When it comes to marketing worthiness, I’m not exactly the first person people turn to for advice. My strong (some would say virulent) position on lawyer marketing makes me anathema to those inclined to pursue clients the new-fashioned way: huckstering. I realize that you need business and are prepared to put on lipstick and walk about, but don’t hate me for calling you on it.
But Larry Bodine? That’s another story altogether. He’s all about marketing, and he’s got some of the best street cred in lawyer marketing around. If I was going to market, he would be the guy I would go to.
Yet Larry just made himself persona non grata in the twittersphere. The Web 2.0 zealots, the early adapters, the sycophants of all things binary, have fallen in love with twitter and can’t gush enough about its worthiness. Word on twitter is that it’s soon to cure cancer. Or at least herpes. I can’t say whether that would be simplex or duplex.
Larry, however, has not been sucked in. Sure, he’s on it. He tried it. He gave it a fair shake. And he’s arrived at a conclusion:
But that doesn’t make Twitter an effective law firm marketing tool. Consider that:
- 60% of Twitter users drop out after one month.
- It is the least effective way to boost traffic to your website, compared with SEO, email promotions and blogs.
- Twitter will generate leads, but not necessarily sales.
- Twitter can get lawyers and firms in a lot of trouble in the event of litigation.
- Twitter is a powerful distraction from getting real marketing work done.
When he uttered these words at the Get A Life Conference, according to Adrian Dayton, Bodine “caused audible gasps in the audience.” The unthinkable, challenging a sacred cow of the technoslackers, was met with shock. But, but, but . . . it’s new and it’s techie and it’s, it’s, it’s easy.
My life on twitter has settled in to a relatively comfortable co-existence. It can be fun for brief period of time, like some background chatter outside my office by people I like, allowing me to jump in when I feel like it and ignore it when I don’t. This works for me. But I am one of those twitterers who doesn’t play by the rules. I don’t follow people because they follow me. I don’t care if I have more followers than someone else. In fact, I occasionally try to chase away undesirables by letting them know that (a) I won’t be following them and (b) I won’t be buying anything from them. Whenever I twit things like this, a bunch of followers magically disappear, significantly reducing my chances of winning the prize for most twitter followers. Bummer.
I’ve come across some of the puffy sort of people who frequent the internet claiming to have made big money on twitter. I bet the owners of twitter would like to know how, since they have yet to figure out how to monetize their baby. These fast-talkers tend to be the same ones who claim to have made fortunes on blogs as well. There are a surprising number of people who make claims of great wealth gained from promoting themselves online. I don’t believe them. I think they are full of it.
Some of these voices I know to be liars. Some I merely suspect. Some I think are so shameless in the promotion of their self-interest that they’ve lost any sense of honesty and decency, and feel no compulsion to keep their claims anywhere near the realm of reality. But I know that those who claim their seldom-read blogs are generating millions are suspect. I know a little something about blogs. As does Mark Hermann. Don’t try to sell me magic blogging beans.
Larry Bodine has guts. I admire guts. He looked the sacred cow square in the eye and spoke his mind. The audience was made up of very likely candidates for his services, and yet he told them something they didn’t want to hear. It’s so much easier to appeal to their bias. People like you better when you tell them what they already believe to be true. You attain instant credibility. It would have been very easy for Larry to scam the fools to get their love, not to mention their business. He chose not to. That’s integrity.
Some may fear that if Bodine’s right, it could spell the death of twitter. A meteoric rise, and similar crash. I don’t think it means anything of the sort. It only means that twitter’s utility, assuming utility is a word that can be associated with twitter at all, isn’t commercial. For me, that’s more of a reason to like twitter, the hope that the self-promoters, the hucksters, the marketers, will find it worthless and abandon it in droves, leaving it to the few who just want to twit with some friends when the mood strikes.
I still don’t know how the inventers of twitter are going to monetize their creation, unless they plan to put a webcam into their offices and charge for the pleasure of watching them rid the twittersphere of Ponzi schemers. And speaking of webcams, to the young ladies who are following me in the expectation that I will sign up to watch them in their private moments on their very own webcam, chances are not good at all. I don’t even think they are lawyers.
H/T Carolyn Elefant at Legal Blog Watch
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You won’t get any arguments from me here. The value of Twitter lies in creating relationships, not blind promotion. In my opinion there has never been a better technology to help professionals get past the gate keepers and make contact with the real decision makers.
Excellent post. I share a similar dim view of the value of twitter. I understand its all the rage among “journalists.” Perhaps if they twitted less and and spent more of their time writing compelling and well researched investigative stories, their employers wouldn’t be in such deep financial caca. Probably too late for that though.
