Screen Real Estate for Sale.

See that huge freakin’ ad next to this post?  By Monday, it will be gone. Why?  Effective Monday, I’m no longer a member of the Law.com network. Long story short, my blog is “going in a different direction” than the network (their words, not mine).  Like all but one Apprentice contestant each season, I was fired. 

But this isn’t a rant against Law.com.  Instead, I want to thank them for their help in bringing my blog to more readers, and I want to offer some suggestions that I think will make the network better (even in my absence).  I’d also like to solicit your feedback in hopes of helping all of the crew at Law.com grow the network and improve upon it.

• First things first:  Lisa Stone is fantastic.  She “gets” blogging (as demonstrated by her phenomenal success with Blogher) and continues to do an excellent job with the Inside Opinions feature she writes twice a week.   
• Second, I’ve been privileged to get to know my fellow Law.com bloggers.  All of them are great bloggers and each of their blogs will continue to have a place in my aggregator.  I’ve even had the good fortune to meet several of them in person and I wish them the best in the future.
• Third, Law.com deserves a tremendous amount of respect for being the first mainstream legal media outlet to recognize the power of blogging and try to harness it.  (As an aside, I had the privilege of meeting the American Lawyer Media CEO William Pollack at the inaugural LexThink event and he struck me as a technologically savvy and ahead-of-the-curve chief exec.  ALM is in good hands.)
• Fourth, I want to apologize to everyone at Law.com if you ever thought my comments and criticisms (including the frequent jabs at the size of the honkin’ huge ad) were anything more than a genuine effort to improve the network of which I was a part (and a desire to reclaim some valuable screen real estate). 
• Fifth, if I’d known in what direction my blog was going that diverged from Law.com’s intended path, I’d have made the change.  If you wanted less LexThink, I’d have complied.  Less Grace?  Check.  More baseball?  Check.  If you didn’t want my blog to serve as a marketing vehicle for my projects, I’d have toned that down too.  (Though, isn’t that one of the purposes of blogs?)  If you wanted more hard-core law … well, I’d have to draw the line somewhere. That said, thanks for never telling me what to write, or how to write it. 

Now that I’m out of the network, here are the things I’d do to improve it.  Law.com has heard some of these before, but to encourage debate among my readers and to get as much constructive feedback as possible to Law.com, I’ll share them with you.

• I know this is beating a dead horse, but is a 300 x 600 pixel ad really necessary?  Perhaps on a blog like Monica Bay’s Common Scold, which has a tremendous amount of terrific extra stuff in the sidebars, a large ad is necessary to stand out, but when there is only one ad on the whole site, is the huge size really non-negotiable?
• Now, go visit each of the law.com blogs and check out the ad.  Reload the page (along with the ad). It seems that at least 9/10 ad impressions are for American Lawyer Media properties — free advertising for ALM for which I don’t believe I was paid (Note, if I’m wrong here, please correct me and I’ll print a retraction). If Law.com/ALM is having trouble selling ads to traditional advertisers (not hard to believe, given the relative newness of blogs) wouldn’t a partnership with a blog advertising service make more sense? (UPDATE: As I visit the sites now, the ALM ads have disappeared and all I see are paying ads.  I would have really, really liked this to be the case for the last six months).
• Help your bloggers help Law.com and ALM.  The Law.com bloggers are a really cool group of people.  I’ve met a bunch, and corresponded with the rest.  I can’t imagine a better group of cutting-edge tech savvy lawyers to advise anyone on what blogging is, where it’s headed, and how lawyers can benefit.  The problem?  Our brains weren’t picked and our collective smarts underutilized.  People are paying big bucks to have access to the kinds of talent ALM assembled in this network.  ALM had us for free (well, almost).  The first thing I’d do to change this is institute a monthly conference call among the remaining Law.com bloggers to get their ideas for improving the network (I’d even join in if they’d have me).  I’d also parade them around every ALM event where a blogger panel is appropriate — and identify them as part of the network.  Legal Tech NY and LA are obvious targets.  Blogs are hot.  ALM has a stable of amazing bloggers.  Show them off.  Use them. 
• When a Law.com blogger suggests another blogger he/she thinks should be part of the network, run (don’t walk) to sign that person up.
• Get into podcasting.  Now.  Be the place for legal podcasters to host and syndicate their content. You’ve got the servers, give that space to lawyers doing podcasts.  For free.  Promote the podcasts in Lisa’s column and promote the best of the best on the Law.com front page.  Also, use podcasting technology to supplement interviews in the print publications.
• Build content-similar blawg silos, and aggregate (and make searchable) the RSS feeds.  I’d love to have an aggregated and searchable feed for all the IP blogs out there.  Same goes for the marketing blogs, and the trial tips blogs, and the ethics blogs, etc. Right now, the only common thread is that all the blogs are great, but there are not many other common themes running through the network. However, now that I’m gone, that may be changing.
• Build a branded RSS reader, and make it dead simple to use.  Lawyers don’t all get blogs, and those that do don’t all understand the power of RSS.  If you built them a super-easy Bloglines-like RSS reader (or adopted an existing one) you’d control a bunch of the content lawyers read and make it even easier for them to read your stuff.
• Dump the e-mail, embrace RSS.  Keep the e-mail lists, but offer a feed for every one of your e-mail publications. Combined with the branded reader, you would have unbelievable content to deliver to the desktops of your audience.
• Take blog content and repurpose it in regular columns in the ALM print publications.

