I had to let this one out on Twitter this morning, so I might as well blog about it. Most of my day yesterday was spent crafting a new website - legalvoices.com - with the concept of creating a public view of those in the legal industry posting to twitter. I’ve been sitting on the legalvoices.com domain for a while now, so it was primed for an appropriate experiment!

I created legalvoices.com for a couple reasons. For the non-users out there, it gives a brief insight into how the service works - a preview. It also has a what’s hot in the legal industry feel to it. Could be a novelty, could be insightful… who knows? but definitely worth 5 hours of my time.

And for the Twitter converts, it offers a filtered view of the most current commentary from those of us with a legal slant. The other aspect I considered, is that almost no one creates a follow list dictated by industry vertical. So it’s likely a perspective most twitter users would seldom replicate.

Finally, a big warning that the site is in “pre-alpha”. :) It may take a couple browser refreshes to see the conversation stream change. Unfortunately, with new follower email notices flying out via twitter, there really wasn’t a way to create this under wraps. So heed the warning, or blame twitter. ;)

Enjoy!

Have you heard of Twitter yet? Perhaps not. And hopefully not, as this post is intended to explain one of the latest web-tools on our collective horizon.

What you should know is this: Politicians in the current US election are levering it, news outlets like CNN & Canada’s CBC are offering headlines that can be mixed into your reading stream, and companies like Southwest airlines are using it to interact with customers & take feedback.

It’s widely considered the fastest growing tool of web influence, and will at some point have a trickle down effect for the legal industry.

Giving you a finite definition of Twitter is tricky. It’s use varies greatly, and depends a lot on the individual user. Technically, Twitter is considered a micro-blogging tool. It’s just like regular blogging, but with one significant rule change. After logging in, you are faced with the question “What are you doing?”, and just like a blog you can share exactly what you’re doing, feeling, thinking, reading - but all in less than 140 characters of entry space.

In terms of the options available for legal web marketing, Twitter - or micro-blogging tools generally - is the shortest method of discourse we’ve seen to date. If e-books & web-distribution of publications are at the longer discourse level, and regular blogs are sitting somewhere in the middle, then Twitter obviously at the far end (short-end?) of our continuum.

So what can you do in such a short space? Actually, quite a bit. Think: chat & discussion, link exchanges, debate, endorsement, or public critique. It’s a big dinner table conversation with peers that you get to choose. The format is also mobile friendly, which in my view, has had a substantial impact on the site’s growth.

With Twitter, like most forms of web marketing, the value is found in the big picture & the cumulative effect of using it as but one piece of the web-lawyer’s marketing toolbox. The selling point I regularly harp on - exposing one’s practice & expertise online - continues to have a big part to play, even though I don’t see Twitter as a replacement for the personal blog. Rather, when used together, the personal blog & twitter become a very powerful tandem.

The other point to get is this: Micro-blogging is as much akin to the discussion at the bar after the conference, as it is to seeing the presentation earlier in the day. Blogging success is predicated on having a strong social network (and please, when you hear SN, don’t think Facebook - think relationships!), and in turn, Twitter drives both interest in the ideas you write about, and extends exposure with an after-post discussion.

Putting my web marketer’s hat on for a moment, the value can also be seen in those exchanges leading to further blog-to-blog discussions, ensuing links, and ultimately, better rankings in the search engines because of authentic exchanges, information seeking behaviour, and discussion.

If you’ve looked at Twitter and just don’t get it? You’re not alone. Looking at any one author’s contributions, it’s tough not to call it drivel. The turning point for many is to recognize Twitter for what it truly is - pure personal reaction. That reaction can run the gamut, from academic & insightful, to casual & silly, and at times drivel.

However, I don’t think I’m alone in seeing marketing value in this type of personal reaction. At the very least for understanding & gauging reaction, and at the most, partaking in the process. Reaction is one of the most human elements possible within the online experience. That it exists, and is being documented, continues to have a huge impact for all types of marketing. Twitter is simply the latest example.

