Theory: Reputation and Exposure

So there are two things a lawyer marketing herself online can seek: reputation and exposure. The two are not tethered: one can have any reputation, from terrible to terrific, in any sphere. Is it better for a lawyer to have a good reputation in a narrow sphere, or a poor reputation in a wide sphere?

Exposure is what the marketers, SEO gamers, and other self-styled experts, ninjas, and gurus are selling, with their empty promises of high search-engine placement. There are precious few who will assist you in building your reputation.

Why? Because online reputation-building requires that the customer do something more than write a fat check. It requires that he have a good reputation offline, that he be a competent communicator, and that he work hard. And if the customer has, is, and does these things he has little reason to write a fat check to some expert.

So you get these experts who want to make an easy buck off lawyers who want to develop their online presence. They can't do it by selling reputation (nobody can sell you a reputation) so they sell exposure.

The problem is, you see, that often exposure is inimical to reputation. Take the marketer—Sparta Townson, for example (previous SMT post)—who spams blog comments in the name of her clients. In theory (debunked theory, but theory nonetheless) she is increasing their exposure by "link-building," but the reputational harm she could cause in the process, when the bloggers take umbrage and name the customers, is tremendous.

Broadly speaking, online reputation is what people find when they google your name; online exposure is how likely you are to be found otherwise. If your reputation is bad, you don't want people finding you online. Tend to your reputation first.

Theory and SEO

[7/20/10 edits in red.]

Assuming that I haven't missed something completely, which, naturally, I have . . .

Humans communicate for fivesix reasons:

• To educate;
• To entertain;
• To persuade;
• To inspire;
  
• To attract; and
• To deceive.

Any discrete communication might serve one or more of these purposes. For example, with this sentence I aim to educate and to persuade.

Examples of communications intended to attract are Read the rest of this entry »

Who Makes the Rules of Social Media?

Jamie Spencer wrote a post about Sparta Townson, Internet Guru Girl; as of right now it comes up fifth on a search for her name (after her WordPress.com blog, her LinkedIn page, and her Twitter page). 

I wrote about Sparta Townson at Defending People as well, in the context of the marketing services she is trying to sell, as did Ken at Popehat.

Aside from the reputational questions for the lawyers who are Townson's target market, The story has interesting angles in the realm of pure social media, which belong here at SMT rather than Defending People. Read the rest of this entry »

Five Lawyers Trading on the Death of an Innocent

I invite the following lawyers:

The Law Offices of Eric Strand
West Chester, PA

Law Office of Henry S. Hilles, III
Norristown, PA

to explain how it is okay to use a dead nine-year-old child to advertise legal services. Like Sassower, Chase, and Kahn (who are also invited to explain), Strand, Beck, Petersen, Hark, and Hilles are paying FindLaw to market them through dreckbloggen.

We didn’t know? You know now. What have you done about it?

We didn’t ask FindLaw to do this? Not explicitly, but you paid them to.

We trusted FindLaw?

Outsource your marketing, outsource your reputation.

New Blog Today

Avvo Pimp, about what I call answhores—lawyers like Alan Brinkmeier who answer questions on Avvo Answers without regard to whether those questions relate to their area of practice, their state, or even their knowledge.

Bloggers’ Best Cancelled for Lack of Interest

Thanks to South Carolina criminal defense lawyers Bobby Frederick and Johnny Gardner for participating.

We get the blogosphere we deserve.

What Avvo Answers Are Good For

I thought of a good use for Avvo’s questions today.

If you needed a regular source of ideas for blog posts, you could subscribe to Avvo’s questions in your field and answer them on the blog. Lots of the questions aren’t worth answering, but there are at least a couple a week that might make for interesting blog posts.

