Edwin Jacobs at Law & Justice has an article entitled “What Legal Rules Are Applicable to Blogs?“. The article is a great resource for bloggers in the US, Netherlands, France and Germany. The post points to numerous articles on such topics as responsibility for comments, lawsuits against bloggers, deep linking, and source confidentiality. Check it out.

Popularity: 4% [?]

I don’t like using marketing buzzwords, but I’m going to talk about the “unique selling point” (USP) idea.

It’s an idea that is obvious to most: What makes your product or service special enough for the world to pay attention?

The answer is: it’s hard to define. This is one of the most important but most difficult parts of the “identity” and branding process for a law firm.

I spend a lot of time looking at law firm advertisting and web sites (shocking, I know). There are a few firms that are great at demonstrating their uniqueness, but the vast majority of firms do not even try. I understand that law firms are different. There are ethics and guidelines that make it much more difficult to market a law firm’s selling points than, say, a fast food chain. Firms want to retain an air of professionalism, but that often leads to sameness.

In looking at firm sites, I see a lot of “a mid sized general practice law firm.” Or “an international law firm committed to excellence.”

Wow, that really sets those firms apart.

What a USP is Not:

Surely it is difficult to come up with a selling point that actually sets you apart from another firm that, in reality, is a lot like yours. Think of a competitor that has the same amount of attorneys with similar experience. They cover the same geographical area, and their pricing is basically the same. So what makes your firm not only different, but more appealing than this fictional competitor?

Some examples of what NOT to use as a USP:

1. Price- This is what first comes to mind to many, but it’s not a good one (usually). If the only thing you have to offer is bargain basement prices, that’s a problem. It works with groceries and discount furniture, but I can’t think of many examples of how it could work for a law firm. Put yourself in your clients’ shoes and think of a time when you need legal services. You’re looking for a firm that can address your needs. Do you first look at all law firms by price? Or, do you first identify a firm that can do what you need and then think about price?

2. Size- The size of your firm is most likely not unique, nor a selling point. There are exceptions, but for the most part the size of your firm isn’t that important. Think of the example of the “mid sized general practice law firm”. Again, like price, it’s an afterthought……something that would come up only after a prospect has identified firms that can do the work.

Some examples of what work outside of law firms:

In his book Reality in Advertising, Rosser Reeves (Chairman of the Board at Ted Bates & Company) gives the precise definition as it was understood at his company:

1. 1. Each advertisement must make a proposition to the customer: “buy this product, and you will get this specific benefit.”
2. 2. The proposition itself must be unique - something that competitors do not, or will not, offer.
3. 3. The proposition must be strong enough to pull new customers to the product.

Source: Wikipedia

1. Federal Express: Trust. “When it Absolutely Positively Has To Be There Overnight.”
2. Red Bull: Energy (physical and mental). “Stimulation of Body and Mind.”
3. Burger King: custom fast food “Have it Your Way.”
4. Raid: insect death “Kills Bugs Dead.”

So, what makes your firm unique?

Popularity: 4% [?]

The great Kevin O’Keefe at LexBlog points to an article by Frederick L. Faulkner on “Practical Web Strategies for Attorneys.” The article points out what changes attorney sites could make, organized by the amount of effort it takes to accomplish each.

Simple changes have huge impact sometimes.  Take for example, this page offering San Diego living trust attorney services. I fired off a quick message that inspired these quick (and obvious to them in retrospect I’m sure) improvements:

• Place a brief general inquiry form in the left sidebar.  **I would have preferred it to be a little shorter so it was totally above the fold even in small browser windows. Still, the lead form on every page nearly always improves conversion rate.
• The right margin tends to be the place people look right before leaving the site. So, in order to salvage a visitor on his way out place a special offer or simple call to action. In this case they opted for an easy “click to ask” button. I think it was well done and provides motivation to those visitors who don’t have much energy to commit.

Create your list of site improvements and re-order into action items. Start picking them off the list and the response should be a rewarding one as conversions improve and rankings go up!

Popularity: 4% [?]

