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.

I’m going to break a personal rule today. I don’t normally reproduce entire blog posts, but this is a situation where I was the original source of the content, and I really like what the exchange says. So I’ll make an exception. :)

Quoted below is a Q&A session published this past Friday by Lexblog’s Rob La Gatta. It’s fairly concise, but I think it reveals a lot about my personal approach to law firm SEO — what it is; qualifying an SEO to help sell professional services; why good SEO is often misunderstood; and why blog commentary can be an important piece to the puzzle.

1. Rob La Gatta: In layman’s terms, what is the purpose of search engine optimization?

Steve Matthews: Keeping this as jargon free as possible, I would say ‘SEO’ or search engine optimization is about using search engines like Google to expose ’something’ to the right audience. When it comes to marketing professional services, that ’something’ can refer to the firm brand, a service line, a lawyer’s individual profile, articles & content, or some combination thereof.

Firms that employ an SEO strategy build a portfolio of search terms targeted around their subject or service expertise. Those firms know exactly which phrases are being searched for because they utilize keyword research tools. Pages are selected as ‘landing pages’ for particular keyword combinations, and then optimized to rank well. And to rank well, pages must be properly coded to reflect the subject of choice, and more importantly, be cited - via links - from other web pages on that same topic.

2. Rob La Gatta: As the Internet expands and the value of high search rankings becomes more apparent, it seems like there are a lot of so-called “SEO specialists” coming out of the woodwork. How can someone tell whether an SEO consultant is legitimate?

Steve Matthews: I would start with a cursory review of their work. Ask to see a comparable client in a different market, and see how their site ranks. While requests for client confidentiality do occur, most professionals should be able to give samples of their work.

I would also listen to their proposed strategies, and specifically how they intend to acquire links to your website. Remember, your site will be evaluated by the company you keep. I would also make sure they understand marketing professional services, and have experience beyond product-based search marketing.

The difficult part of the evaluation will be telling if the practitioner has the skill to rank for highly competitive search phrases. I would ask to see some of their top results for two word search phrases. Rankings gets increasingly difficult as the number of words in the search decreases. If he or she can hit a top-10 rankings for two word searches (and preferably two words that combine for a recognizable phrase), that would be a good sign they are capable to building your firm a ‘portfolio’ of three word searches.

One last hint: if you’re not sure which searches are competitive, have a look at the number of accompanying advertisements or ’sponsored links’ on the right hand side of the page. Paid results almost always correspond with desirable, and usually competitive, search terms.

3. Rob La Gatta: What would you say is the biggest misconception people have about SEO and its purpose?

Steve Matthews: One of the biggest misconceptions I come across is the belief that SEO is somehow based upon programming tricks. I routinely run into people who believe that SEO is no more than stuffing keywords into the meta tags or title tags, or that if you *gasp* stuff keywords into your marketing copy you’ll get to the top of search results.

My take is that a successful search strategy can be broken down into: 30% on-page factors, and 70% off-page factors. It’s much more important to have a quality network of links coming into your website than to let someone alter your message. And when you do hit those top rankings, it’s the pages with quality copy that will convert to leads.

Here are the facts: Marketing copy should be drafted for its intended audience, and always be natural. A good SEO should be able to work with clean copy and make it rank. That doesn’t mean that on-page factors aren’t important - as an example, well designed title tags are very important - but a good rule of thumb in my books is that SEO should never trump exposing your firm brand or alter your marketing copy.

4. Rob La Gatta: I’ve read that blogs naturally perform better in search engines than static websites. Do you believe this is true? If so, why?

Steve Matthews: Not to be picky, but we must compare apples to apples here.

Blog software is classed as a Content Management System, or “CMS”, and most modern CMS products already have the on-page SEO factors baked into their product. If we’re talking about hand-coding static web pages, then yes, a developer could overlook some of the basics - which would make it seem like blogging software has an advantage. But otherwise, most web designers will employ a CMS, and these products can compete with blog software.

The practice of blogging, however, does bring a number of attributes to the table that are unique.

First of all, blogs are content based marketing, and the breadth of content that a blog can deliver is very powerful. What many people are calling the long tail, blogs allow an author to cast a very wide net around their subject of expertise. And it’s this ever-growing body of work that gets indexed within the search engines.

Situated properly, a professional blog can build individual lawyer’s profile, and work as a more casual lead-in tool for the firm’s website, which is geared more toward services, expertise and experience. In other words, get to know the lawyer in question, and then decide if that person is qualified. Even with SEO, you must consider the entire online decision making process.

The second SEO factor I’ll note is the number of trusted citations that blogs produce. Lawyers need to understand that links are the currency of the web, and that blogs are not just a publication opportunity. If they were, why wouldn’t you just convert all your newsletters into blog software? It doesn’t work. It’s only when blog authors engage the social side of blogging, and begin to link out to other bloggers (who eventually reciprocate) that blogs begin to have a dominant effect on the search results.

A big thank-you to both Rob La Gatta and Kevin O’Keefe at Lexblog for this opportunity! The Lexblog Q&A series is very distinguished company, and I feel very lucky to have been included.

