Marketing. For those of you who regularly read SJ, you might think it’s a dirty word, given how often I have bad things to say about legal and social media marketers. But it’s not. The question revolves around definitions, and marketing isn’t that easily defined. Legally, it’s the promotion of the quality or availability of goods or services, a simple enough definition to distinguish commercial from non-commercial speech.
But it’s not a particularly viable definition for discussion about marketing. As has been pointed out to me many times, everything we do “markets” us, to a greater or lesser extent. But that’s a subterfuge used by marketers to make us believe that we can’t avoid the need for marketing, and since we’re doing it anyway, we ought to pay them to do it for us or do it better than us.
As games go, marketing is a tough one. We most assuredly market ourselves every time we speak to someone, answer a phone call, write something that another person will read or argue in a courtroom. What we do will cause someone else to notice us or not, think well of us or not, consider using us or not. Bearing this in mind, it’s a great reason to do your best work all the time; you never know who’s watching.
But what I’m talking about isn’t the generic concept of marketing, but the specific marketing done by social media “professionals.” Much as I would be happy to discuss what they do, it invariably starts with a problem as they introduce themselves with a false premise. There is no such thing as a social media professional.
A “professional” is someone who has endured a requisite course of study, who has passed a rigorous test required for licensure. A “professional” is required to adhere to a fixed ethical code, and who could lose his license for failure to do so. A “professional” has an obligation, and is subject to liability for the failure to fulfill that obligation.
No, there is no such thing as a social media “professional,” and I find it impossible to have a serious talk with anyone who begins by informing me that they are a social media professional. When a lawyer repeats this fib, it disturbs me, as it just feeds the lie.
As Kevin O’Keefe said in response to my concern, calling people who sell their marketing services for a fee “marketers” sounds “demeaning.” Interesting that it should, but telling. Some call them marketeers, which is meant to be demeaning, but why does a name that matches perfectly with what they do sound demeaning?
Ironically, I have some friends who provide marketing services to lawyers. They don’t often come out to support the things I write about, as that would put them at odds with others in their occupation (see what I did there?) and they see little benefit in becoming embroiled in a beef by siding with someone who is considered by most marketers to be the devil. The things I say make many marketers feel very angry, and not want to be my friend.
Aside: Another irony is that I’ve been contacted a number of times by legal marketers, the ones who claim to have a stable filled with fabulous lawyers paying them tons of money, who have found themselves in a legal jam. When they’re in trouble, they call me, not their clients or the lawyers who adore them, but the mean old curmudgeon marketer-hater. They tell me it’s because they know I’m a straight shooter, and that I will tell them the truth. Maybe being truthful is better than a homepage that proclaims you’re aggressive, caring and experienced, like every other lawyers’ home page.
There are people out there who are pretty darned good a helping lawyers market their services, but they aren’t usually the ones whose twits you read or whose blogs repeat the Ten Rules For Whatever, in varying permutations every few weeks. These are the ones who are fully knowledgeable about the Code of Professional Responsibility, and believe in it. These are the ones who understand that lawyers who conduct themselves with integrity and dignity get clients willing to pay well because they want excellence. They appeal to the needs and wants of a higher order of clientele, and they leave the goundlings to the simpletons and charlatans. Their clients aren’t looking for 100 new leads a week, asking for free legal advice in the hope of finding a pro bono lawyer to handle their shoplifting case in Peoria.
One would suspect lawyers, of all people, to appreciate the distinction, since words are our lives and qualifications, like definitions, matter. But still, the word marketing is tossed about mindlessly. When Carolyn Elefant wrote about how she still has to market, she described how she becomes involved in the legal world, networks with other lawyers doing worthwhile things.
Yet the comments to her post struck me as chilling. Or perhaps perfectly fine. It was impossible to figure out, because they were directed toward rationalizing why all lawyers need to market. Though a false premise, it struck me that the reactions were disconnected to Carolyn’s point, that she markets by engagement in good, lawyerly causes, while the commenters seek to justify using nasty social media marketer’s gimmicks. Or maybe each commenter was talking about something different, since no one defined the term, marketing. Except for this fellow, whose handle seems to answer the question as to his definition. (Protip: Calling yourself “legal elite” doesn’t make you so; it does, however, make people laugh at you for being sad and pathetic.)
I had a nice chat with one of the good legal marketers. She told me that it’s embarrassing, how anyone can read a few insipid marketing blogs, get a copy of Seth Godin’s books, and open up shop as a marketer. It’s hard to speak at conferences, she said, when the audience is made up of former legal secretaries, disbarred lawyers or laundry detergent sellers. When they come up to you afterward and shower her with empty compliments, they don’t realize the appreciation of someone dumber than dirt, whose entire schtick consists of the most rudimentary grasp of marketing and a few well-worn gimmicks, doesn’t brighten her world, but rather makes her question why she wasted her time coming.
There are some good legal marketers out there. They won’t promise you what the marketeers will, as they know it doesn’t happen that way. Their efforts are neither easy nor quick. They aren’t cheap. And they don’t like the schemers and scammers, the scoundrels who pop up everywhere offering a magic bullet if only a lawyer doesn’t mind walking the boulevard in hotpants, any more than I do.
