Blogging to Change the World
Update (1/26/12, 11 am) Here’s Scott’s post, Un-Optimization, which was also referenced by Kevin. Read the post yourself, but as I interpret it, Scott argues you can’t have it both ways: if you write what you believe in or what is controversial, you take a chance that you will offend or drive others away. If you blog to voice an opinion, that risk won’t bother you, but if you are blogging to market, the risk will be too great. That, as I understand is why Scott believes blogging to opine and blogging to market are incompatible but READ HIS POST!! I am not sure that the continuum is as black and white as this (which goes back to Jamison’s point) but that is because if my principles were important enough, I’d voice my opinion without compromise (that’s why I’m stuck in the Rakofsky lawsuit). On the other hand, if the issue didn’t matter so much to me and would offend, I suppose I would back away. What a lawyer’s line. Anyway, this issue has been beaten to death but if you want to jump in for another round, feel free.
Every so often, the familiar conversation crops up in the blogosphere over why we ought to blog? My buddy Kevin O’Keefe sells blogs, so of course, he’s bullish about their importance to the legal profession. Except, if you’ve ever met Kevin, you know that this isn’t just a sales pitch; he actually believes this stuff.
Other bloggers believe this stuff too. As Kevin notes, Scott Greenfield blogs to let people know he was here [update: see comment above]; Jamison Koehler blogs to share his love of the law and desire to engage other bloggers, but he’s also frank in noting that there’s a residual marketing benefit that he derives from his efforts.
I’ll admit, that I don’t get as agitated by others by flawging (except if there’s ghostwriting involved, I consider deceptive. But blogging for the sake of SEO only may not be wrong, but it’s a waste of a medium that empowers individual lawyers to do great things.
Take a look at a companion post I wrote long ago about why I blog. What’s your reason?
Good question Carolyn. I started the blog on a whim and for purely marketing purposes, but Musings has evolved into a great way for me to inform my audience and, frankly. to keep myself up to date on the latest in construction law. I also hope that its a way to meet other attorneys and friends and expand my knowledge.
Much as I appreciate your including me as a reference point in your post, it would be greatly preferred that any motivations attributed to me come from me rather than an excerpt used by Kevin to support his purposes.
As I’ve explained numerous times, my primary motive for blawging is for my own amusement, which is why I violate all the excellent rules for flawging proposed here and at Kevin’s blog. The post Kevin exerpts and you link to relates to the benefits gain from blawging, not the purpose in doing so. A subtle distinction, perhaps, but one that matters if there is any concern for accuracy.
As to flawging, you might consider whether your agenda of promoting solos clouds your concern over the damage it does to the profession in general and the blawgosphere in particular. It would be a shame if the realization only happens after we’ve demeaned ourselves and diminished the medium to the point of utter disgrace and no return. Some won’t care as long as they believe there is a buck to be made. Others take a longer view.
I started blogging for marketing purposes. However, my blog soon developed into a way for me to stay current on the law.