Following up on a Stem news item I just posted, I’d like to offer a blogging welcome to Florida criminal lawyer Ron Chapman. Ron became a Stem client just after Christmas, and we’ve been slowly retooling some of the aspects of his blog & website.

Here’s a short snippet about Ron’s practice:

About Ronald Chapman, P.A.: Since 1990, Mr. Chapman’s law firm has represented those who have been accused of committing crimes in both State and Federal Courts within the State of Florida. Mr. Chapman is a sole practitioner whose service areas include violent crimes, DUI offenses, drug offenses, domestic violence, Sentencing & Appeals and criminal records services.

Ron is also new law blogger, and a Lexblog customer. One of the big challenges we’re going to tackle is how to mix traditional law firm website features with blogging and providing legal commentary. And to that end, I think what we’re doing is somewhat unique. Working within the lexblog platform, we’re trying to integrate some of the traditional service-based website features, but, still use the blog as the public front-end of the website.

As an example, one of the first things we’ve done is to ‘beef up’ Ron’s service pages. Why? Well, blog commentary is great, but you still need to explain to people what services you offer. These pages aren’t yet exhaustive in describing Ron’s practice, but it’s a start.

How successful will we be? Hard to say at this point, but I’ve got high hopes. We’ll be using the same techniques as I did with the Stem site. You see, not only is this blog running off blog software, but Stem’s principle website is too - entirely built on Wordpress. This time, we’ll be using Lexblog’s platform, and hopefully in a month or two, we’ll have Ron’s phone ringing off the hook. :)

So a big welcome to Ron! And thanks for agreeing to be a case study.

Update: I’ve added some related thoughts to this post over at the VLLB.

Taking a break from web strategy content here, I’d like to highlight a couple of new Stem Legal websites:

• First up and just launched yesterday, my Canadian Law Blogs List which started life in September 2005 as a VLLB blog post has now been moved to its own website at LawBlogs.ca. The list will remain open (& free) to any Canadian blogging lawyer, law librarian, legal marketer, legal tech specialist, or paralegal.
• The second site, launched on November 1st, is LegalPubs.ca. The purpose of LegalPubs (as you might guess from the name) is to produce a one-stop-shop for newly released Canadian legal publications. The site uses RSS technology to automatically aggregate new book titles from Canada Law Book, Thomson-Carswell, Irwin Law, CCH Canadian, and LexisNexis Canada. Canada is one of the first countries in the world to have our major legal publishers on-side with RSS technology, and this site really showcases how RSS can extend the reach of existing web content.

For me, these websites reflect my larger vision for Stem, and that the concept of ‘profile building’ is more than just being a consultant or an industry-based SEO service. I want Stem to evolve into a service that helps with the big picture, making sure all the factors are working together - audience profiling, web advertising, SEO, web publishing, cohesive branding, etc. … And the way you do that, from my perspective, is to get involved in what you’re preaching. How can you possibly advise on website marketing if you haven’t executed yourself? How can you advise on law blogging if you aren’t a blogger yourself? Experience is critical, and while I think I could rely on personal history, executing in the present (and the future) is just as important.

I hope to continue the Stem network expansion in 2008! And maybe in late 2007… :-)

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. :-)

One of the best lessons a new blogger can learn early is to let their blog ‘be social‘. Why? Well, from a web marketing perspective you must understand that blogs are more than an easy publishing tool. The word ‘Blog’ may be short for ‘web log’, and it may frequently be described as an online diary, but the process is anything but solitary.

For many new bloggers, this process can be a leap of faith. It’s very easy to get caught up in one’s publishing agenda, to *think* you’re losing your subject focus, or come to the conclusion that social engagement somehow doesn’t look ‘professional’. But the truth of the matter is, blogs are a unique phenomenon, and most blogs will not build up any kind of substantial readership working alone.

Plus, remembering the mantra of web marketing - that links are a currency, and denote value - and that your blog needs to be cited to build connectivity. Increasing the number of inbound links to your site will not only drive more direct traffic, but will also have the ancillary benefit of driving Google’s trust of your website, and very likely deliver higher rankings.

For me, the social side of blogging involves a number of tactics, things like:

• blogroll links to your peers;
• not just writing your own thoughts, but engaging in blog-to-blog discussions;
• commenting on other blogs;
• email discussions beyond the blog;
• giving your fellow blogger a ‘hat tip’ when you cite their work; and every once in a while,
• just saying thank-you.

So let me finish this post by practicing what I preach. Kevin O’Keefe & Larry Bodine, thanks for the recent coverage on my legal seo post! and yes, I’m subscribed to both their blogs, and yes, I’m going to continue to read what they say. … The lesson? When we link out to the substantive content we enjoy, and then add value to the conversation with our own perspective, we get rewarded.

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.

There’s an old adage on the web says ‘content is king’, and that continues to be true even when selling professional services. Your content is your drawing card. It acts as proof that the writer is knowledgeable about their subject, but more important, is an absolute requirement to drawing new visitors to your website. Without content, the only visitors your website will see will be from your existing clientele and offline relationships.

