Blawgs — Anyone can have one; everyone can’t
Let’s discuss blogging, or — as some put it — blawgging: i.e., attorneys blogging about the law.
Let’s begin with Scott Greenfield’s latest post — “Blogging Is Alive, And Aggravating.”
If you’re an attorney and you’re thinking of starting a blawg, read Greenfield’s post. Heck . . . before you read that post, read these two posts by Mark Herrmann:
____________
Greenfield and Herrmann — regular blawggers with popular blawgs – emphasize how much work it is to maintain a blog.
Writes Greenfield:
Anyone can have a blawg. Everyone cannot. I’ve watched as friends in the blawgosphere faded away. I’ve watched as their enthusiasm waned, their efforts failed to bring in the eyeballs they hoped to gain. The sad truth is that the blogosphere is maturing before our eyes. It’s also a wondrous truth, as it’s separated the wheat from the chafe.
Notes Herrmann:
Legal blogs are like small businesses: Half of ‘em fail in the first year, and 90 percent of ‘em fail in the next five.
And both caution against expecting too much too soon from a blawg:
Greenfield:
If you think it’s the path to success in your law practice, you will be sorry and your blog will fail.
Herrmann:
They [blogs] require a ton of work; they gather readership only slowly over time; and they’re not the gold mine of new business that blogolaters say they are.
___________
Well done, blawgging can be quite the effort. Some blawgers come to hate the effort; others find that all they have to say’s been said, and then they move on to something else (another blog, perhaps).
Poorly done, blawgging is a matter of reposting news stories about a particular topic (e.g., DUI incidents).
Consider the Chicago DUI Lawyers blog.
Most of it (around 70%) consists of excerpts of copyrighted material (newspaper articles). Is this fair use? Does it matter that there are links to the articles? Does it matter that the publisher claims rights to the blog? Does it matter that the blog promotes a practice?
____________
Stay tuned! Tomorrow, we’ll discuss law firm newsletters and fair use.
18 October 2009 at 16:10
How did an astute editor such as you let Greenfield get away with “chafe”?
18 October 2009 at 17:17
I don’t have enuf red ink to keep up with Greenfield!
18 October 2009 at 17:47
The least you could have done was corrected my quote. Now I had to go back and correct my typo in the original post. Sheesh, would it kill you guys to help me out once in a while?
18 October 2009 at 18:18
SHG: of course I’m happy to correct your quotes.
Speaking of quotes, which do you prefer: a price per word, per page, or per hour?
;)
19 October 2009 at 0:29
Fair use at a fair price.