Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

New Rule: No Links to Blatant Marketing Blogs

Web­sites are for mar­ket­ing. Blawgs are for communicating.

A blog post that includes a call to action (“If you’ve been charged with domes­tic assault, ask any prospec­tive attor­ney what kind of expe­ri­ence they have deal­ing with domes­tic assault cases. The fail­ure to do so could be very costly.” or “If you’ve been charged with dri­ving while intox­i­cated, con­tact my office.”, for exam­ple) is a bla­tant mar­ket­ing post.

I won’t help you pro­mote a bla­tant mar­ket­ing post by cit­ing, quot­ing, or link­ing to it.

If sev­eral of your recent posts are bla­tant mar­ket­ing posts, your blawg is a bla­tant mar­ket­ing blog. I won’t help you pro­mote it. If you’re on my blogroll already, you’re on your way off.

If you’re a criminal-defense lawyer, you’re a com­mu­ni­ca­tor. That’s your busi­ness. If you trust your com­mu­ni­ca­tions skills to be your best adver­tis­ing, let go of the self-conscious bla­tant mar­ket­ing, and let your wit, wis­dom, and writ­ing attract links to your blog. If you don’t trust your com­mu­ni­ca­tions skills to serve you bet­ter than any con­scious effort, you should be nei­ther blog­ging nor prac­tic­ing law.

If you are not bla­tantly mar­ket­ing and you write some­thing inter­est­ing, I may cite, quote, or link to it, and I will prob­a­bly refer to you using keyword-rich terms — for exam­ple, “Miami criminal-defense lawyer Brian Tannebaum’s blog” or “New York criminal-defense lawyer Scott Greenfield’s Sim­ple Jus­tice”. Con­sider that your reward for refrain­ing from bla­tant mar­ket­ing in the blaw­gos­phere — that, and the fact that read­ers are more likely to sub­scribe to a blog that is not bla­tantly sell­ing something.


I think this is a good step toward sweep­ing some of the garbage out of the prac­ti­cal blaw­gos­phere and dis­tin­guish­ing those who write for love of writ­ing or because they have words strug­gling to get out from those who are cyn­i­cally try­ing to get more cus­tomers; I hope more crim­i­nal defense blog­gers will join me in iden­ti­fy­ing and reject­ing those blogs that threaten to turn the blo­gos­phere into yet another iter­a­tion of the yel­low pages.

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

7 Responses to “New Rule: No Links to Blatant Marketing Blogs”

  1. Matlock says:

    So does my lit­tle Avvo badge vio­late the rules?

  2. Mark Bennett says:

    Shawn,

    Not this par­tic­u­lar rule. I just picked the worst import from adver­tis­ing to the blaw­gos­phere — calls to action — to pick on here. The brain trust will have to decide what else ren­ders a blog bla­tant marketing.

  3. Bfrederick says:

    The bla­tant mar­ket­ing blogs are here to stay I’m afraid. I’m with you, though, and cleaned out my blogroll soon after Scott G. pointed it out ear­lier this year. But I think they serve their pur­pose — they get hits, poten­tial clients see them, maybe they get calls, I don’t know. It’s essen­tially a web­site that’s updated peri­od­i­cally, rather than a mean­ing­ful discussion.

    I have local attor­neys tell me they read and appre­ci­ate my blog, and that is part of what I had hoped to accom­plish. Mar­ket­ing sites have dif­fer­ent pri­mary goals, C’est la vie.

  4. Mark Bennett says:

    Bobby, I think Scott might say that the bla­tant mar­keters cause us all to be painted with the same brush, and that we don’t want our blogs to get tarred as com­mer­cial speech with theirs.

    I had a pros­e­cu­tor in a neigh­bor­ing county tell me yes­ter­day that he read my blog. That’s always kind of cool. I seri­ously doubt that I would have 100 reg­u­lar read­ers if every post were aimed at the poten­tial clients.

    Actu­ally, I’d prob­a­bly have given up a year ago if every post were aimed at the poten­tial clients.

  5. Michael says:

    Mark — Good rule. Under our rules in Florida, a lawyer adver­tise­ment that uses visual or ver­bal descrip­tions that cre­ate sus­pense, call for legal ser­vices, con­tain exag­ger­a­tions or appeals to emo­tion, or cre­ate scenes show­ing con­sumer prob­lems end­ing with the lawyer solv­ing the prob­lem are pro­hib­ited. A direct mail piece that describes spe­cific prob­lem (and appeals to emo­tion) like a DUI arrest, and then describes how a lawyer can solve the prob­lem (and has a call to action) is at least arguably a vio­la­tion of Rule 4–7.2(c)(3) of the Rules of Pro­fes­sional Con­duct. Hav­ing said that, there is not a sin­gle ethics opin­ion even close to on point, and there are sev­eral (more than a dozen) blogs that I have seen in the state where every post describes a prob­lem in a man­ner designed to appeal to emo­tions, cre­ate a descrip­tion of how the lawyer can solve the prob­lem and include a bla­tant call to action.

    Like our friends in D.C., we wouldn’t need more rules or laws if only they would enforce the ones already on the books.

  6. raj says:

    yes, you are right, and i also want to let you know about this site

    which is not related with your topic but the peo­ple who wants to do

    out­sourc­ing busi­ness they must need to visit it

    http://www.eonlinetask.com

    [Posted only because I admire the sheer unmit­i­gated chutz­pah of a spam com­ment to an anti-marketing post. M.]

Leave a non-anonymous Reply