Archive for April, 2010

Stem Client Roundup for April 2010

No Comments

It’s been another busy month for Stem’s clients. Here are some of the notable highlights:

We’ll be back next month to share more client happenings, honours and events.

Latest Additions to LawBlogs.ca

No Comments

Here’s a roundup of the latest additions to LawBlogs.ca:

As always, if you know of one we’re missing, please drop us a line!

Building Effective Legal FAQ Collections

No Comments

An article on A List Apart recently caught our attention here at Stem.  R. Stephen Gracey’s post Infrequently Asked Questions of FAQs wonders whether FAQ sections on websites actually work. While he acknowledges their popularity, he’s got a beef with them because they rarely answer the questions he actually has.

Gracey’s post offers some solid advice for good FAQs, including:

  • don’t patronize/talk down to the visitor.
  • Don’t include FAQs just for the sake of including FAQs.
  • Keep them short & sweet.
  • And most importantly, use real FAQs: questions people actually ask.

The post also quotes Jakob Neilson, who says “Too many websites have FAQs that list questions the company wished users would ask.”  Gracey concludes that ideally, if there are in fact legitimate questions that your users frequently asked, you shouldn’t just default to dumping them into an FAQ:

“FAQs are ubiquitous and familiar and occasionally helpful. They have a place in your content strategy, but use them carefully: if your users are asking the same questions frequently, consider how you can improve your content before reaching for a FAQ.”

At Stem, we’ve helped several clients develop custom FAQ collections [see: Ron Chapman's Florida Criminal Records FAQ, or Jonathan Rosenfeld's Bed Sore FAQ], and we agree with the majority of Gracey’s advice.  It’s important not to view FAQ collections as thinly-veiled sales pitches;  but rather an opportunity for lawyers to establish themselves and their knowledge in a professional manner.

Gracey’s advice is also somewhat distinguishable: the FAQs he refers to are likely from companies selling products and services.  The legal industry also sells service, but it’s the intangible product, expertise, that the user is really after.  The fact that most complex questions can’t be fully articulated in an FAQ item, or a blog post for that matter, helps make it a formidable style of content marketing.  And like other forms of content, there is a challenge: you must deliver enough quality information within the FAQ items to draw follow-up email questions and inbound links. Failing to do so, by the same measure, won’t have the marketing impact that most desire.

Some of the tasks and suggestions we’ve ‘tested’ when developing legal FAQ collections have included:

  • Asking lawyers to put themselves in the potential client’s shoes.  What issues keep them up at night? What key industry changes are on the horizon?
  • To that end, we’ve often assembled question collections (answers redacted) from other FAQs on the same subject (including non-legal collections, which often prove very valuable) and presented those questions as a starting point.
  • Asking lawyers what questions they find themselves answering again and again?
  • And related, encouraging them to keep a running list for future updates to the collection.
  • Encouraging lawyers to give away their knowledge on topics they could never justify billing for.  Even the most basic questions (coming from the right client) can require a time investment. Similar to forwarding an ‘introductory article’ on a topic, an on-point legal FAQ can describe an issue in short order.  The fact it serves as online marketing collateral means your content is multitasking.
  • Finding non-lawyer experts to help formulate potential questions. These individuals are often available either in-house (especially with boutique firms), or by tapping into the lawyer’s industry-oriented business relationships.
  • Execute keyword and other web-based research to find out what topics are being searched for by the target audience. We tend to run keyword volume reports for any online publishing initiative.

We also encourage lawyers to stay away from the types of questions Gracey and Neilson dislike: questions lawyers wish their clients would ask. These include strictly self-serving questions like “Why should I hire you as my lawyer?” and “What can your firm offer me that others can’t?”

Of course, we can’t forget the money question: Where’s the value? Going beyond FAQs as an opportunity to show off lawyer expertise,  FAQ collections are a solid tactic to publish in a meaningful way.  When a collection stands alone, it can become a valuable addition to the lawyer’s group of web properties.  It also helps the lawyer become better aligned with the subject matter they most want to become associated with.  Especially for lawyers with a niche or boutique practice, content depth online can’t be underestimated. From an SEO point of view, this depth not only addresses the long-tail type searches, but over time, will help create the authority and trust qualities that are so important for competitive search terms.

Finally, I’d like to address the strong relationship legal FAQ collections can have with law blogs.  Consider the interplay, and how FAQs can:

  • serve as a starting point for a blog discussion, without re-hashing factual details,
  • act as a ‘best of’ collection for a blogger’s most important posts or an important sub-topic collection, or
  • help remove non-opinion based posts from a lawyer’s blog.

FAQ collections do require maintenance, and ideally, authors are adding new Q&A sets as part of their publishing routine.  For those who just can’t see themselves blogging,  FAQs might also prove a viable alternative.  The overall time commitment is about the same, but FAQs can be less opinion-driven, and don’t have constant issue of post currency.  Those issues aside, I can’t imagine not pairing an FAQ collection together with a lawyer blog – the combined value, IMO, is worth more than the solo publishing efforts.

Many thanks to my colleague Emma Durand-Wood who’s helped me hash through these issues and co-draft this post. We both think  Legal FAQ collections are a publishing tool with room to evolve.  In the future, we’ll explore this topic in more depth, along with tactics for publishing and distribution.

Twitter for law firms

9 Comments

Following on my last post, which looked at the uses of Facebook for law firms, I thought I’d review the uses of Twitter in the law firm context. As before, I’m going to focus less on the benefits that Twitter can deliver to individual lawyers (which I’ve covered a couple of times at Law21) than on the best ways that law firms as corporate entities can utilize this social media tool.

