.
I may have over-analogized a bit there. To say the same thing differently: I consider letting people do a little marketing of their blogs a small price to pay for developing a lively community of commenters.
Disemvoweling might work, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disemvoweling
ts gt t b frstrtng, ftr ll.
I want your business. No murder too small. Rape, pillage and plunder — have no fear.
Norm Pattis
It seems pretty clear what he’s saying: If you happen to post a substantive comment and have a blog, include it in the URL section. But if you’re posting here simply as a way to link to your blog, then don’t post.
It’s not that hard to tell the difference. But could anyone write a law on it? Probably not. (Which is why I think this post nicely into the Lori Drew discussion. Some things are visibly wrong, and even if we can’t put into words every example of what’s wrong, we know it when we see it. But should a government have this power? Etc.)
On my own blog, people will make comments like this, “Interesting post.” Then they’ll drop their URL and “brand” – like, “Slick Rick Lawyer.” I know why they left a comment. It wasn’t to say hello. It was to inseminate my blog with their firm’s website.
While I am not anti-marketing, I do think that type of marketing is sleazy.
All your points are valid, Scott, and I’m glad you’re letting us know where you are coming from. Whether those who most need to hear it will even try to understand is, of course, dubious.
As long as someone leaves a substantive comment (that is not overly offensive), I am happy if they leave a URL to their weblog — because I like to know who a commentor is and where he or she is coming from. On the other hand, I am tired of people who use the Name space to advertise their weblog or business. I want some indication that the entity leaving a comment is a human being.
Finally, I get the hint and will resist all urges to leave you links to posts at my place that relate to the topic of posting.
Great. We’re up to 2 rules now, both directed at me.
First it was no a**holes, and now it’s “comments must have substance”.
Who says absolute power doesn’t corrupt absolutely?
Darius the Great; he said it was, and I quote, “kinda cool.”
Please note: the post that explicitly stated it was not open to discussion has generated more comments than any post in recent memory. Ain’t it always the way.
Those really aren’t comments, as much as damage control by the “market forces” who fear that lawyers will figure out what they are really and then they will have no left to prey on.
Marketing should be side effect of a blog, not the purpose of it. Otherwise, the blog is bound to be boring, choppy, and weird.
I wouldn’t want a someone to look at my blog through a link in a comment that had no other purpose than to get someone to look at the blog. It wouldn’t make me look too good. My substantive comments are bad enough; I don’t want someone googling me and finding a spam comment. That’s not the sort of recognition I want.
I almost always check out the comment links on the blogs I read. It’s always interesting to see if the person who left the comment has a blog or website. I’m nosy like that. There’s no reason to remove the URL. When I see a spammish comment, I don’t let it get posted.
That’s the difference between active and passive marketing. The point that everything we do is marketing can’t be denied, but that’s a by-product, not a purpose, of what we do. It just happens (sometimes), but it doesn’t guide us.
Let me explain a little about the URL thing. Some great comments occasionally are posted by someone who uses a name like “Auto Window Tint” with a link to their commercial website. But the comment itself is real, thoughtful and part of the conversation. Rather than delete the comment, which has substance, I eliminate the problem by eliminating the marketing component. The reason is best described as a blawgospheric “broken windows” problem, where it begets others doing the same to get their name/link in on a post. If the purpose of commenting was to say something, this shouldn’t be a problem. If the purpose was to get their name and link on the blawg, then it’s commercial. Either way, the end result is what it should be.
I agree
Call this the confession of an ex-blogger. I read one or two blog pages a day, no more, and sometimes less. Simple Justice is the one I read most. I avoid most others because they seem mere place-holders, designed to get the lawyer’s name before the public.
I started blogging in 2005 by invitation of Mike at Crime and Federalism. At the time, I did not know what blogging was. In time, I learned about links, etc. I was stunned at how many people wanted to link to our page, and then to a page I started. I suddenly began to feel like Coca-Cola. I never cared much whether I was linked to others; and, generally, I didn’t care what people said about me. I’ve been a columnist for a law newspaper for about eight and half years: I learned long ago simply to thank folks for reading when they commented.
I think Scott is right here about marketing. Most of the legal blawgosphere has feel of cheap toilet paper. I wish Scott would learn to ignore the chatter and simply focus on opining. Those who want to draft off his name and gifts are free to do so. But he wastes his time catering to, and caring about, the lowest common demoninator. Most blogs are cheap mirrors, reflecting poorly on their authors and screaming, simply, “me, me, me.”
Keep writing, Scott, but don’t engage the soporific fringe of wannabes.
Thanks Norm. But next time, can you give me sage advice before I start a holy war?
I agree with you completely. Spammers are scum.
Has it really gotten to that point Norm? Most of the legal blogs I read don’t contain much personal content or marketing at all, and the few that do seem to contain a marketing component contain enough “value added” content (to name a name, let’s say Eric Turkewitz) that I don’t notice that there is marketing is one of several reasons for maintaining the blog. (In fact, Turkewitz’s is so good that I’d be inclined to retain him were I to need criminal assistance in New York.)
I think most lawyers who blog still do it for the oldest of reasons: that they’re trapped in front of a computer X hours a day and they want some creative relief from the demands of legal writing. My blog (which I hesitated to link above, but why not?) contains no marketing component whatsoever, doesn’t identify me at all, and isn’t even primarily legal in focus. In fact, I don’t want my clients (insurance companies) to know that I have a blog. That would prevent me from writing about my hatred of them, should I feel inclined to do so. Mind you, since I don’t write a “blawg” I’ll never be invaded by marketers as happened at Simple Justice, but I welcome non-spam comments and don’t mind commenters who leave links to their own sites. I simply check before approving the comment to see that it’s not spam or a site of which I otherwise disapprove.
I believe blogging is still a hobby, a narcissist’s hobby to be sure, for most, lawyers and non-lawyers alike. But narcissism and the practice of law go back centuries.
Not for nothing, but this isn’t Norm’s blog (not that there’s anything wrong with that), Turketwitz never posts anything that’s even remotely self-promotional and Turketwitz is a personal injury/med mal lawyer, and doesn’t do any criminal defense (which pretty much proves that he doesn’t post anything self-promotional, as you would know his area of practice if he did).
Of course my fingers were racing ahead of my brain when I wrote that Turkewitz is a criminal lawyer. I read him because he practices on the opposite side of my fence.
That’s okay, I read him because he begs me to.
Insulting Turkishness
Jeffrey Rosen’s article “Google’s Gatekeepers” in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine is an interesting read. Seems that Google has to employ a gaggle of YouTube censors to make sure it complies with laws in every jurisdiction it reaches. Laws that…
Celebrate MyShingle’s 6th Birthday With Two Great Contests
Close to midnight six years ago, I pushed a button and with this post, launched MyShingle into cyberspace. I didn’t have a grand plan or scheme — to be honest, I hardly qualified to write a blog about solo and…
How Should We Lawyers Treat the “Ones Who Don’t Know What to Ask”
With next week’s arrival of Passover, I’m reminded of my favorite readings from the Seder, The Parable of the Four Sons, each of whom asks a question that represents the many levels on which the story of Passover may be…