And thanks for everything.

Oh, and if you still want to advertise all of those ALM events and publications on my blog, come Monday, I’ll have some space for sale.  ;-)

See that huge freakin’ ad next to this post?  By Monday, it will be gone. Why?  Effective Monday, I’m no longer a member of the Law.com network. Long story short, my blog is “going in a different direction” than the network (their words, not mine).  Like all but one Apprentice contestant each season, I was fired. 

But this isn’t a rant against Law.com.  Instead, I want to thank them for their help in bringing my blog to more readers, and I want to offer some suggestions that I think will make the network better (even in my absence).  I’d also like to solicit your feedback in hopes of helping all of the crew at Law.com grow the network and improve upon it.

• First things first:  Lisa Stone is fantastic.  She “gets” blogging (as demonstrated by her phenomenal success with Blogher) and continues to do an excellent job with the Inside Opinions feature she writes twice a week.   
• Second, I’ve been privileged to get to know my fellow Law.com bloggers.  All of them are great bloggers and each of their blogs will continue to have a place in my aggregator.  I’ve even had the good fortune to meet several of them in person and I wish them the best in the future.
• Third, Law.com deserves a tremendous amount of respect for being the first mainstream legal media outlet to recognize the power of blogging and try to harness it.  (As an aside, I had the privilege of meeting the American Lawyer Media CEO William Pollack at the inaugural LexThink event and he struck me as a technologically savvy and ahead-of-the-curve chief exec.  ALM is in good hands.)
• Fourth, I want to apologize to everyone at Law.com if you ever thought my comments and criticisms (including the frequent jabs at the size of the honkin’ huge ad) were anything more than a genuine effort to improve the network of which I was a part (and a desire to reclaim some valuable screen real estate). 
• Fifth, if I’d known in what direction my blog was going that diverged from Law.com’s intended path, I’d have made the change.  If you wanted less LexThink, I’d have complied.  Less Grace?  Check.  More baseball?  Check.  If you didn’t want my blog to serve as a marketing vehicle for my projects, I’d have toned that down too.  (Though, isn’t that one of the purposes of blogs?)  If you wanted more hard-core law … well, I’d have to draw the line somewhere. That said, thanks for never telling me what to write, or how to write it. 

Now that I’m out of the network, here are the things I’d do to improve it.  Law.com has heard some of these before, but to encourage debate among my readers and to get as much constructive feedback as possible to Law.com, I’ll share them with you.