Some Quick Tips for Testing Twitter:

• First thing to do after signing up is to build a follow list.
• Check out the follow lists of of others. Chances are they already have done the work for you.
• Click on the follow button next to their profile picture, or at the top of their profile page.
• Can’t think of anyone? Feel free to follow me. I’m happy to reciprocate.
• Other legal-types on the twitter (b)leading edge: Kevin O’Keefe, David Lat, Carolyn Elefant, Dennis Kennedy, Brett Trout, Tom Mighell, Rick Klau, Connie Crosby, Simon Fodden, Denise Howell, Matt Homann, Rob Robinson, Grant Griffiths, Rob Hyndman, Doug Cornelius, Susan Cartier Liebel, and Rush Nigut, to name only a few.
• Use the @ symbol followed by the user name (as in @stevematthews) to respond to individual messages, or tweets.
• Smile and act like you’re having fun.

A quick note to mention our client JD Supra was featured in the New York Times this past Sunday.

The article, titled Lawyers Open Their File Cabinets for a Web Resource, also included a number of individuals from site’s growing community including Mitchell Matorin, Marc Stern, and Elena Garella. Keeping contributors front-and-centre has been a big part of the JD Supra approach, and often reflected by posts in the JD Scoop blog. … I was really happy to see that tone get carried forward in the story.

On a related note, I posted some thoughts yesterday on the benefits of work product sharing for legal consumers. Specifically, I cited:

• The ability to read these documents & become better informed;
• Increased reliability of documents where Lawyers take public ownership of them;
• Researching legal issues within a collection of vetted documents;
• Ability to identify a lawyer with rare experience (& not worth the lawyer’s effort to market);
• Ability to identify expertise by geographic region or practice area;

For the consumer, exposure to work product is valuable because it helps in making better decisions. It also offers a more complete digital picture of the lawyer in question. But the interesting part, and this is consistent with most forms of web marketing, is that this influence & judgement process takes place in the absence of the lawyer, and prior to the initial contact.

Think about this. Unlike giving a presentation, or a word-of-mouth referral, a significant portion of the sales process is taking place before the potential client engages - or even contacts - the lawyer. This is one of the fundamental differences in the way the web works. Great personalities don’t count unless the prospect picks up the phone or writes an email. And even the best web metrics software cannot tell you exactly how much consideration your services received.

The job of the legal web marketer is to see the many facets of this digital picture. To select pieces of the puzzle, evaluate the fit for the lawyer or firm, and then to frame-up an incredibly positive pre-contact image. Our job is also to increase exposure, but without a good accurate picture - we’re done.

My take: Sharing work product can be a big part of describing the multi-dimensional nature of legal practice. With other web offerings doing nothing more than commoditizing legal services ($139 incorporations?), sites like JD Supra should be embraced. Without a wide selection of digital tools to demonstrate the value of legal work… it’s a slippery slope, and a long way down. But that’s just my take. :)

Michelle Golden has a great post up on the process of gathering client testimonials. Process being the key word.

Reminds me that Stem Legal could use another round of testimonials. Now that we’re off the launch pad, the time has come to let some of our clients speak to our services. Note to self… :)

First up, the post title is just for fun. Read on, and I’ll try to explain.

Kevin O’Keefe’s got a post up about one of my favourite topics, the social side of blogging; which arose out of my 2nd Lexblog Q&A session (#1 was on SEO) published this past Friday. This time, the topic was Lawblogs.ca and the state of the Canadian legal blogosphere.

Now, I’m not sure I made the claim that Canadian legal bloggers were better at the social side of blogging, but I did state that it was something “we do well”. And mostly, I believe that to be true.

If you read through Kevin’s post, and follow-ups via Dan Hull and Scott Greenfield, you’ll see similarities. Lots of linking going on, and not much reciprocating discussion. I say discussion, and not reciprocal links, because you can’t fake this stuff. While links can be encouraged (some suggestions to follow), being authentic is equally important. It counts with readers, other bloggers, and especially perspective clients. And besides, as many experienced bloggers will tell you, it’s almost impossible to have a good blog-versation without linking!