And speaking of webcams, to the young ladies who are following me in the expectation that I will sign up to watch them in their private moments on their very own webcam, chances are not good at all. I don’t even think they are lawyers.
I dunno. I ended up paying one of them $545 to remove her briefs. Slowly.
As if you would ever spend that much on a lawyer.
I don’t understand why everyone feels the need to have a strong perspective on Twitter. As always, there’s something suspect about the people on the ends of the spectrum.
BTW – you should check out Dan Hull’s comments here on this topic.
You find it suspect when people have actual opinions? Without them, how could people equivocate?
As for Hull’s comments, I found Susan Cartier Leibel’s (though I can’t figure out why she adds the “Esq” after her comment name) more fascinating. Warm and fuzzy promise, without any substantive basis whatsoever.
Venkat’s objection wasn’t to opinions; he admitted* a lack of understanding of strong perspective on Twitter. I can’t say for sure, but maybe wimpy, weak-willed, equivocal, fence-riding opinions would be more comprehensible to Venkat. (Who is, by the way, a nice and whip-smart guy, far as I can tell by our twitter-only acquaintance; I don’t understand his need to have strong opinions about other folks having strong opinions on this.)
______
*”Admitted?” Admitted? Sheesh. I been hanging out with cops too much. Next thing I know, I’ll be saying that somebody “advised” me of something.
Man – tough crowd 🙂
Twitter is like the background office conversation. We don’t sit around talking about how “useful” that is or whether we are approaching it the right way.
It would have been fun to be in the audience listening to Larry.
Aha! You used opinion in your comparison. I win. At least until your next comment.
And Venkat is indeed a very nice and very smart fellow, but I think Venkat has stronger opinions than he sometimes publicly “admits”. But who am I to advise?
I was in the audience listening to Larry and I don’t recall hearing any “gasps” and certainly none in unison. In fact, the vast majority of people in the audience were not on Twitter and could have cared less about his comments regarding Twitter.
His comments at the conference were not nearly as “controversial” as his blog remarkably successful blog post (and subsequent post…and subsequent post) was. He’s milking this cow dry–and publicizing it repeatedly on the very same platform which he allegedly finds to be of no use.
Smart guy, that Larry Bodine;)
I guess you ought to tell that to Adrian, as that was his quote about what happened, not Larry’s or mine. And like you, Adrian is quite the twitter fan.
Niche specialization — what with some people having cornered the market on “opinionated” and “prickly” and investing heavily in GetOffMyLawn futures, he’s going contrarian and bullish on “tentative,” while shorting “unequivocal.”
Jealousy is unbecoming, Jdog. And it clashes with Hawaiian shirts.
Pretending I were other than jealous would be, well, moreso. Failing to manifest extant jealousy would be like, well, a rhetorical combover.
As to the latter, I dunno — after all, I’m a guy who wears Hawaiian shirts… albeit not with lederhosen.
Scott-I’ve been thinking about this a bit after reading your comment. Re: recommending attys you’ve met online-how exactly does one determine whether an atty is a good atty?
I ask this because I noticed the other day that you recommended a number of crim def. attys on Twitter to someone.http://twitter.com/ScottGreenfield/statuses/2001842705
How do you know that your compadres are actually “great” crim def attys?
Just because someone writes intelligently about criminal defense, for example, does not mean they are a good crim. def. atty. There’s a lot more to being a good atty than simply “knowing one’s stuff”.
There’s the relationships you have with opposing counsel, judges, etc. There’s the ability to connect with jurors at trial. There’s the ability to cross a cop skillfully. There’s your ability to be organized and make deadlines. The skill of one’s office staff also comes into play. And, I’ve known a number of great crim def. attys who have horrible writing skills.
So, absent working with an atty in your own legal community, how do you know if s/he’s any good?
Just wondering how you decide who makes the cut. Not being snarky either-I think it’s an interesting question. It’s a tough call when you don’t work with someone in your own local legal community…
Oh, I know that was Adrian’s quote. I remember thinking it was a bit off when I initially read it, but I think he was just taking artistic liberties to make a point.
Oh, another thing that occurred to me after I posted my prior comment-anyone in that room that was a big social media geek was already well aware of Bodine’s post re: Twitter. His position wasn’t news to any of us.
There was no collective gasp–although there was most certainly collective grumbling from the row of people frantically tweeting away on their laptops, Adrian and myself included–although I probably griped the loudest;)
I bet that doesn’t surprise you;)
Niki,
Just because you don’t know Bennett, Tannebaum and Gideon outside of their blogs doesn’t mean I don’t. There is a whole wide world out there, and you aren’t necessarily aware of all of it. But your comment is misleading. I recommended Bennett, Tannebaum and Gideon as twitterers to a criminal defense lawyer looking for people to follow on twitter. I did not recommend them to a client, though I would not hesitate to do so since I know these guys outside of the blawgosphere, even if you don’t. In fact, I know a great deal about them.