• I know this is beating a dead horse, but is a 300 x 600 pixel ad really necessary?  Perhaps on a blog like Monica Bay’s Common Scold, which has a tremendous amount of terrific extra stuff in the sidebars, a large ad is necessary to stand out, but when there is only one ad on the whole site, is the huge size really non-negotiable?
• Now, go visit each of the law.com blogs and check out the ad.  Reload the page (along with the ad). It seems that at least 9/10 ad impressions are for American Lawyer Media properties — free advertising for ALM for which I don’t believe I was paid (Note, if I’m wrong here, please correct me and I’ll print a retraction). If Law.com/ALM is having trouble selling ads to traditional advertisers (not hard to believe, given the relative newness of blogs) wouldn’t a partnership with a blog advertising service make more sense? (UPDATE: As I visit the sites now, the ALM ads have disappeared and all I see are paying ads.  I would have really, really liked this to be the case for the last six months).
• Help your bloggers help Law.com and ALM.  The Law.com bloggers are a really cool group of people.  I’ve met a bunch, and corresponded with the rest.  I can’t imagine a better group of cutting-edge tech savvy lawyers to advise anyone on what blogging is, where it’s headed, and how lawyers can benefit.  The problem?  Our brains weren’t picked and our collective smarts underutilized.  People are paying big bucks to have access to the kinds of talent ALM assembled in this network.  ALM had us for free (well, almost).  The first thing I’d do to change this is institute a monthly conference call among the remaining Law.com bloggers to get their ideas for improving the network (I’d even join in if they’d have me).  I’d also parade them around every ALM event where a blogger panel is appropriate — and identify them as part of the network.  Legal Tech NY and LA are obvious targets.  Blogs are hot.  ALM has a stable of amazing bloggers.  Show them off.  Use them. 
• When a Law.com blogger suggests another blogger he/she thinks should be part of the network, run (don’t walk) to sign that person up.
• Get into podcasting.  Now.  Be the place for legal podcasters to host and syndicate their content. You’ve got the servers, give that space to lawyers doing podcasts.  For free.  Promote the podcasts in Lisa’s column and promote the best of the best on the Law.com front page.  Also, use podcasting technology to supplement interviews in the print publications.
• Build content-similar blawg silos, and aggregate (and make searchable) the RSS feeds.  I’d love to have an aggregated and searchable feed for all the IP blogs out there.  Same goes for the marketing blogs, and the trial tips blogs, and the ethics blogs, etc. Right now, the only common thread is that all the blogs are great, but there are not many other common themes running through the network. However, now that I’m gone, that may be changing.
• Build a branded RSS reader, and make it dead simple to use.  Lawyers don’t all get blogs, and those that do don’t all understand the power of RSS.  If you built them a super-easy Bloglines-like RSS reader (or adopted an existing one) you’d control a bunch of the content lawyers read and make it even easier for them to read your stuff.
• Dump the e-mail, embrace RSS.  Keep the e-mail lists, but offer a feed for every one of your e-mail publications. Combined with the branded reader, you would have unbelievable content to deliver to the desktops of your audience.
• Take blog content and repurpose it in regular columns in the ALM print publications.

And thanks for everything.

Oh, and if you still want to advertise all of those ALM events and publications on my blog, come Monday, I’ll have some space for sale.  ;-)

Comments

[Yvonne DiVita]

Wow, Matt. You sound like...a girl. If I ranted like that, I'd be hung out to dry. Don't get me wrong, I am totally on your side. Not surprised by the events, and with you all the way. But, I wonder...if they aren't worried about this very thing...your natural inclination, and ability, to voice a dissenting opinion, and to point out where they might (should) move for improvement.

I am disappointed that ALM isn't smart enough to keep you. You are so insightful, you have so much to offer. But then, they're lawyers and you're... a blogger. I'd say a legal blogger but that wouldn't be quite right. You're a blogger, through and through. Your expertise is law, but that's just one thing you write about.

We need more of you and less of them. I hope you know that the opening line about being a girl was... a little rant of my own (truly, when we do it, people say stop bitching), but it was, in some ways, a compliment. Because you get so much beyond law, beyond blogging, and beyond technology. You get people. It don't get better than that, pardon my grammer.

I predict you'll fill that advertising space quickly. LexThink forever!

[Mike]

Great feedback, Matt.

[Bob Kraft]

Matt, I'm sorry if you suffer any substantial negative impact from this silly decision.

I'll start the bidding for your suddenly available space. I'll give you 20 cents a day to advertise my www.pissd.com blog.

Bob

[Douglas Sorocco]

Great post Matt! I think that you will be an asset that will be sorely missed from the network. Instead of more baseball posts, however, how about more fuzzy bunny posts? I think that would really jazz up the place. =)

Keep up all the great work - you are always an inspiration.

Douglas