My advice for creating a strong law blog presence has always been to mix authenticity with the social side (see my ‘you gotta say thanks post‘ for more thoughts). What do I mean by the social side? Mostly it’s about identifying your blog’s subject sphere(s) and regional position, and then creating tactics to connect with the appropriate communities - links, blog comments, trackbacks, blogrolls, private email, etc.

Going further, I decided to jot down a few thoughts, below, on what I think are important elements in becoming a good social blogger. Are they Canadian-esque? Sure. Why not?… :)

8 Tips on How to Blog Like a Hockey Loving Northerner:

1. Read & Track Your Peers - Get an RSS Reader, and create a reading list. You’ll never know the true power of blogging if you treat it like a firm newsletter. The more bloggers you read, the more comfortable you’ll be knowing, commenting, linking, and eventually emailing your peers. I recommend following blogs both within your region, and with common subject interests. And never limit your reading by geography. I’m proud to have as many blogging peers in the UK as I do in Canada and US markets. Within my first year of blogging, I had contacts on every continent around the world. Having a global network is always a worthy investment for the future!
2. Make A Blogging Buddy - Seriously, let’s call this ‘Step One’ in how to blog socially: Make a friend, and have their back. Track them closely, and whenever they post something notable, be sure to link them up! This only works if the other person gets it and reciprocates, but really, it’s just savvy blogging. Let me give you an example from my own experience - my blogging friendship with Connie Crosby. Connie knows if she’s got a post that needs extended play, all she needs to do is drop me a link via email. We don’t have a written pact, and we’ve never discussed this. Call it digital good will… or the golden rule with a blogger’s spin. :)
3. Cover Prior Blog Discussion Before Adding Your Commentary - This is just a good habit to get into. Run your blog topic through Google Blog Search or Technorati before adding your own take. Be sure to quote relevant portions of the available commentary, and always link to (cite) the other bloggers involved.
4. Welcome the New Guy! - It used to be… when someone new started blogging in your niche or region, and you’d write a ‘welcome to blogosphere’ post to help get them started. Simple acknowledgement. Perhaps the legal blogosphere is too big to do this now? That’s fine. But what about continuing this tradition on an intra-subject basis? or smaller regions? If the Canadian legal blogosphere is worth admiring, then perhaps each US State could adopt a similar approach?
5. Cite your Post’s Inspiration -or- Tip Your Hat Please! - How do I say this politely? [in Canadian? ;) ] If another person’s blog post inspires you to write, EVEN if you don’t quote them or mention them, it’s good blogging etiquette to type the words [hat tip] or [source], and link back to their post as acknowledgement. Why do it? Well, it’s nice; but it’s also evident to other blog readers/writers what you’ve done. People who read blogs often follow 30-50 other blogs on the exact same subject. … Honestly, It stands out like a sore thumb. Just don’t do it.
6. Link to Your Friends Business Homepage - While it’s great to link to your peer’s ideas, if you’re serious about building your personal network, nothing grabs attention like a link to their livelihood. Links are votes online, and helping a peer’s company rise up in the search results is a good will builder. (Are you sensing a ‘pay it forward’ theme yet?) And before I get comments about linking to one’s competitors… Yes, I believe it’s ok to do so, and yes, I believe the search engines reward it, if it supports the site’s subject relevancy. Still worried? Find your blogging friends out of state. :)
7. Personal Profile Linkage - Adding a link to someone’s personal profile webpage is a wonderful gesture because it helps them rank for their name in Google. Do you know how many Steve Matthews there are out there? Economics Prof, Former Pro Football player… it’s rough I tell you! rough!
8. Build, Build, Build that Network! - See tip number 2 (above). Close friends are key. And true, one blogging buddy isn’t going to cut it; but 500 facebook friends may not make an impact either. Online professional networks, in my opinion, are built around having a core group of strong close contacts. Identify your core group, and then seek strategies that a) get you closer, and b) expand the number trusted peers. Build it around subject expertise, or regional experience, but build it!