I guess I’m a little bit behind in my reading. I found this December 22nd posting on The Wired GC. The post shows the following picture:

And the answer:

If you said Bingham McCutchen, then this advertising pet trick is working.
When I first saw this picture in a glossy ad (I believe it was in the American Lawyer), I figured that the firm is either (a) savvy in a goofy sort of way or (b) the victim of one of the most elaborate practical jokes in the history of modern legal marketing.

I agree with the Wired GC. I think that Bingham McCutchen is very savvy, in a lighthearted way.

In the October/November 2005 issue of Law Practice Magazine, an article by Stacy West Clark profiles Bingham’s marketing campaign. From the article:

Bingham McCutchen, a Boston old-line megafirm, has been running a series of ads involving animals in funny situations. The ads include photos of an elephant parasailing and dogs piggy-backing each other to reach a plate of juicy hamburgers. The message? Bingham McCutchen can come up with creative solutions to business problems.

Here are two of the ads from the article:

I love these ads. They:

• Are very visually interesting
• Hold my attention
• Use a visual metaphor that is clever and meaningful
• Differentiate the firm
• Reinforce the firm’s brand

Popularity: 10% [?]

I saw a post today on AdRants about a really bad law firm site for Warwick Seltz. They specialize in pizza law. Their tagline? “If you’ve had bad pizza, we’d like to meetz ya.”

It’s a great marketing campaign centered around the ficticious firm.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Anonymity seems to be the hot topic of conversation right now. On a C|Net article, author Declan McCullah notes that “Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.” From the article:

It’s no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it’s OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

The prohibition is in the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act in Section 113, called “Preventing Cyberstalking.” If it is your intent to “annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass” and you don’t disclose your identity, you can be fined or imprisoned for up to 2 years.

Insiders in the legal blogging “community” are well aware of another battle over anonymity. BlawgReview is an anonymous web site that reviews legal blogs. Well, it’s more than that, really. It’s more like a blog that gives permission to other bloggers to blog about other blogs. Exactly.

And for some reason, the fact that the “editor” of BlawgReview does not reveal their name is a big deal. What started as a guessing game has now turned into a full scale investigation. On the nonbillablehour, Matt Homann points to a simple whois, which lists American Lawyer Media as the owner of BlawgReview. He goes further and gives the name of “Jennifer Collins” as his guess for the anonymous editor. In his comments, Monica Bay notes that she knows for certain that the editor does not work for ALM. Dead end there.

Over on Real Lawyers Have Blogs, Kevin O’Keefe asks “Blawg Review : Why afraid to disclose identity?” Kevin received an email from the mystery editor asking him some questions, but would not reveal their identity. In a post, Kevin wrote:

I don’t know about you guys but when I get emails asking me to respond with information, I like to know who’s asking. I’d also like to think a lawyer, assuming that’s who they are, who has an opinion, isn’t afraid to stand up behind the opinion and say it’s mine.

What’s the fear in this case?

This resulted in a mini “blog fight”, with supporters of BlawgReview’s anonymity voicing their opinions in comment form. And in true web form, news of the debate spread wide and far. It never turned nasty or mean-spirited, but people took notice and added their opinions.

It seems as if people are annoyed by anonymity itself. Could the mere fact that the BlawgReview editor is anonymous be construed as annoying by the new Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act? It’s a stretch.

Note: After posting this, I noticed an article on Wired entitled “Anonymity Won’t Kill the Internet” by Bruce Schneier. From his article:

In a recent essay, Kevin Kelly warns of the dangers of anonymity. It’s OK in small doses, he maintains, but too much of it is a problem: “(I)n every system that I have seen where anonymity becomes common, the system fails. The recent taint in the honor of Wikipedia stems from the extreme ease which anonymous declarations can be put into a very visible public record. Communities infected with anonymity will either collapse, or shift the anonymous to pseudo-anonymous, as in eBay, where you have a traceable identity behind an invented nickname.”

Kelly has a point, but it comes out all wrong

Popularity: 4% [?]