This week has been fairly difficult for me to come up with blog posts. I’m doing some insanely monotonous, yet essential work, and it seems to have turned off the creative part of my mind. So, I have to apologize for continuing to point to Seth Godin rather than coming up with anything new.

Today, he has a post entitled “The two things that kill marketing creativity.” From it:

The first is fear.

The fear that you’ll have to implement whatever you dream up.
The fear that you will fail.
The fear that you will do something stupid and be ridiculed by your peers for decades.

Sound familiar?

Picture yourself in a conference room with your marketing committee if you have one. You have something that you really believe in; an idea that will get your firm noticed. It is clever, creative and smart. It stands out. It talks to your clients.

You’re really excited about it and you give a high-energy pitch to the room. And when you’re done?

Crickets.

And you hear the chorus of doubt:

• I think it’s a great idea…..just not for us.
• That’s cute.
• No one has ever done that before. Must be for a reason.
• Maybe some other time. Let’s go with what we’ve done before.
• Interesting idea. Let’s think about it. So, what was I talking about?

One of my favorite quotes of all time was something I read in Sally Hogshead’s “Radical Careering.” It’s great: It has a picture of the ugliest camel you’ve ever seen, and it says “A Camel Is A Horse Designed By Committee.”

It seems as if the committee is a machine that takes in a raw material called “creativity” and outputs something called “safe.”

But to be fair, it’s not the idea of the committee that’s the problem. It’s the fear. Why take a risk when you can compromise and get mediocrity?

Popularity: 6% [?]

You know, Seth Godin is unique in that his writing makes me feel excited, inspired, hopeful, as well as depressed, amateurish, and boring at the same time. It’s because he’s THAT good. In fact, you know that moment when you read something and say “That’s EXACTLY what I was thinking! Why didn’t I write that…” or better, “I never thought of it that way, but it makes total sense now!” And in that moment, when you’re nodding your head while reading…….That’s what should be called the “Godin Nod.” Which would be defined as:

Godin Nod- Involuntary head movement that denotes a moment of clarity as a direct result of reading anything by Seth Godin.

His latest post is entitled “Nobody Knows Anything“, and in it, he really breaks down the idea of marketing to the most basic level. And it could be a little scary to those of us in the marketing professions!

Rather than throwing in my two cents about his idea that “There are two kinds of marketing analysis, both pretty useless”, I’m telling you: go read his post.

You need to read this.

Popularity: 16% [?]

Are legal blogs advertising? Should they be regulated as advertising?

I don’t think so, but boy do I have a bias!

The Argument: States want to protect their consumers from lawyer advertisements disguised as editorial content.
Well, I can understand that. Just like they regulate the little ads in magazines and newspapers masquerading as actual news stories with the -5 font “Advertisement” disclaimer. I was really thinking about buying some plates from the Franklin Mint once. And another time, I really thought that scientists had made a breakthrough discovery, and that if I bought a copper wristband, it would increase my energy, make me much more intelligent, and seem both warm, witty, and kind to women. But I saw that one little word, and came to my senses.

Okay, I’m being sarcastic. I apologize.

Could blogs be considered advertising? Absolutely. I would be dishonest to try to ignore the fact that the goal of most law blogging, in the end, is acquisition of clients. If the goal in blogging is to establish expertise, it follows that that expertise is going to result in business. If the goal is to get the firm’s name “out there,” the same applies.

But should every blog post be submitted to a disciplinary committee for review? I don’t see how that could happen.

One of the strengths of blogging is that it is immediate. A story breaks, and bloggers are on it. People come to blogs because of their frequently updated content. And authors can post said content because it is so easy and effortless. New rules and regulations would take away the one of the main reasons for the popularity of blogs in the first place.

But another question comes to mind: How do you identify what is advertising and what is not?

On this site, I’ve compiled Ethics Rules on Legal Advertising and Marketing for all 50 states. Looking through them, I have read many rules on where a lawyer or firm may place an advertisement. But I have yet to find a clear definition of what an advertisement is.

One definition I’ve seen is that advertising involves an active quest for clients. But is having a blog an active quest for clients?

Well, if after every post, I put “See how I can help you make more money with your law firm by calling me at 555-555-8785″, I’d see that as an active quest. But what about if I just have an email link somewhere hidden in the depths of my blog? I’d see that as more of a passive quest.