The good legal marketers don’t “put on airs” calling themselves marketing “professionals.” They are marketers, and damn proud of what they do. And the absolute last thing a good legal marketer will ever tell their client to do is demean themselves for a quick buck.
What they are not, and will never be, is a social media professional. This is a social media professional.
H/T Kevin O’Keefe
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To be a “professional”, don’t you need to have some kind of license, accrediting body, and governing body?
We just addressed this issue on UPL Committee. There are organizations claiming to “certify” paralegals, who may then call themselves professional paralegals. But the Supreme Court hasn’t given them accreditation, and there are no standards except for what a pro-profit agency deems to be appropriate. Why isn’t this approved of? Because paralegals aren’t “professionals” since they aren’t licensed or regulated by a governing body. This isn’t to say they don’t do excellent and important work, but they are not “professionals.”
In the same vein, how is a marketer a “professional”?
I’m not saying all marketers are bad, but a dentist is a professional. A doctor is a professional. A physical therapist, a veterinarian, a CPA, a lawyer, and a PE are professionals. They all have licenses through the state and are subject to regulation.
When we start using the title to describe everyone who does anything it loses its meaning.
Why didn’t I think of that?
To follow up my comments on Twitter – let me begin by saying I do believe there are traditional professions that require licensure – and should do. Doctors, lawyers and others – perform taks that require a sophisticated skill set – and should and do require licensure and oversight.
I do also believe the term “professional” – in the world of commerce – can and should be applied to those persons who may not fit within the traditional definition of professional – but who work in an area of speciality that – through their work and experience – renders them worthy of being called a professional. Apart from that – in a general sense – I believe it’s also a term one can construe as honorific. This is a broader view based on my belief that people who work hard, learn a trade or speciality, should as a matter of respect – be referred to as a professional if they wish to be and the marketplace in a general sense supports this opinion. For example – is a web developer or social media expert – who has devoted thousands of hours to studying the craft – applied his or her skills in a professional setting to assist clients – not a professional? In the strict sense of the term professional – no. But I believe in a less strict interpretation while at the same time acknowledging and agreeing that there are professions that do and should requires licensure. The New York Times ran an article last year about whether their should be a broader definition of journalist.
In the end – on the issue of licensed professions – yes I agree they exist and should require licensure. But from the standpoint of the world of general commerce and social interaction among people – referring to someone as a professional – even though they may not fit into the strict definitions of the term used traditional – is desirable as it acknowledges the expertise of those who may not be within the traditional professions recognized as requireing licensure and oversight.
Thanks, John. First, I note how much better your point is when you have the opportunity to flesh it out in a fully conceived though, rather than twits. While twitter is fun, it’s a horrible medium for expressing any but the most simplistic assertions, and is not only rarely good at persuasion, but often turns a thoughtful point into twitter gibberish. Now that I’ve had the opportunity to read your comment, I have a much better sense of your argument, and it’s certainly more persuasive than it appeared on twitter.
Ironically, marketing guru Seth Godin has a post on this very point today.
While your beliefs are persuasive, they are unconvincing. Words have meaning or we live in an Orwellian nightmare. There is the traditional definition of professional, one who practices a profession. There is a secondary definition, distinguishing vocation from avocation, the person who is paid to do something versus the amateur, such as athletes, but that definition doesn’t confuse playing football with being a physician.
Your argument strikes me as best summed up in your designating it as an honorific, short of the definition but deserved as a matter of experience and expertise. It’s a persuasive point. The problem with it is that there is no one, no acknowledged body, to confer that honorific. The “marketplace” doesn’t speak, agree, deliberate, determine, so there is no place one can go to to inquire whether the marketplace says someone is worthy of being called a professional or not. Moreover, the marketplace only judges by money, and while that’s a fine metric for commerce, it has no bearing on quality. As we both know, marketplace success has no inherent connection with the quality of a person’s services.
That leaves people to decide for themselves whether they should be given the honorific, professional. If it’s self-ascribed, it’s meaningless. Assuming the best of motives, anyone can decide they’re sufficiently skilled or experienced to be a professional in their own mind, regardless of what other think of them. Self-assessment is notoriously unreliable. Even if others, though lacking any authority to do so, agree that a person has great skill and experience, they lack any metric by which to judge. There is no means to ascertain the skill level of a marketer, or the length of experience that distinguishes the professional from the hack.
It’s interesting the you use the word “believe” to describe your position. There’s an old adage, priests believe, people feel, lawyers think. As a marketer, belief (like persuasion) is your stock in trade. There is no limit to your tolerance for ambiguity, as your world is comprised of vagaries. But words must have actual meaning or they have no meaning.
Few people give much thought to the meaning of words these days, and that’s what allows marketers to use them with reckless abandon to create impressions, senses, by stringing together warm and fuzzy words that ultimately lead to nothing more the terminally muddled thought. The government does it, having learned from marketers that people can’t be bothered to think much of anything through, and meaning of language has faded into fog. So to the extent that your argument probably comports with the way many people think, that words can have any meaning that kinda, sorta feels close, you make a persuasive case.
