Seth Godin in his blog post today questions why, if George Costanza of Seinfeld fame has a Wikipedia page, shouldn’t your brand receive entries? My first reaction: sounds like a good idea to me. After all, I’m a legal marketer, not a lawyer.I know that several law firms already have Wiki pages, including Latham, Skadden and Pillsbury. Several more have set up LinkedIn pages, including Skadden, Weil Gotshal and Dewey Ballantine. And while I am always eager to jump out in front of a new trend, lawyers are by nature cautious, weary of change, and definitely don’t want to go first.
As we coax our law firms and lawyer into the new frontier of Web 2.0 I sometimes wonder if “not right now” is the best answer as WE discuss: Should I promote the firm on Wikipedia? Does the firm need a LinkedIn profile? Do we need to open a branch in Second Life?
I’m not advocating a return to the era and comfort of ecru stationary, nor do I advocate waiting to see what O’Melveny does prior to making a decision (ask me about the light up pen story another time).
I have found, after spending 10 years as a legal marketer, I need to edit my enthusiasm for anything new around my partners. While they are willing to take a leap of faith with me, they would just rather wait until a few other firms have taken that one giant step first.
Posts
3 comments:
You raise a good point: does the use of a particular service or application add value to a firm seeking to generate new business.
What I see as one possible test is the level of interest or activity on behalf of potential (and current) clients. As younger and/or the more Web savvy move into positions of command and control, maintaining a portfolio of electronic properties will be an easy yes.
BTW, the LinkedIn pages are not customizable or manageable at this point.
Thanks for your comments, and welcome to the chat.
What I'm really mulling about in my wee brain is how we, as marketers, are really quick to embrace anything new, whether it is technology, best practices, new techniques, etc.
We get excited about the "new" thing, and try to extend our enthusiasm throughout the partnership. We find a small group (younger partners and a few others who "get" it) who are equally enthusiastic, and then we all get frustrated when we can't get the rest of the partnership on board.
While "yes" is the best answer for the firm as a business, "not right now" might be the best approach for the lawyers en mass.
I am finding that if I introduce a new concept slowly, repeatedly talking about it, including references in my internal marketing communications, the attorneys warm up to it ... At that point I can let my enthusiasm run amok.
I am seeing business minded law firms warm up to some new technology. Still, as the saying goes, most law firms love to be first to be second.
To successfully influence, one must recognize that it's not about the technology - its about what the technology makes possible. It's what goes on around and because of the application that is important to focus upon. Heather, the way you are approaching this is as far as I can see, the only way. And its not just law firms that struggle with accepting new technologies.
Business minded enterprises are looking for conversations that yield actions that can be measured by dollars. That answer is not printed in the Help section. It is unique to the enterprise or organization. It is developed by trial and error. It is found by reflection and study. I am encouraged by the chatter of those who study the social Web and the developers who are writing code. They are explorers. Every day I read something inspiring about how analysts, developers, and creatives are converting behavioral data into actions that support enterprise.
The social web (and it's surrounding technology) is still in it's early wave.
On a different note; to jkash's comment about the more Web savvy moving into positions of command and control - I don't think you'll see that, ever. The Web savvy that I know are focused on discovery, collaboration, creativity, connectivity, entertainment, and they tend to value and respect each other more or at least as much as they do the dollar. The Web savvy do look for ways to generate revenue - I'm not seeing that they're not business minded. I'm not seeing a retreat from capitalism. I'm seeing their desire to get there within a new model of enterprise - the command and control style isn't part of that. Some enterprise requires command and control, the military for instance. Mega corporations still use it, but I predict that we will soon begin to recognize that this won't work for a new generation of employees, leaders, customers, and clients.
Post a Comment