Advertising on blogs

Consider this in the same vein as my post on lawyers giving themselves awards. And, again, Shane and Barry may tell me to shut my, to borrow from Jim Rome, pie-hole. However, here goes.

There seems to be a trend towards advertising on blogs. It can be something simple like a logo of a business or something complex like ads from Google. There is talk in the legal blogging world about the acceptability of ads on blogs. Let me throw in my two cents. It's not okay.

Yes, I might be the only one saying, but I do not think ads belong on blogs. And some of my good friends like Grant Griffiths and Carolyn Elefant have ads on blogs. I admit to having thought of adding ads to my three blogs. But, I come down clearly on the side that it is wrong.

Why? Good question. A blog is an extension of your firm. Think of it like your website. Would you put an ad on your website? Of course not. No one would do that. So, why would you put an ad on your blog?

Ads are acceptable in all kinds of places. You can put an ad on a car (yes, I have seen lawyers advertise on cars),  or an ad on a bus, or an ad on television. Heck, in Europe, soccer, er, football teams have ads on their jerseys. As a matter of fact, I know someone who can recognize the team by the ad!

But, the first type of ads are advertising your service. Isn't that the point of a blog anyway? If you have a practice area blog, aren't you advertising your service? Why would you want to advertise another service on your blog as well? The second type of ads are fine - ON SOCCER JERSEYS. It is a revenue source for the club. But some things, like the Yankee pinstripes or the Cowboys star, should not be tarnished with ads. Just like your blog should not be tarnished with ads.

As an aside, what if the product you advertise does not perform properly? Can a client come back to you since there could be an implied endorsement of the product? I do not know the answer, and I would assume not, but since we are lawyers, we are held to a higher standard. I do not want to be the test case.

Okay, maybe you agree with me by now, and maybe you do not. Some of you are going to tell me that some blogs are not practice related. And you are right. Grant runs a blog about home office lawyering and Carolyn may have the most famous blog for solos. So, aren't those different?

Yes.........and no. The purpose of those blogs, as well as this blog, is to provide information. Is the information colored because of an ad? If I get West to sponsor my blog, am I going to lean a little more towards West products? Probably not. But, is that a question my readers should ask? Absolutely. Okay, so that may be the extreme example. But, it is one thing to consider.

Finally, what is the purpose of the ad? To make money. Should that be the purpose of a law related blog? I do not think so. I think the purpose of a non-practice related law blog should be to get dialog going. David Swanner made this point last week on his great blog. As David said in concluding "So we’re starting to see legal blogs used specifically for higher search engine placement or advertising without adding to the conversation. Without the attorneys giving their input and sharing their thoughts. Without talking to their colleagues, clients or the public. They’re allowed to do that. But, I think they’re missing out on the greatest value of blogs. "

I think David is correct. The greatest value of blogging is giving input. I believe advertising takes away from that.

For these reasons, I think the trend towards advertising on lawyer blogs is a bad one. One that I hope will go away in 2006, although I am doubtful.

-------Jonathan

Comments

[Personal Injury Lawyers]

I disagree with Dan on this one. I think practicing law is a business and like any business has responsibilities. You also have to advertise and whatever way you can do it, while not misrepresenting or misleading is okay. In todays market the most creative while win.

[TheOnlineLawyer]

I agree with Dan. I have practiced law for years and am now ready to retire and provide what I have learned to the public for free. I cannot imagine making any substantial money from the ads placed on my blog. Any money earned will allow me to upgrade the blog and provide better and more readily usable information to the public. The comparison to NPR is apt.

[TheOnlineLawyer]

I agree with Dan. I have practiced law for years and am now ready to retire and provide what I have learned to the public for free. I cannot imagine making any substantial money from the ads placed on my blog. Any money earned will allow me to upgrade the blog and provide better and more readily usable information to the public. The comparison to NPR is apt.

[Dan]

Law firm blogs, like law firm websites, should be ad free.