But now I’m getting into semantics. Back to the issue at hand.

One of the appeals of blogging is that (and this is a mantra repeated often) blogging is a conversation. People like blogs because they show a person’s perspective on a subject. While many marketers spend hours creating buzzword-heavy text that is meant to look like editorial content, people just don’t buy it. As the web matures, our BS meters are becoming increasingly well-tuned. And the emergence of splogs makes us even more aware when we’re being duped.

The truth is: if you’re an attorney who is just writing “give us your business” text and passing it off as a blog post, you’re not going to get very far.

So, with that all said, I don’t think legal blogs should be regulated as advertising. Are there some bad apples out there? Of course there are. Are some people going to take advantage of blogs to plug their businesses? Yep. But should we treat anyone who blogs as a potential scam artist? I don’t think that’s the best way to handle it.

Popularity: 7% [?]

While looking through some feeds this morning, I saw that Larry Bodine had written an article slamming Apple computers. Being a part time Mac user myself, I was curious what he had to say. While I disagreed with what he was saying, I just chalked it up to a P.C. user not being used to the differences between PC and Mac.

Then I went on with my day……until I saw:

Flame: My birthday present to me

In this post, Wil Shipley just rips into Larry Bodine’s article. It’s absolutely brutal. Shipley goes through Bodine’s post line for line, adding commentary and completely bashing everything in the law.com piece.
And the result: The Shipley post is now on the first page of Digg.com. Right now there are 64 comments. Needless to say, this article is generating some buzz. And it’s not the good kind I’m afraid.

I think the lesson to be learned from this (if any) is that what we write in our blogs (and for other websites) have the potential to end up in places we’ve never expected. In this case, an article from a legal marketing consultant landed in the hands of a software programmer, who decided to repost his criticism for the whole world to see.

Popularity: 12% [?]

This being a long weekend, I had strict plans to do absolutely nothing yesterday. I was sitting on the couch, rifling through the channles when I happened to see Mark Cuban speaking to the Online News Association Conference.

Speaking to a room full of people that work with online media, Cuban made some bold statements: The internet is old news. Noboday cares about the technology.

Some attendees wanted to get very deep in details asking questions like “If you ran a newspaper’s web site, would your home page have video on it? Or would you put that deeper in the site to avoid unnecessary bandwidth costs?” (I’m paraphrasing here. I don’t remember the exact question)
Instead of jumping in, Cuban did what he does best: he looked at the bigger picture. The answer: who cares if you have video on the home page? What’s it doing for you? Is it sponsored? Are you getting paid each time it’s played? Or is it something people are seeing as content they’re after? It doesn’t matter that you’re an online newspaper. Forget about the technology. Get people what they’re looking for.

To simplify things even more, here’s what Cuban said:

“What do you have access to that distinguishes you?” Cuban asked. “What are the assets you have in terms of writers? What are the skills they have that allow you to distinguish your organization from everyone else?” Figure those out, he said, then “just lever the hell out of them.”

I think that can apply to any business.

1. Access- What do you have access to that no one else does? If you’re a tech firm, maybe you have access to V.C. No matter what your firm does, you have access to something that others don’t.

2. Distinguishing Skills- If you don’t have distinguishing skills, you’re just trying to blend in. But I’m guessing you do. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be here.

3. Assets- You’ve got assets. You’ve got attorneys that no one else has. And hopefully they’ve got the distinguishing skills and access to get what your clients want.

You’ve got these. Now “Lever the hell out of ‘em.”

Popularity: 5% [?]

I’d really like some opinions on this one.

A client at a law firm is planning their ad placement for the rest of the year. In the past, they have used a “We would like to congratulate attorneys X and Y on being named SuperLawyers….” in their print ads.

Knowing all the buzz about the SuperLawyer situation, my immediate reaction was to stay away from this. It just doesn’t “feel” right.

But the client brought up an interesting point: Maybe it’s just lawyers that know about the SuperLawyer controversy. And since the ads are not targeted to other lawyers, it shouldn’t matter.

Given that short background, I’d like to know: do you think a firm should run an ad touting their recently named “SuperLawyers” in a magazine or paper focused on their target clients?

Popularity: 5% [?]