My latest article on lawyer branding & search-based reputation management is now online in this month’s CBA National magazine!

The article, titled Who do you think you are?, focuses mainly on the issues surrounding individual lawyer brands and how the evolve. The other topic I tried to address was how lawyers can be proactive with their web reputation; and how an enhanced profile can not only dominate in a search for your name, but also insulate against negative profile events.

And while we’re on that subject, let me explain that last idea a bit further.

Search engines (read Google) will only list a maximum of two pages for any one website on the first page of results. That means, even if you’ve published hundreds of articles on your law firm website, only the best two (in google’s eyes, not yours) can be listed on the first page of search results. Those other eight spots are still up for grabs!

When a lawyer (or any individual, for that matter) has a strong web profile, there are a lot more positive items in play - more pages written about, or referencing - that individual. So much so, that the first page of search results will become protected against casual negative references. Direct attacks? that’s another story… But a casual mention in a newspaper, blog post, or online document, will probably never get close to page-one.

I wouldn’t describe online reputation management as a high-priority topic for most lawyers, but do think the day is coming. It’s important.

Readers may also be interested in my thought leadership article over at Slaw. It formed some of the basis for the National article.

Many thanks to Jordan Furlong for the opportunity, and also his guidance in the article’s construction. It was a lot of fun (more?) to banter the subject prior to doing the actual writing! :)

Following up on yesterday’s JD Supra launch post, I’d like to illustrate how The Scoop portion of the site works. I don’t believe either of the following two stories have hit Google news yet, but both are supported by some of the latest legal filings under The Scoop:

• In re Dell, Inc. ERISA Litigation laintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - “The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York are investigating claims that Dell inflated financial results by engaging in improper revenue recognition and accounting practices. Dell began reducing sales and profit projections as the Company began missing its own revenue, earnings per share and unit sales growth targets, causing significant declines in its stock price.”
• Perfect 10 v Google (Amended) Opinion - “… While it leaves some questions open, the bottom line is that the Court upheld important policies of fair use and freedom online and resisted Perfect 10’s plea to put copyright owners completely in charge of how and when search engines and other online intermediaries can provide their users with links to images. EFF filed an amicus brief on behalf of Google to beat back Perfect 10’s overreaching copyright claims.”

Now I’m not a journalist, but can certainly imagine how the first document could turn into a story like “SEC Investigates Dell Accounting Practices“; or how a journalist could have fun with the second document, and publish “EFF Defends Google Too“, reflecting that Google isn’t always the bad guy when it comes to EFF support.

For lawyers & law firms, The Scoop is a real opportunity to work with the media. To get your court filings & decisions working on your behalf. And for investigative journalists looking for unique stories, it’s a great tool to monitor possible leads that are backed up with substance.

Sounds like a winning proposition for everyone. Right?

Stem Legal is proud to congratulate client JD Supra on today’s launch of their new website & accompanying blog - JD Scoop! JD Supra is a new website dedicated helping lawyers & law firms share legal documents, forms, pleadings, judgements, research, and other professional support materials.

As I wrote a few months back, I think JD Supra is going to stand out because of the site’s approach - there’s a definite collection mandate for the content & a targeted community of contributors. As a foundation for any website, that’s a huge starting point.

I also love this site’s ability to link a lawyer’s marketing presence back to substantive work product. It just makes sense. Not only does it create an incentive for sharing work product and a useful tool to help others, but it represents a qualification tool to measure professional experience. Whether you’re looking to hire a lawyer, or a member of the media needing a quote in a niche subject area, finding a lawyer who can backup their claim of expertise is important. Don’t just tell me you’ve got 20 years experience, show me your track record!

JD Supra enables that. And that’s unique.

