Mere hours into a new year, and spit is shooting from Brian Tannebaum’s mouth.
But yesterday, the first day back for most lawyers, brought out the rash of shit that is the failed and former lawyers, and those with no business advising anyone in the legal profession, going on and on about why lawyers need to “get on board,” with social media and shiny toys. It was like they were holding their breath for 3 weeks and just couldn’t take it anymore. The flood gates opened – where was their next desperate lawyer looking to “harness the power of social media?” Where was the next broke lawyer looking to learn which Apple product they were required to have to “survive?”
Sound familiar? Wipe that drop of spittle off your face and take a trip across the pond to Scottish solicitor Brian Inkster’s blog.
Adam Wagner refers to the Orwell Prize.
The Orwell Prize is Britain’s most prestigious prize for political writing. Every year, we award prizes for the work – the book, the journalism and (since 2009) the blog – which comes closest to George Orwell’s ambition ‘to make political writing into an art’.
Ironically, the only way to win an Orwell Prize is to enter and promote one’s own work, a notion that would make Orwell’s head explode, as my Brit pal CharonQC delightfully notes. Inkster applaud’s Wagner’s honesty, if not his direction. He is a flawger, and darn proud of it.
Antonin Pribetic, who offered the original definition of ‘flawg’ and ’flawger’, considered 2011 to have been “a banner year for Flawging” in his recent post: Flawging a dead horse.
Will 2012 see more lawyers coming out of their Chambers as flawgers? Perhaps it will be the year when that Elephant in the #LawBlogs Room is no longer ignored.
Back at home, Ken at Popehat (yes, we know who Ken really is, but he will forever be enshrined in the Pantheon of Blawgers as Ken at Popehat) screws with the industrious marketers who function under the belief that lawyers are all, deep in their dark hearts, flawgers.
My new pal Feculent is right about one thing — our firms have not met. That’s because my firm is a law firm, and his firm is lodged, like a partially absorbed suppository, in the legal referral industry.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that Ken has a particularly keen olfactory sense, which manifests itself in his descriptions. Mark Bennett, having played this game with marketers many times in the past, never wrote about the smell.
Many of you reading this, judges, prosecutors, public defenders, have no interest in flawging (and why you’re still reading is beyond me), as the last thing you need is more business. For lawyers with a payment due on the Ferrari (which looks remarkably like Hyundia) and mouths to feed, the silent telephone is breaking their hearts. And for the new lawyers, wondering what the chances are that a job is going to appear on Skyrim as they sit on the old couch in their parent’s basement, flawging may be their only hope.
To the chagrin of the smiling marketers, the SEO salesmen, the schemers who claim they have big money cases just waiting for you to sign onto their network, the lawyers online are still a small group. It’s not that the rest of them don’t have access and a keyboard, but they have yet to jump on board. Each day, a few more close their eyes, hold their nose, and take the leap.
These are the n00bs targeted by the snakeoil salesmen, and they haven’t grown inured to the schemes and scams. The fresh blood is targeted, and easily taken in by the former lawyers and their cohorts whose own financial security is dependant on the foolishness and ignorance of the desperate.
With each new year, and each hungry mouth, a lawyer finds his way to the gutter of the web, where he’s promised success and prestige if only he buys the magic secret answer.
And with each new year, someone has to warn off the n00bs, repeating what has been said before, that there is no magic secret answer. Will 2012 be the year that Flawging becomes respectable? Will this be the year when the bulk of lawyers, finally realizing that they have to “get on board” or die, walk down the internet boulevard in their newly purchased hotpants?
Those of us who have been around for a while, and whose eyes (and nose) aren’t shielded by self-interest and rationalization to justify why we’ve been wallowing in the gutter in the vain hope of making that nasty old phone ring, engage in a battle for survival. The public may have little respect for lawyers, but lawyers have little respect for themselves, earning the public’s disdain. So we fight to stop the slide into the gutter. We write to tell the hungry and desperate that they are being sold a lie.
Someone, today, will read this post who knows nothing about the blawgosphere, but has heard that if he starts a flawg, his phone will ring and his children will be fed. Maybe he will be persuaded to read Tannebaum’s post, dodging the spit, or Ken’s post (holding his nose), or Bennett’s post (with no body part necessarily involved) and realize that going down the path of flawging won’t make him a success, but will cost him his dignity, and contribute to the disgraceful conduct of lawyers on the internet.
