Should law firms blog? That’s the question I addressed on May 2nd at the ALA’s 36th Annual Educational Conference and Exposition in Las Vegas. 

In Blogging: Why the Fuss?, I explored whether blogging is a good marketing vehicle for law firms. (I also covered blogging basics, software options, and explained RSS.)

Being a blogger, I may be biased but my presentation is not conclusory. I offered a framework for marketers to compare options: a grid with “channels” as columns and “channel considerations” as rows. Channels include synchronous ones such as seminars and one-on-one meetings plus asynchronous ones such as updates, articles, books, and web sites. Considerations include cost, frequency, reach, and re-use value. I used stars (more=better) to rate options. Reasonable people can disagree about the ratings. The point is to assess systematically blogging in comparison to alternatives.

The BigLaw examples included were drawn from the Large US Law Firm Branded Blogs and RSS Feeds that Joy London and I maintain.

I touched on the issue of the potential tension between firms as institutions and individual lawyers. Firms should want their lawyers blogging on a firm-branded blog. Individual lawyers, however, realizing the possibility of future lateral moves, may prefer their own names as the brand. Since lateral moves became common only 15 years ago, this tension is relatively new. I suppose it applies to any publishing channel but my gut is that it’s worse for blogs. Anyone aware of any good material to help understand the dynamic of building firm brand equity verus individual lawyer name-recognition equity?