[Lisa Solomon]

Some lawyers get paid honoraria to give speeches. Because the amount of money is small (perhaps it covers only expenses), it seems clear that these lawyers are really giving their speeches for the exposure - i.e., for marketing. Why is that ok but putting ads on blogs is not ok?

If a blogger provides valuable information--whether practice-related or not--and there are companies who are interested in reaching the blogger's audience with paid advertisements, I say "go for it." Are PBS and NPR sullied because they run pledge drives and let companies sponsor shows (I've even seen spots for McDonald's between PBS kids shows!)? Because of the availablity of public comments, a blogger's integrity with respect to the interaction between their content and their advertising can be publicly questioned, and defended.

Bloggers like you and Carolyn perform a public service, both for the lawyers who read your blogs and the clients who benefit by having more knowledgeable lawyers. If you want to do the work for free, that's fine, but I think many bloggers deserve a dierct financial reward for all the work they put in, so that they can continue to provide information to the public at no charge.

[Carolyn Elefant]

One more comment. Another reason why I do not have a problem with ads at MyShingle is because I get very little return, professionally, from this website. Up until The Practice, Home Office Lawyer and some of the LPM bloggers came on the scene (and not a moment too soon!), I was basically and singlehandedly putting out the kind of information that the ABA and the state bars are supposed to make available. Of course, the site has brought me recognition and a reputation in the "How to start a law firm" world and while that is very gratifying especially to an egomaniac like me, it does not inure to my practice or pay my bills (what I earn from ALM is not very substantial). Because I am primarily an energy regulatory lawyer, even the name recognition that I gain from MyShingle does not really help me that much. By contrast, a lawyer with a more generally oriented practice might gain referrals even from a blog that is not necessarily practice oriented.
Ultimately, thought, I think that the advertising thing may be a bit of a red herring because I just don't know how much money any blogger will make from it in the long run.

[Carolyn Elefant]

Jon, I would like to clarify my position on advertising on weblogs. I am very much opposed to a law firm weblog displaying advertising or a PayPal "contribution" button. I believe that is both unprofessional and gives the impression that the attorney is either too cheap or too financially destitute to pay for a website. Neither is an impression worth conveying. Thus, for weblogs that are affiliated with a law firm, I agree that ads are a huge no.
As for law related, but non-law firm affiliated blogs, I have a different position. First, with regard to the ALM blog at my site, I made very clear that I would be able to continue to post whatever I wanted, including criticisms of ALM or other ALM sponsors without repercussion. Thus far, I have had no problem. If I ever did, I would leave the ALM network. One of my biggest peeves about the bar is its reluctance to criticize companies like LEXIS, Westlaw or others that make huge contributions. I felt there was a need for an independent voice on products and vendor practices.
Taking it even further, I have thought long and hard, and in fact, still think about my endorsement policy. Right now, I will post a link to any event that is free just because readers have nothing to lose but their time. But when it comes to linking to webinars or CLEs that cost money, I have to think long and hard, because I feel that even by virtue of making a link, I make an endorsement. If I have personally used a service, I will link to and recommend it - and I may also do so for "for fee" programs which are a value. But I want to try to help solos separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to services and so I am very careful not to recommend something just based on a press release or company statement. Same with blogs - I will link to any solo blog, but I won't announce one unless I visit and see that it's a decent site.

[George Wallace]

While I generally think that there is more regulation than is strictly necessary when it comes to lawyers advertising their own services, it seems obvious that we should not be using our weblogs to serve as shills for others, for all the reasons you mention. It's a disappointment that this is still an issue that's seen as open to debate.

David Giacalone could well be right in the comment he left over on Kevin O'Keefe's related lexBlog Blog post (linking yours): "Maybe we should stop making these points . . . so that potential clients or referring lawyers can see just how little sense (or how much greed) a weblogging lawyer really has."

[Kevin]

The one point I have to disagree with you on is where you talk about "But some things, like the Yankee pinstripes or the Cowboys star, should not be tarnished with ads". The Yankees pinstripes have already been tarnished because they put so much crap in the uniforms -- A-Rod, Giambi, and Damon to name just a few.