What the actual heck? Kevin O’Keefe’s blog about blog fodder popped up in my LinkedIn feed the other day and I’m still processing it : Want to be a thought leader? Law blog fodder for sale at the “Content Store”
I mean, call me self righteous (it won’t be the first time) but this is just wrong on so many levels. Wrong and STUPID (O’Keefe gives a taster of a few of the reasons why – I won’t spell them out here).
I’m not naive of course. I’ve been blogging for years, and I get email after email containing new and cunning attempts to get me to publish material on behalf of naive or naughty law firms that has very plainly never been within a mile of a real lawyer, has about as much substance as a kleenex and is less literate than something my 7 year old would scribble. And is almost certainly in the format of a top ten and based upon the law in the USA. Sometimes such entreaties are accompanied with offers of money, and sometimes (the more ambitious ones) are merely accompanied by an attempt to persuade me that I really *need* to publish this awful drivel for my own benefit. So I know there is a racket out there by SEO-oil salesman and “marketing gurus”. And I can spot a blog post written by an SEO from a mile off – they are all over the place – and guys, they really are achingly awful.
But back to the issue at hand : Thomson Reuters are selling articles for lawyers to pass off as their own “boost [their] thought leadership quotient“? I got all hot under the collar about essay plagiarism at law school. How is this different?
Perhaps Kevin O’Keefe was right when he speculated some years ago about the failure of the business model of legal publishers : Could LexisNexis and Thomson Reuter legal publishing model go up in smoke?. Is this a consequence of that struggle to adapt?
Whatever it is it makes blogging feel dirty and I do not heart it.
Lucy, I agree with you on probably some of your many levels, that this is a bad idea for Thomson Reuters, but it’s likely you are being a bit precious.
I think this is not the made-for-SEO pap you write about where a “marketing” agency’s objective is to get “relevant” content, however dire, published on a high ranking site with an embedded link to their client.
The provision of ready made, quality articles for publication in newsletters (usually on an exclusive geographical basis to avoid duplication) has a long and reasonably respectable history and “content marketing” is a necessary element of any digital marketing strategy these days.
So I think what’s wrong with this initiative is that it is the wrong people selling the solution (respected law publishers selling marketing material) in the wrong way (“blog fodder” says it all).
Like you Nick, I assume that the quality of these articles is rather higher than most of the top ten rubbish I get sent by SEOs. But I don’t really agree that “content marketing” is a “necessary element of any digital marketing strategy these days”. You are entitled to think I am precious but I think this practice is a) shortsighted and b) ethically dubious for a profession which trades in skills with the written and spoken word and legal expertise to buy in words about legal expertise. I don’t doubt others will disagree (they obviously do), but that’s where I’m at. If I want blog fodder and I don’t have time I invite a guest post from someone I respect and I give them credit for their work. That’s the honest way to do things.
Of course for you, as an individual thought leader, it is. But there are also many law firms who have firm blogs/news pages where some articles may be written by eg their trainees, para-legals or marketing people. Surely, if the quality is good, a firm can buy in the same services whilst still remaining honest? The claim by TR that these articles will “boost your thought leadership quotient” is just the wrong sort of spin.
you’re too kind etc etc..
I don’t have any objection to people publishing material not written by them but personally I think if it is written externally it is good practice to say so – in the same way that if it is written by a trainee it should say so. They deserve credit and those relying on it deserve to know. I also think that it is far more compelling marketing if you are able to see it is written by a named individual at the firm or chambers upon whose website the article is placed – as opposed to material with no identified author. It gives far more credibility and allows entities to demonstrate that our people really know their stuff, which is presumably at least a significant part of the purpose of the exercise. Perhaps consumers are not as cynical as me, but I always wonder why an article purporting to give pearls of wisdom has no name against it, unless it is a sort of press release type thing.
The whole attribution thing calls for another post!
Yeah, I know. Another day perhaps…