The other aspect I’m really proud of is how the community is rounding out. The fact that both big firms and solos are seeing the value to participating. On one side we have larger firms like Morrison Foerster, Mintz Levin, Lane Powell and my former Canadian law firm Clark Wilson. And on the other side, great contributions from solos like Lisa Solomon, Doug Cornelius, Amy Becerra, Mitchell Matorin and Stem client Florida criminal lawyer Ron Chapman. Add in academics like John Hagan, interest groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Cato Institute, and you can just imagine the content mix we’re heading for.

So I offer my congratulations to the entire JD Supra team… Adrian Lurssen, Eliot Gersten, Larry Bodine, Brittanie Williams, the group at POP Interactive, and especially JD Supra’s founder Aviva Cuyler. I know everyone will continue to work hard on improving this website, especially in the coming days, but launch day is always a milestone. A time to celebrate… This site has a huge future ahead!

The February edition of my Web Law Connected column is now posted over on Slaw. In this month’s article, Closed Networks & The Problem with Facebook, I address some of my biggest concerns with social networks (or any web product for that matter) that attempt to exist in a vacuum.

This is a bit of a turn-around for me. I’ve always liked the potential of Facebook, and what it could potentially deliver for professional networking. And for the most part, I still see that potential. But, as it exists, with a distinct lack of content ownership for authors, and its data stores shut down to the rest of the Internet (including Google indexing), my opinion is definitely headed south.

Now, I’m not advocating that lawyers go and shut down their accounts. At least not yet. :) But I do think it’s time for everyone to ask the question: Is this the best use of my marketing time & effort?

Writing this article also pushed me to reconsider how I approach Facebook. I want to be investing my marketing time into public-facing web technologies, like blogging or micro-blogging, and specifically in tools where I maintain control over the original content. I will continue to import my content into the Facebook sytem - eg. automating the imports of blog posts or twitter exchanges. And I still see value in having a Facebook profile. The small amount of time it takes to manage FB relationships frankly isn’t prohibitive. But when it comes to drafting original commentary, or documenting anything important via their in-system messages, I’m afraid I’m out. That type of content must always be free for me to use, and at my whim.

You may have noticed all the new websites recently - LegalPubs.ca, Lawblogs.ca, the Clawbies. While mostly associated with the Canadian legal market, there’s also larger long-term goal in play here: to develop quality legal web content. This network will not remain entirely Canadian, and the number of websites will not stop at five. My goal for Stem is to expand this group of sites to 12 by the end of the first year of operations, in August/08.

So to that end, I offer a new page that defines Stem’s legal web publishing network.

It’s no secret that I have an open view to web publishing and advertising. I don’t care much for conceptual barriers when it comes to developing content online. Whether a concept evolves from me directly, working with a client, partnering, advertising, or integrated with SEO, the end purpose is the same. You must do something of substance to get noticed online (ie. the attention economy), and how that occurs really doesn’t matter.

These additions reflect my wider vision for Stem, and also how I believe web marketing will be done in the future. Word of mouth advertising can have a huge impact; and while I am contractually protected from having to endorse clients and their projects, it’s often very easy for me to do. Mostly because I am advising or developing with the client, rather than being an outside third party. When you’ve been working for months on a site, or developing a strategy for someone, supporting the end product with an endorsement isn’t unreasonable. It’s very natural.

I would also direct your attention to the Vancouver Law Librarian Blog which is now sporting Stem’s first featured client, BC Legislation service Quickscribe.

Is this advertising? Well, yes and no. While I am promoting Quickscribe’s services, my endorsement is based on months of talking strategy with Mike Pasta, Quickscribe’s President. And back in October when I blogged about Mike’s Legislative RSS product, I did so because I believe it’s world class!

Advertising? Endorsements? Marketing with quality content? Yes friends, the lines are blurring. It needs to be done with the audience’s interests in mind. But then again, good quality advertising is always in that realm, without offending anyone.

And again, it must always be backed with substance.

