Earlier in February, John Keefe spoke on how to assess whether your firm is ready to get involved in social media. The clip I had below was deleted from www.vimeo.com on February 24, but was entitled How To Get Your Organisation Social Media Ready by Jon Keefe, KMP from In Black And White Seminars on Vimeo.
And, for an even deeper look at what social media comprises, read Ron Jones's Social Media Marketing 101 Part 1 and Social Media Marketing 101 Part 2 on Search Engine Watch.
Ready yet?
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
A Slap in the Facebook.
Ah, back in the day, corporations ruled their own destiny and customers took what they got sold...was that ever really true? Well, I grew up in the 50's and 60's, and it sure felt to me like I had choices. Large consumer businesses and political structures alike seemed to bend and buckle with market pressures. In later decades, the voice of the consumer became even louder and more desirable in marketing programs, even if companies never really developed an effective process for responding to the very voice they encouraged.
And yet, some of our newest enterprises and internet services seem ignorant of the force of markets. Take Facebook. Like all good online sites, it has lengthy "Terms of Service." Just last week, it changed these terms, as so many enterprises will from time to time. Only, Facebook's change included a notation that they would own the content of Facebook pages (essentially small personal Web sites) and be able to do anything with that material they wanted forever, even if you had terminated your membership (which is free).
The Consumerist ratted them out this week. The user world rebelled. The Electronic Privacy Information Center threatened to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. Users formed Facebook groups to oppose the changes. Facebook backed down.
Let's acknowledge what users were already getting free from Facebook: a social networking site with many useful features by which they could expose their personal lives, connect with people they know, get to know new people and discuss and opine on subjects from the sublime to the ridiculous. Let's admit the lack of wisdom of the Facebook management attempting to clarify their terms without asking for the valuable input of the voice of the user.
A decade ago, The Cluetrain Manifesto prophesied this turn of events, when it set forth its 95 theses. Facebook, the community of users with an open intranet by which to have conversations with one another, decided that the new terms were unacceptable, and Facebook the enterprise itself had already provided the mechanism for an uprising. To preserve itself, Facebook had to both allow and respond to the conversation.
I don't see how any other reaction could have been possible. I don't see how Facebook management could have thought any other eventuality would proceed from the change...unless they had not read one of the best selling books of 2000. I'll bet the Palo Alto Public Library has a couple of copies they can check out. I recommend it.
And yet, some of our newest enterprises and internet services seem ignorant of the force of markets. Take Facebook. Like all good online sites, it has lengthy "Terms of Service." Just last week, it changed these terms, as so many enterprises will from time to time. Only, Facebook's change included a notation that they would own the content of Facebook pages (essentially small personal Web sites) and be able to do anything with that material they wanted forever, even if you had terminated your membership (which is free).
The Consumerist ratted them out this week. The user world rebelled. The Electronic Privacy Information Center threatened to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. Users formed Facebook groups to oppose the changes. Facebook backed down.
Let's acknowledge what users were already getting free from Facebook: a social networking site with many useful features by which they could expose their personal lives, connect with people they know, get to know new people and discuss and opine on subjects from the sublime to the ridiculous. Let's admit the lack of wisdom of the Facebook management attempting to clarify their terms without asking for the valuable input of the voice of the user.
A decade ago, The Cluetrain Manifesto prophesied this turn of events, when it set forth its 95 theses. Facebook, the community of users with an open intranet by which to have conversations with one another, decided that the new terms were unacceptable, and Facebook the enterprise itself had already provided the mechanism for an uprising. To preserve itself, Facebook had to both allow and respond to the conversation.
I don't see how any other reaction could have been possible. I don't see how Facebook management could have thought any other eventuality would proceed from the change...unless they had not read one of the best selling books of 2000. I'll bet the Palo Alto Public Library has a couple of copies they can check out. I recommend it.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Tweet-Chasing Attorneys?
Tom Foster's blog on internet lawyer marketing reports on an exchange through Twitter over an auto accident recently. One of the drivers involved asked through Twitter about posting photos of the damage online and an attorney responded with a direct message asking if the driver needed legal representation. Sounds like an ethics violation to me.
Carolyn Elefant covered the report on Law Blog Watch and opined that the technology does not overturn the attorney's responsibilities to the Bar rules. Good point.
There is a tendency to leap into the breech when new technologies are not addressed by the Bar rules, which happens frequently. Many state bars were just catching up with the use of the Web to promote lawyers and their firms when blogs starting appearing, quickly followed by ratings sites like AVVO that invited client testimonials and, lately, Twitter, just to name a few. Just because there is no rule to constrain an attorney's solicitations, doesn't mean the Bar will turn a blind eye to egregious actions. After all, these regulators are lawyers, too.
The appropriate response in many cases may be just short of solicitation, but these fine lines are what make the Bar rules meaningful. "I can answer that question" is a fundamentally different message than "I can represent you when you want to sue". Which one would be a better response in a business development context? Which would your Bar prefer?
Carolyn Elefant covered the report on Law Blog Watch and opined that the technology does not overturn the attorney's responsibilities to the Bar rules. Good point.
There is a tendency to leap into the breech when new technologies are not addressed by the Bar rules, which happens frequently. Many state bars were just catching up with the use of the Web to promote lawyers and their firms when blogs starting appearing, quickly followed by ratings sites like AVVO that invited client testimonials and, lately, Twitter, just to name a few. Just because there is no rule to constrain an attorney's solicitations, doesn't mean the Bar will turn a blind eye to egregious actions. After all, these regulators are lawyers, too.
The appropriate response in many cases may be just short of solicitation, but these fine lines are what make the Bar rules meaningful. "I can answer that question" is a fundamentally different message than "I can represent you when you want to sue". Which one would be a better response in a business development context? Which would your Bar prefer?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Where does the time go?
OK. I've been MIA. Blame it on the weddings: our daughter (photo) and our niece. And exhaustion. Not a good excuse, but a valid reason. Hi! I'm back.
Of course, these were great occasions for offline social networking. Meanwhile, the legal online space has been exploding with conversations about one of my favorite social networking subjects, Twitter.
Robert J. Ambrogi's article sort of kicked it off for me. Not that Bob's technology shy...he's a big proponent, but his test run on Twitter was undertaken to see if it held possibilities. And he found it did, ergo his piece on law.com.
Then, Carolyn Elefant in the Legal Blog Watch pointed out the slowdown in blog commenting overall. Her take was that it may be tracable to the increase in Twitter activity, both from the increasing user base among lawyers and legal observers and the ease that Twitter provides to have the conversations that used to be confined to blogs, something Scott Greenfield covered in Simple Justice.
Finally, the LegalTech conference last week found itself awash in tweets and Twitter, so much so that the offline conversation turned from ediscovery, the stated topic of the sessions, to online social media. John Bringardner covered it for Legal Blog Watch.
Last summer, Twittter had a user base in the hundreds of thousands. This month, it crossed the six million user line. Clearly, there is a tremendous curiosity about the functionality of the micro-blogging space, and the absence of a cost of entry lets anyone in without regard to quality. The development of companion applications like Tweetdeck keep driving the user base to new functionalities. For the legal world, Kevin O'Keefe's LexTweet is an aggregator of a specific user content stream. The focusing of Twitter content through these application spaces will further the conversations in this medium.
The only worry I have now? Where do we find the time to converse?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)