But to anyone who still believes that words have actual meaning, it fails to convince, not because it isn’t persuasive, but because it is substantively wrong.
Scott,
Thank you for that thoughtful response. It is a pleasure to engage in this type of discourse. Let me begin by saying that I do believe words have meaning. And I believe it strongly. My opinion on the subject of what constitutes a professional – which when placed underneath a microscope – is essentially almost equal to yours. I am a lawyer, having graduated from law school and become licensed to practice law almost 20 years ago now. I have never practiced. My first career desire was professional golf – but after that – it was diplomacy. The US foreign service. I did pass the foreign service exam – but was never chosen to join the foreign service. As well – I have spent a considerable amount of time in my career living and working overseas. Mostly on behalf of professional services providers – mostly lawyers – in a business development capacity. I think to put it succinctly – the reasons why I believe the term professional ought to be used more broadly – is that it can provide a gentleness to both personal and business discourse. As well – I am desirous of seeing non-traditional business roles ascribed the honorific of professional in (to use a legal term) a non-binding way – to provide those who do develop levels of expertise – recognition. With all that send – I suppose the next step would be – what alternatives might apply to those who have developed pronounced skill sets?
While I have made the brief case above that somewhat different life experience may have a tendency to almost by inertia lead a person (like myself) to lean toward the view I’ve taken. At the same time I believe I must acknowledge that yes indeed there is an object standard of the term professional. At the same time, I do take comfort in also saying that an honorific ascribed by people of good will to someone outside the professions but who has a demonstrated expertise – is sometimes a not unreasonable salutation. In a world where words have often lost meaning – I am much closer to your position. The distinctions I refer to above are very fine-line in terms of when and where they might appropriately be used. Thank you for the opportunity to present my thoughts. All the best, John
I share your concern that there ought to be more gentility in the discourse, which is unfortunately one of the forces that drive me to be as direct with marketers as I am. As long as people are nice, they can lie, cheat and steal with impunity, secure that if there aren’t mean lawyers like me calling them out, no one will do so.
Rather than be concerned with honorifics, I’m deeply disappointed that the good marketers don’t take up arms against the multitudes who have infiltrated the occupation, lied about their qualifications, promoted deception as the primary means of marketing and led lawyers in the race to the bottom. Instead of outing these scammers, the good ones play footsie with them in public and curse them in private.
In a better world, we would be less concerned about honorifics and more concerned about ridding the occupation of these scoundrels, liars and scammers, and putting an end to what these slimebags are doing to demean the legal profession. In a better world, marketers would have no need to call themselves “professionals” as the word marketer would no longer be considered a dirty word.
I can only speak to my own experience in legal business development. [Ed. note: All but first and last sentence of comment deleted as utterly irrelevant and shamelessly self-promotional.] That is the only legal business development environment I can speak to
This comment was very disappointing, and a slap in the face to thoughtful discussion. First, I note as an aside that instead of using the “reply to this” button, you’ve started a new comment. As someone who is supposed to be knowledgeable about social media, one would think you know how to comment on a blog. When you neglected to reply appropriately the first time, I chalked it up to an accident. As you’ve done it again, I’m constrained to believe that you may not be very savvy. Disappointing.
But far more disappointing is that instead of addressing the issue, you’ve chosen to give another dissertation all about you. You completely avoided the problem of why sleazy marketers are embraced by the legal marketing community, instead tried to spin it into a self-promotional opportunity. Seizing the opportunity to promote yourself, under these circumstances, is disgraceful.
And of course, it’s a complete lie. You attend and follow the marketing conferences. To claim you know nothing of sleazy marketing either brands you as an idiot or a liar. How convenient that you can only speak to yourself. How convenient that you know so much when it comes to your own expertise, but know absolutely nothing about your chosen field. How craftily you’ve absolved yourself of responsibility for the integrity of your occupation, and instead turned it into another chance to tout yourself. Except I’m not going to play this game, or allow you to play it here.
Here I thought we were having a thoughtful discussion, and you’ve tried, quite ineptly I might note, to turn it into a Grimley sleazefest, proving my point. I treat you with courtesy and this is how you repay me. And this is why marketers aren’t professionals, and why you, and our discussion, has ended up in the gutter. Very disappointing indeed.
Given your various excellent posts on the implosion of social marketing, you might be interested in this one:
Alexis Neely (the queen of pushy, annoying, “I will teach you how to run your practice” law marketers) appears to be filing for bankruptcy. That said, she’s still selling advice.
[Ed. Note: Link deleted per rules, and this is the only time you will be able to comment with a phony email address. Ain’t happening again.]
Poor, sad, pathetic Alexis. The bankruptcy is old news, along with her rather bizarre lifestyle and multitude of failed schemes to make money. It appears her failed efforts are being rekindled with the help of our good buddies at Avvo, who are promoting her by giving her a webinar, and Lawyerist who display her advertisements to “unsuck” your life.
Kinda funny that someone whose life is such a fiasco is offering to unsuck other people’s lives, but that’s a consistent theme in legal marketing, which lawyers would realize if they did any due diligence at all.