My second Web Law Connected column has just been posted over Slaw. The article, titled Top Five Digital Landmines for Lawyers, identifies five situations or events where the ‘online fallout’ can damage a lawyer’s personal brand in Google. In each of these reputation situations, undesirable information shows up prominently in Google when clients & potential clients are searching for a lawyer by name.

The events or situations I noted were:

1. The Newspaper Story Gone Awry
2. Blog Attacks
3. Having a Google Twin
4. The High Profile Court Case
5. The Person Web -vs - The Business Web

For a more detailed explanation, please link on over and read the article. :-)

Does the top-down expertise model still fit with our current fixation on the social web? That’s not an exact paraphrase, but an interesting tangent I’ve taken from Rex Hammock’s post today on the NPR’s music site. Rex says:

“…what I like about the new NPR service (and how it “compliments” those other services) is that it pulls together the “wisdom of experts” at some of the last, remaining bastions of full-time, professional musicology: public radio stations.”

This got me thinking in two directions. First, that this was a great illustration of how valuable it can be when a trusted expert recommends something. The web community is all aflutter these days on the ‘wisdom of crowds’, web 2.0, and the democratizing element of (non-techie) individual participation. And for the most part, I’m in the middle of all that. But one thing I’ve often thought missing is a connection to the concept of authority. Web communities enable us to connect and communicate within groups, to discover new people, and find new content. But ultimately, all that discovery needs to lead somewhere. And with time often being a finite commodity, along the way each of us must decide who we trust.

The web offers a lot of innovation these days, but the mileage for recognized ‘experts’ can vary. As an example, let’s compare the pure community approach of Wikipedia, to Cornell’s legal wiki Wex. Both are great sources, but at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to leveraging expertise. While Wikipedia is open to the world, and relies on its massive user community to fact check and create authority, Wex had no illusion of becoming authoritative using the same model. Instead, Wex’s approach of getting experts to apply and qualify themselves before contributing has allowed them to create an equally authoritative tool, albeit on a smaller topic. What Wex lacks in quantity (of contributors), it more than makes up with quality.

My second thought here, is on the opportunity the web affords those who take their expertise in a very narrow direction. In the legal community, there’s a bit of a land grab going on right now. Lots of lawyers setting up blogs, or attempting to digitally carve out their areas of expertise. But what often gets overlooked is how narrow one’s area of practice can possibly go. I look at Bill Marler’s online presence, and have to think we’ve only seen the beginning.

What does all this mean to lawyers? My response would be the same to anyone selling services & branding their authority online. We shouldn’t assume that being an expert has stopped working in a web 2.0 world. Keep looking for ways to expose these individuals (names & faces - same as before) in any website you build, or any community they participate in. By the same notion, don’t assume that being an expert offline will be an easy transition to recreating that same authority on the web. The land-grab mentioned above is still in play, and leading experts everywhere need to be proactive. Finally, expect our codification of expertise to continue to be all over the map — books, papers, blogs, micro-blogging, link-blogging, audio, video — it’s not slowing down any time soon. Manage the ‘mix’ of longer-vs-shorter discourse, and make sure the off-line and on-line elements are working together.

One of the new features on Slaw (the Canadian co-op blog on law, technology and research) is a revolving set of weekly articles. The idea is to engage some of the regulars (and some new blood) to go beyond our usual blogging exchanges and craft something a bit more substantial.

This week it’s my turn… I’m kicking off a series titled Web Law Connected, with the first article addressing Thought Leadership and the building of online expertise within the legal profession.

Future articles in this series will tackle the subjects of legal web brands, finding the business development spin to new web technologies, and connecting online exposure to lead creation & sales. Basically more of the stuff I’m working on here at Stem. :-)

Expect some catch-up blogging this week on my part. Now that the PLTC conference and a couple of projects are winding down, I’m due.

Search Engines are still a big part of the digital lifestyle. With all the talk of blogs, wikis and social networks these days, it’s easy to lose sight that very few web applications have the ongoing impact of online searching. And in living that digital lifestyle, I feel pretty confident to say that most everyone who reads this post will have been exposed to their handy work - that of Search Marketers.