It’s easy to use Twitter poorly, something millions of users demonstrate every day by updating their followers about what they’re doing, thinking or feeling at any given moment. There are extremely few people whose opinions and emotions are so compelling and central to the public good that we should hang on every character (up to 140) in which they’re detailed. The interest and utility of a Twitter account can be measured inverse to its focus on the Twitterer himself or herself. A good Twitter account talks about and links to things that matter to its readers, the same as a good blog or a good newspaper does; a lousy one assumes that the reason you’re following it is because you’re deeply, intimately interested in what the Twitterer is, says or does.

Law firms, unfortunately, are doing a lousy job with Twitter, every day, in growing numbers. I’ve reviewed dozens of law firm Twitter accounts, some owned by global giants and some by midsize or smaller operations, and in almost every instance I’ve come away shaking my head. Here’s what a typical law firm Twitter account contains:

  • copied-and-pasted headlines from the firm’s press releases, with a link thereto;
  • copied-and-pasted headlines from the firm’s newsletters or blogs, with a link thereto;
  • news that a lawyer at the firm has appeared in a media outlet, with a link thereto;
  • news that a lawyer at the firm has received an award or designation, with a link thereto;
  • news that the firm has successfully completed a client engagement, with a link thereto.

The firm’s Twitter feed is essentially a 140-character encapsulation and rebroadcast of its Media Page — and as a former member of the journalistic cabal, I can tell you that the Media Page is generally the most useless page on a law firm website, even (especially) for the media. These Twitter feeds assume that you, the reader, care exclusively about what the law firm and its lawyers are doing or saying. Even the happiest and most satisfied law firm client, though, would probably not derive much value out of a channel that features exactly one program, 24/7.

These firms aren’t setting out to appear narcissistic and self-aggrandizing on purpose, even though that’s often the effect. What these results often reflect is the firms’ confusion about exactly what their Twitter feeds are supposed to be doing — why their firms are on Twitter at all. That’s understandable, because Twitter is so new and is still evolving, and most firms aren’t yet equipped to cope with online social media anyway. But it’s still no reason to Twitter incessantly about oneself — or, as a few of the largest law firms in Canada and the U.S. are doing, to create a Twitter account and leave it completely blank.

A good law firm Twitter feed keeps two things in mind: (1) it’s all about the clients, and (2) it’s not all about the firm. Updates deliver breaking news of interest to the firm’s clientele, or provide links to reports of interest and importance to clients’ industries, or spread the word about upcoming events and opportunities that could deliver value to clients. They RT (re-”tweet” — I’ll only use that verb in quotation marks) good updates from other Twitter accounts, ensuring that all the links in such RTs are valid and respectable. They follow the feeds of other Twitter users they like, and of the clients and potential clients they hope (but are certainly not entitled to expect) will follow them back

Here what’s critically important: not all of the reports and events that appear in a firm’s Twitter stream need to be (or should be) firm-sponsored or firm-delivered. If you restrict your links to firm news and events, you’re doing two things: you’re drastically restricting the scope and value of your Twitter feed to your readers, and you’re pretending that your clients live in a hermetically sealed environment where they don’t know about, can’t get, and wouldn’t want to hear about anything other than Wonderful You. That’s not how the world works.

More importantly, it’s not how social media works either. The open exchange of news, ideas, opinions and insights, conducted freely in order to share value and deepen knowledge, is at the heart of systems like Twitter. If something is good, you spread the word about it, regardless of where it came from, because your goal is that those who listen to you are enriched for doing so. So if there’s something in the Globe & Mail or the Washington Post or The Guardian that your desired reader base would be interested in, share it and link to it. The same applies to particular accounts on Twitter that consistently deliver value: share them and link to them. The same applies, dare I say it, to your competitors: if a rival firm has a really incisive analysis of new legislation, think long and hard before deciding that your readers, your clients, and your potential clients don’t need to know about it. Think of what that says about you and the confidence you have in your own work.

Yes, there should always be updates in a firm’s Twitter feed that link to what the firm itself is saying or doing; a law firm is not a disinterested publishing house. But these should be the exceptions more than the rule — the change-of-pace, the commercial breaks in between the regular programming. And they should be marked as such: a firm-centric Twitter update should be prefaced with something like “New at [firm name]:”, so that the reader instantly knows that he or she is being referred to the firm’s own site, not somewhere else. The overall effect is that the Twitter feed is a micro-publishing entity, one driven by the interests of the audience but “brought to you by” the law firm. That’s a publishing and broadcasting model people recognize and understand.

As with Facebook, there are rare instances of firms that use Twitter well; they tend to be smaller firms that specialize in particular areas of law. Simmons Law Firm of Illinois links to news stories, reports and fundraisers that will interest people concerned with mesothelioma and asbestos. Texas family law and civil litigation firm Patel & Warren provides links from all over and, in a nice touch, Twittered last December that its firm was closing early due to bad weather. Ontario IP firm Ridout & Maybee has a pretty good mix of its own work and links to useful and sometimes just plain interesting content elsewhere. I haven’t seen any large firm Twitter feeds I could recommend, but in fairness, when your client base is essentially “everyone,” it’s difficult to have a coherent editorial strategy for your social media communications. The big-firm practice groups I’ve seen on Twitter, though, could do better.

As I say, it’s still early days yet for Twitter and especially for law firm ventures into this still-evolving space. I’ve yet to see a law firm break out and become a trailblazer on Twitter, in terms of setting a new standard for law firm Twitter use that changes the way we all think about this new medium. There’s no reason, as of right now, that your firm can’t be the one that does it.

Copyright © 2007 - 2010 Stem Legal Web Enterprises Inc. | Law Firm Web Strategy | 'Building Web Profile for the Legal Industry'