Maybe. It’s worth a try. It won’t get you any new readers, or any new business, or any awards, or likely any friends. It might save some poor schmuck from pissing away his last few dollars. It will certainly be a laboring oar in the effort to maintain the last vestiges of dignity of lawyers on the internet.
Don’t let 2012 be the Year of the Flawg. It won’t save your practice or feed your children. It will bring our profession into further disrepute.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We have to give Brian Inkster credit for his valiant efforts in attempting to undermine and inoculate against the premise of “Flawging” as a scourge of the Blawgosphere. As I twitted to Brian in reply yesterday:
“As much as you try to co-opt flawging as innocuous and universal, there are blawgs and then there are shitblogs.”
It’s hard not to like Brian Inkster, particularly given his exceptionally good taste in headwear. But when they try to figure out how to salvage their dignity, they will remember they were warned.
As you know, I tend to agree with you that the state of the blawgosphere has declined over the last few years and will continue to do so as herds of lawyers suddenly jump on the bandwagon 3 years too late and for the wrong reasons.
That being said, there will likely be a number of good additions to the flock–there always are–the Time Blawg is a good example of that.
As for social media, I see the same trend–some lawyers will join and truly engage and many others will just clog the gutter.
2012 will probably not be a great year for lawyers in social media and that you’ll see more, not less, of the behaviors that you describe as “flawging.”
But, as you’ve said in the past, Scott, the best will float to the top and the worst will fall to the bottom and eventually disappear. So there’s always that to cling to as the sifting process occurs.
And, hopefully, next year when you write about this, perhaps the trend will have changed and there will an abundance of high quality legal content online. At least, I hope so–keeping my fingers crossed.
I hope so too, Niki. When I first started, you were already the Queen of the New York Blawgosphere. There weren’t many of us back then, and we were all of the mind to elevate the level of information and discussion, and enjoy the conversation in the process.
I remember when we first met, at the NY bloggers lunch in the village after you spoke on a panel at NYU law school. I remember how angry you were that some biglaw jerk kept clicking his pen while you were speaking. I remember how we spoke of our practices, and how blawging opened up a whole new universe to discuss the news, cases and the law. We talked about synergy instead of SEO. No one ever uttered the word “marketing.” We had no idea where it would go from there, but it had glorious potential to make us all better lawyers, to make the internet truly informative and thoughtful. Those were heady days.
Eventually, the snakeoil salesmen will move on to more fertile ground, once they’ve exhausted their schemes and scams here. The only question is what is left in their wake. My hope is that the potential we saw back then won’t be crushed under the weight of the crap they leave behind.
Thank you for the new vocabulary item, ‘flawg’. I’d not come across that before.
But I think Hyundai is going for the Jaguar (down)market, not Ferrari. The rear ends of certain Hyundais look so close to that of Jags that I’m surprised there hasn’t been a suit.
I’m more of a bonnet man, myself.
You’re totally right, Scott. We didn’t discuss marketing back then, although the blogosphere definitely allowed us to network and get to know others whom we might never have otherwise met. That lunch was a perfect example of that in action.
It was great to connect with you in person then and I’ve enjoyed our subsequent lunches and dinners as well. I always learn something when we talk and appreciate your perspective and guidance.
So, at the end of the day, social media (vs. SEO) brings people together and allows for the sharing of ideas amongst those with similar interests. I think social media and blogging still serve that purpose and will continue to do so.
The potential won’t be crushed–it still exists and is evolving and I don’t think it will be lost in the dredges of the flawgosphere.
You’re dreaming Greenfield. I’d like to dream with you, but with the amount of “make money as a lawyer” Google searches that lead to my blog (and the bad news the kids get there about “organic” marketing and other non-quick fixes to building a practice), I don’t see that the snake oil salesmen will be going away anytime soon. Firms and lawyers will continue to believe that social media is their ticket to client, and if someone can sell them on automation of twitter and a great Facebook Fan Page helping them get to the first page on Google, they’ll pay.
If someone can convince them that shiny toys and cheap ways of running an office from a coffee shop is the way to go, we’ll eventually have lawyers practicing from the nearest McDonalds Drive Thru – just go to window 2.