Search marketing goes by two primary names (and acronyms): search engine optimization (SEO) and search engine marketing (SEM). Name wise, I’m not that particular which people use. Personally, I tend to stick with the original ‘SEO’ term. Mostly because that’s the term I learned first, and because the industry has never fully removed the term from its vocabulary.

The Question of Credibility

While every industry has image problems, if you do any investigation at all you will find SEO has more than most. Often accused of gaming the search results, or facing ethical questions regarding their strategies & techniques (See: white hat vs black hat), it’s very easy to overlook the core purpose to their business - to help match content to its appropriate audience. And for a law firm’s online presence, I consider this to be fundamental.

If you want to expose your firm’s content, it is not enough to simply build webpages and hope for the best. You must employ a strategy to get your chosen content in front of its target audience. In-house newsletters, email marketing, content syndication, etc. are all wonderful pieces to your marketing puzzle, but are more effective at marketing to existing clients.

Extending Legal Brands via SEO

If firms wish to stretch out their online branding efforts - for whatever reasoning they choose - they must expose their content to new audiences. And to that end, the search engines continue to be a the number one tool available to drive new readership.

The reasons why a law firm would employ an SEO strategy are numerous. Off the top of my head, I can think of a number of possible scenarios:

1. The firm is looking to increase exposure for a new office in a regional market;
2. Lawyer profile pages aren’t ranking for their areas of practice expertise;
3. The firm is a market leader and sees a top search ranking as a ‘must have’;
4. The firm wishes to increase market share for lucrative or high-margin area of practice;
5. A competitive regional practice, where service pages are buried beyond the second page of search results;
6. The firm has a new or innovative service offering, and seeks the first strike advantage;
7. The firm is a boutique practice without geographic boundaries, and simply needs a top-10 listing to turn volume;

We could probably push this list a lot further, but no need. The reasoning behind ‘why do firms do SEO’ isn’t nearly as commanding as the equation of supply & demand. The difficult truth is that there are only so many ranked positions available: 10, in fact. Maybe 20.

There’s also the fact of diminished returns within those results. The top position for some search phrases can be the equivalent of having the only full-page advertisement in the yellow pages . Reports have shown the top search position to receive as many as 42% of the available clicks. On the bottom side of that comparison, rankings between position #11 and #100 will share as few as 11% of the clicks available. Suffice to say, ranking on that first page is more than a desirable. If firms wish to use Search as a marketing tool, chances are those first page results are going to be a must have.

SEO is a topic that I will be posting more on in the future. It’s a topic that, especially within the legal realm, deserves to be known for more than hucksters and gaming of the search engines. For the past 10+ years I’ve worked on various strategies to get content & brands in front of web audiences. It’s important in any type of marketing to engage new target audiences, and especially over the web, SEO is a great method to do just that.

I’d like to pass along a white paper that was sent to me (Thanks Connie!) titled Tracking the Influence (PDF download). It was written by Jeremiah Owyang of PodTech and Matt Toll of Factiva, and discusses various aspects of social media measurement. It offers a great overview, and properly identifies the importance of both the reach and influence of web conversations.

If your time is limited, I suggest starting on page 6 at the section titled ‘The Attributes‘.  It’s these aspects, in my view, that really need to be accounted for. Raw metrics like ‘link counts’ and  ’Technorati rankings’ are important, but the ability to look deeper and identify the audience is when we really get into something powerful.

Like other businesses, law firms are now entering market discussions. It makes little sense to engage tactics like blogs and social networking without a strategy to measure the end result of those efforts.  And no different than any other part of law firm management - it’s always worth measuring.

If I can pay a compliment to the writers, I would say this is the type of written product I can see in Stem’s future; with my own legal market spin of course. :-)  I’m also adding Jeremiah’s feed into my reader. Thanks guys!