The irony of course is that many law firms, even those substantial in size and resources, have a minimal content offering. If we consider that now in 2007, many firms have had an online presence for 10 or so years. And if we also consider that website content is cumulative, and the majority of law firms rarely (or do not) cull their content offering, then… What gross size would you consider to be appropriate for a law firm website? more than 2,000 pages in size? 5k? 10k? 30k?

From my list of global 100 law firm websites, we see that 65% have less than 10k pages published.  And from personal experience I think I can safely estimate that with smaller firms, in general, online publishing does not exceed 1k pages. So the next question, as noted over on the VLLB, is bigger necessarily better? My answer would be a very firm - it depends. :-)

Benchmarking the raw size of those websites was interesting to me because, in my opinion, legal web marketing is currently going through a big change; with firms moving from a single domain presence to more of a multiple brand / multiple website effort, ie. my hub-n-wheel approach.  This may be one of the last points in time that we are able to measure (most of) a firm’s web presence without identifying and reviewing all the pieces of the puzzle.

I expected to find a lot of very large websites in that list, and surprisingly did not. To me that indicates many firms are still working off of brochureware websites — lawyer profiles, transaction lists, media quotes, representative clients, deals, etc.  And running against conventional wisdom, I do not see that as an entirely bad thing.

Firms with long standing content initiatives may already have drafted content in place, but face the challenge of keeping their offering attractive and current. They face decisions about when to spin that content off into other websites, how to rework & republishing the most valuable content, and when to cull. Is it easier to create content from scratch? or to get decisions made about existing content? my opinion - a coin flip. Depending on the environment, either could be a big challenge.

There’s also the matter of web strategy. If a firm knows exactly which audiences it’s targeting, and puts up niche information that draws qualified leads from key decision makers, the size of the website will have very little to do with its rate of success. As a web marketer, I see the value in both (1) casting a wide net of content to draw audiences, and (2) identifying and expanding the most successful methods.  

What may be more important in reading that list, is what it tells the individual firms about the overall health of in-house routines and processes regarding the web.  If a firm has a 1000 or 2000 lawyers and can’t produce more than a page per lawyer, their troubles may be more systemic in nature. Firms with robust web publishing operations typically have:

• a great in-house committment to writing by lawyers;
• a defined content strategy;  
• a solid understanding of the desired audience;
• approprite publishing vehicles in place;
• active efforts to market both the content and authors.

Put these elements together, and great content can help firms connect with new audiences. I believe that. And while a bigger website may not necessarily be better, I do think it represents an understanding that modern global business relationships have a strong virtual component, that law firm brands are constantly in flux, and that people’s opinions are altered by online exposure. 

So maybe bigger is better? Execution has to count for something. Right?

Should a law firm have more than one web property? These days, the answer is an obvious and unequivocal ‘yes’.  Between blogs, wikis, group publishing and collaboration efforts - not to mention content mixing and syndication - the number of web brands under firm control is set to explode.  Need proof? Look no further than the online leaders in your own market. Do they have a firm website and a few blogs? Of course they do, and in the future that model can and will be expanded. Perhaps as many as one website for each major service line a firm offers.

I’m a big believer in having the main firm website define expertise and experience, and then surrounding it with content properties — I call it my hub-n-wheel strategy. And just like money and compounding interest, the trick is to make the sites work together and to be more than the sum of their parts.

The firm’s main website has a distinct purpose when it comes to business development - it must establish trust, experience and expertise.  You can match the tools that best fit each firm’s practice – group pages, detailed lawyer profiles, testimonials, success stories, client lists, transaction lists, speaking engagements, media quotes, publications, etc. – it doesn’t really matter which. The bare minimum must still be met - tell the visitor your experience with their issue, show that you’re good at what you do, and that others have trusted and benefited from your service in the past.  Even if the visitor has arrived at your firm website from your blog (or another content property), the website should reinforce that message, albeit in a more formal way. 

Content properties, such as blogs, are not removed from the trust, experience and expertise equation. Not at all, but the technique is intentionally different. Great content is still the most efficient way to attract online visitors to your website, but content based properties often (and should) lack the formality of the main firm website.  The message should be consistent, but the personal delivery method has a much better chance of connecting with the reader. And when it comes to establishing trust with an online reader you haven’t met yet, nothing beats that personal level of communication.

The positives for creating this ’wheel of content’ around your firm website, ie. the hub, are numerous. First of all, as alluded to above, the mix of personal and formal communication often work well together. Migrating the user from the casual feel of a blog to the more professional website can be akin to meeting someone at a cocktail party or a networking event prior to a meeting in your office. 

Next, via strategic linking, your content can also be levered to increase exposure for lawyer profile pages back on the main website, both through direct traffic and through better rankings in the search engines. There’s also an overall benefit to passing site trust between firm owned web properties. The search engines judge you by the company you keep, and on the web that equates to who’s linking to your website. Not connecting two firm owned web brands is simply a missed opportunity in my books.

Lastly, my personal take is that a law firm’s brand can be broken into four streams - firm, regional, practice groups, and individual lawyers. Pull these elements together online and you’ll likely get my hub-n-wheel approach. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and nothing is more important making the pieces of the puzzle aware of each other, and work together.