No one wants to do it the “real” way anymore, and I don’t see that trend changing anytime soon
It will change when it fails. When every sucker who buys the snake oil finds out they’ve been taken for a ride. When lawyers who know better keep speaking out against the schemes and scams. Sure, there are still lawyers falling for the Nigerian Lottery scam that started by snail mail 25 years ago, then went to fax, now to email. And when the next medium comes along, the scammers will use it and the greedy fools will fall for it.
Can’t help those who are too greedy and stupid to learn. We can still try to help those who are just too naive and subject to influence that they are easy marks. And nobody said it would happen quickly, which is why we keep repeating ourselves for the next n00b who thinks he’s discovered the magic secret of success.
Brian’s right about this flawging phenomenon sticking around. I don’t think it’s going anywhere–especially while the economy is tanked. Everyone’s feeling the financial stress, including lawyers. And many will turn to people who claim to have the solution to perfect marketing via social media.
And those selling “packages” that include Twitter automation, Facebook Fan Page solutions and blogging SEO tricks offer lawyers formulas–something lawyers love since it seems so quantifiable. The problem is that social media “results” aren’t quantifiable or reliable. It’s difficult to measure, or even define, “success.” But lawyers don’t like to hear that. They like hard and fast answers and some legal marketers claim (emphasis on “claim”) to have them.
Brian- your experience re: searches that lead to your blog is really interesting. Sometimes it’s things like that that are most telling and can truly give one a feel for trends and overall sentiments. Not everyone gets that perspective since they write about different topics than you do–so that’s a very telling piece of information. I’ll file that away as food for thought.
As for the other tech/practice management issues–I think they’re unrelated to the flawging issues, and Brian and I will have to agree to disagree.
Ain’t no way I’m getting in the middle of this special moment of authentic engagement.
Of course you don’t think the whole tech/practice management issue is related – because it’s your world and you don’t want it associated with lawyers who are looking to practice the cheap way – but that’s what it is.
The entire profession is on a downward spiral – the entitlement (and inability) to make lots of money leads lawyers to race to the bottom on the internet, and race to cut overhead (by practicing in Starbucks with an iPad).
Tech and the internet are great things, and they are also being used to encourage lawyers to practice law like a bunch of liars, salesmen, and toy happy robots merely in an effort to “make money as a lawyer.”
But I understand you disagree, Niki.
My view on Flawging is and remains that there are degrees involved. I believe that every Blawg results in a Flawg of sorts. Antonin’s definition is what I would call extreme flawging. I don’t particularly approve of that type of flawging and believe that those that practice it are not likely to derive much benefit from it. What they are up to will be seen through and people will bypass them in favour of more informative (less flawgy) Blawgs. Those less flawgy Blawgs will always win through and probably result in a sale or two more than the extreme flawgers will ever get.
Lawyers can use technology to make people more aware of their practice areas and specialities. They have to be a half decent lawyer first and foremost though and earn the right to get new clients as a result of the hard graft they have put in to achieve the expertise they have. By blogging about their actual achievements for real clients (and not somebody elses) they may just get a new client who wants to achieve the same result with a similar case.
No one needs a snake oil salesman to tell them this. It is common sense. If you are a lawyer and have a story you want to tell about yourself or your practice then yes do blog about it if you want to (dont worry too much about SEO etc – the content will pretty much take care of that for you). If you take this attitude you might be pleasantly surprised if a new client walks through your door as a result of your blog. That won’t make you a flawger in the extreme sense of the word but you have generated a sale and flogged yourself nonetheless.
Not only warned, but warned eloquently:
Will this be the year when the bulk of lawyers, finally realizing that they have to “get on board” or die, walk down the internet boulevard in their newly purchased hotpants?
This killed me.
Is it also true that Scottish women become kinda pregnant? Couch it in the sweetest terms possible, and it still smells. Sorry, but flawging is still flawging. If the less flawgy blogs are better, then non-flawging blogs are best. Why shoot for abject mediocrity at best?
Aw, I’m only kidding. There’s no such thing as a kindsa flawgy blawg. It’s a fantasy concocted to cover those who want to flawg but want to pretend they aren’t. But nobody’s fooled. Flawging is flawging, and no matter how it’s characterized, it’s still flawging. Flawgy flawging flawgs will always be flawgs.