For example, here are today’s Texas criminal law questions from Avvo Answers:

• In Texas if someone steals and doesn’t get caught but someone wants to turn them in that saw what will happen?[Probably nothing.]
• I heard that the Minimum mandatory stay in Federal Prison was being reduced to 65%. Is that true, and when will that come in fo [No. It's a perennial myth.]
• When the prosecutor’s office receive new information that is exculpatory, what is their role? [To reveal it to the defense.]
• I need a pro bono criminal lawyer to handle a case for my 18 year old son, who is being set up. He is worried about not graduate[Good luck.]
• I took the blame for a friends theft of $230. Can I still get in trouble for ratting him out? [Probably.]

At least four out of those five questions might make for informative blog posts. No effort would be required to choose a topic for a post; all you would have to do is research and answer the question. Voilà, instant blog framework, leading to the production of on-subject content.

As a bonus, by answering on your own blog you don’t have to deal with the answhores.

I Think Barnum Underestimated

Kashonia spent AU$12,000 to travel from Australia to the U.S. to attend a workshop called Experience the Reality of Success. Then she got upset because of the presenter’s “total misrepresentation of his workshop. . . . In ‘reality’ we all experienced the reality of begging, not the promised reality of vibrational manifestation.“

Kashonia wants her money back. Because “whilst it’s true that we did start with nothing, what we did was to go out on the streets and beg for money. That was the way we were to “manifest” the money.  There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between vibrationally manifesting money and begging for money on the streets.” Yes, the rubes who had paid to go to this workshop were actually sent out onto the streets of Las Vegas to ask strangers for money.

Hmmm. You cause your vocal cords to vibrate and form the words, “please give me money”; a stranger gives you money. That sounds like vibrational manifestation of money to me.

But, hey, I live in the real world, where people work for a living. I’m not a mental health professional, so I can’t say for sure that she’s batshit insane/ Instead, I’ll just say that she is living in a different world. Kashonia’s long post reveals how clueless the greedy can be in their search for money for nothing. Her greed seems pretty benign—hapless rather than avaricious—but someone who spends 12 grand to learn how to “vibrationally manifest[] money”:

1. Is well-advised to always set off the word “reality” with doubt quotes;
2. Will always be an easy mark for a conman; and
3. Has no right to complain when someone else gets money from her for nothing.

Do as I Say, Not as I Do?

Miami criminal defense lawyer Brian Tannebaum has some questions for self-proclaimed social media expert Adrian Dayton. Brian latches on to some inconsistencies between the things that Adrian says about himself on his website and the record elsewhere on the internet, as well as inconsistencies between the things that Adrian says about himself on his website and what Brian sees as reality:

How can a member of the Bar, with a straight face describe themselves as a rainmaker and an “experienced corporate attorney” with 8 months experience, 2 of which there was no work? And in those first 8 months was he an integral part of one $450 million dollar merger, or was it several $450 million dollar mergers? Which bio is true? Exactly what role did he play and what relevance does it have to teaching lawyers to use twitter? Was he using twitter before the merger? Did twitter get him the merger client? Someone, anyone?

I describe Adrian as a self-proclaimed social media expert, but is there any other sort? Michigan law student Justinian Lane suggests applying the Daubert test to social-media “experts”:

If people are going to not only sell themselves as experts, but try and sell themselves as experts to lawyers, isn’t it fair to expect them to undergo the same scrutiny you’d subject an expert to in a lawsuit?  I know that many of you are probably a little intimidated about social media and technology in general.  So I’ll tell you what: If you’ve got a question or two about social media, shoot me an email.  I am not an expert!  But I’ve been blogging since 2003 and I probably know enough to prevent you from wasting money on someone who hopes to exploit your ignorance.

Justinian lists eight generally-accepted principles of social media (“If any expert disagrees with these principles, he not only would fail Daubert, but fails at the Internet”). The inconsistencies Brian finds in Adrian’s online persona suggest that Adrian doesn’t subscribe to the first of those principles:

Be honest about yourself and your experience.

If someone selling social-media marketing can’t tell his own story truthfully and coherently, why would you pay him to tell yours?

The Twitter Interesting Index

Twitter Interesting Index Calculator v1. “More followers = better” is a delusion. In truth, more interesting = better.

Look for v2, coming soon.