Your point is otherwise well taken, that twitter is worthless as a sole source for determining who is a competent lawyer, which may well have been in Larry Bodine’s mind.
If you think that Adrian was taking “artistic liberties,” then you need to take it up with him. I wouldn’t be in a position to say so, and I’m not inclined to suggest that Adrian is anything less than truthful.
Adrian was most certainly not being “less than truthful” and I never meant to imply that. I was simply responding to Venkat’s comment re: his wish to have been in the audience and indicating that it was not quite as charged as he might have thought.
I think Adrian was just driving home a point in his post–not being untruthful. And I’ve got nothing to “take up” with him–he’s a great guy and I really like him:)
My comment wasn’t misleading. You called them “great” criminal defense attys. Aside from speaking with them on the phone, emailing, and possibly meeting them in person once or twice, what else do you know about them?
Have your surveyed their local legal communities to see what the prevailing belief is as to their skills? Have you checked to see if any grievances have been filed against them?
Have you reviewed their files or at least some of their court filings/court transcripts/appellate briefs to see if they are “great” at what they do?
Have you spoken to ex-clients of theirs to see if they are happy with their services?
In all honesty, aside from working in an office with another attorney or working with them on a case as co-counsel or as opposing counsel, you really have no sense of how “great” an attorney they are.
They may be great conversationalists, great at discussing legal issues, great writers, great people, etc., but that has very little to do with whether they are a “great” attorney.
I have no reason to doubt that Bennett, Tannebaum or Gideon are anything but great lawyers. They appear to be very dedicated to criminal defense issues (as do you), and in my experience, that type of passion is what drives criminal defense attorneys to be the best and do the best for their clients.
I’m just suggesting that absent having worked with each of them on a case or working in the same office as them, or reviewed their files and surveyed their local legal community extensively, it’s difficult to really make an accurate asessement re: their skills as a criminal defense atty.
They may be interesting criminal defense attys to follow on Twitter, their blogs may be well worth a read, and connecting with them via social media is likely a very good idea.
And, sending someone in need of an atty their way is a good idea as well–by saying “I know a crim. def. lawyer and a great guy in your area, X, and you might want to give him a call” as opposed to “I highly recommend X to you-he’s a great lawyer.”
Recommendations come in many forms, no? Just sayin’
You’re still digging a hole, Niki. You have no clue what I know, yet you can’t seem to get a grip on yourself. I don’t need to, nor plan to, explain to your satisfaction what I know about these guys. I said that I know them, and I know them. Your attempt to make a point was unpersuasive to begin with because it was disingenuous, and your persistence is just digging you deeper into a hole.
Ah, so Adrian made a truthful false statement because he’s a great guy and you really like him and what he said happened never happened. Got it.
Scott, I have a grip, thanks. I’m not hysterically sobbing on the floor over here in Upstate NY over this little quibble. And, my analytical abilities are similarly intact, thank you very much;) I do, however, appreciate your constructive commentary in theat regard.
Great. Now we can move on.
No Scott. He interpreted the audience’s reaction differently than I did. I heard no audible gasps. He and I are not the same person and experienced the event differently. It is, however, entirely possible that from where he sat, he heard some “audibly gasp”.
You, of all people, should know that eye witness testimony varies dramatically from person to person.
And, taking artistic liberties, ie. exaggerating, if that’s what he did, to make a point, does most certainly not equate to lying.
And, yep, he’s a great guy. And in my book, “great guys” don’t lie. He’s also a very talented, engaging, intelligent guy who will, I have no doubt, make his mark on our profession.
That was a much better effort to graciously extricate yourself from the hole, though the eyewitness part was somewhat lacking since you already took the position that your eyewitness testimony was right and Adrian’s was wrong. Still, I give you credit for the effort.
No, Scott. My initial comment was that I “did not recall” hearing an audible gasp. I did not say that I reviewed the recording of the event and there was no audible gasp.
Perhaps a review of evidence 101 is required on your part.
Nick and Scott- You guys are having way too much fun without me.
My response post is coming on Monday, but in the meantime let me set the record straight:
“Audible gasps” referred to a few people around me that shook their heads, tweeted frantically, or inhaled rapidly(gasping as I did in a theatrical fashion at the moment Larry said something derogatory about Twitter.
Hope that helps.
Well, there you go.