And there is no such thing as a “non-flawging” blog. That is the real fantasy many blawgers have. Those are the ones who certainly want to pretend they aren’t flawging. As I said previously “I believe that every Blawg results in a Flawg of sorts”.
Only if one stretches the notion beyond its limits. But no, every blawg is not a flawg. While everything we do, in some respect, “markets” (or anti-markets, as the case may be) us, marketing is not a purpose or a goal. There’s no getting around this reality, no matter how much flawgers would like to take comfort in pretending otherwise.
Brian,
Your definition of blawging is founded on the false premise that the only purpose for legal blogging—directly or indirectly—is marketing and client development.
Is it within your realm of contemplation that not all blawgers are scrambling to make a buck or a few extra quid?
By your logic then, prostitutes can never fall in love because all they ever want is to get paid to have sex.
Please stop trying to call everyone a flawger. It demeans and diminishes the real blawgers who care enough about the legal profession to speak out against the unethical and the unprofessional, wherever and whenever it may rear its ugly head.
I fully accept this. But I see blawgers who are clearly marketing themselves defiant in the belief that they are not. They like to see it as black and white. It is perhaps not as simple as that. They may not be flawgers in the strict sense of the definition but they are certainly flogging.
I agree that there are false deniers, and recognize that you applaud the honesty of the proud flawger. Yet that the existence of false deniers doesn’t diminish the existence of non-flawging blawgers. The existence of liars doesn’t mean that everyone is a liar.
Sorry Antonin, but that is not the case at all.
I do not write The Time Blawg for marketing and client development. I write it because I am interested in the subject matter as are other solicitors who participate in the debates raised on it. This is true of many blawgs out there including this one and your own one.
If you read my views on this you will clearly see that it is very much within my realm of contemplation that not all blawgers are scrambling to make a buck or a few extra quid from blawging. Indeed I think that there are many easier ways to do that.
I am not trying to call eveyone a flawger and am surprised that you completely miss my point. That is quite simply that the position is not black and white. There are those that Blawg with no intention to Flawg but may still do so. There are those that Blawg with no other intention but to Flawg (the ones that you and others, including at times myself, have concerns about). There are those that Blawg knowing that they may Flawg in the process but with no worries about doing so. There are those that clearly fall into that last category but are in denial to the outside world that any flogging could possibly be taking place.
Selling legal services by blogging is not inherently wrong. There may be dubious practices involved by some in so doing and these will be exposed by you, Scott, myself and others when we see them happen.
Law firms should not, however, be discouraged by us from blogging on the basis that if they do so they will be singled out as flawgers.
I fully agree with you on that one Scott. I think we all know a true flawger when we see it even if the blawger in question is in denial.
One can’t “blawg with no intention to flawg but … still do so.”
A flawg is, by definition, “created, monetized and promoted exclusively for profit.”
While my vegetable soup is in the slow cooker, I’ll lower myself to engage in this moronic debate. “Marketing” can encompass everything one does. It depends on the viewer.
This debate reminds me of the lawyers that come to me and ask “how do I ‘get on the internet?'”
Get on the internet?
What they are asking is how their persona, their firm, their business, can get on the internet. Those are the flawgers. Those are the ones that insist that the only reason anyone blogs is for business, because they can’t see it any other way. They’re the same people who do everything for the purpose of making a buck.
People that blog to express thought and engage in debate are not flawgers.
Gotta go stir the pot.
No reason to put Campbell’s Soup in a slow cooker. The nuke will do.
Agreed on that strict definition. But one can still end up having flogged even if that was not the intention. That is my simple premise.
Yet again I agree. My distiction is simply that those that blog to express thought and engage in debate may on occassion actually sell themselves and there is nothing wrong with that.
Read distinction for distiction! Hope I have not ruined your Soup Brian in the process.
My soup is doing just fine Brian. But I’m not giving Greenfield any, because he was mean to me, harsh, and that’s unacceptable.
Good. Don’t think Scott is willing to wait for your soup anyway as he has his in the microwave just now. I have a blog post called ‘Lawyers and Soup’ pencilled in for The Time Blawg. True story. But unlike my Key Lime Pie post unfortunately it was not inspired by Scott and you deliberating over soup!
Now I must leave you to your soup and go and take my wife out for dinner.
I wouldn’t eat your soup anyway. It’s old school.