Elephant Head by Trouble on flickr

A while ago I commented on a blog post about the nature of legal blogging. I was pretty relaxed about the definition of legal blogging, and people’s self-definition and motivation for blogging and was a bit bemused when a number of commenters got a bit hot under the collar about who was a real blogger / blawger / flawger, and what sorts of blogs had value. But I’m feeling slightly different about it now. Increasingly the term “blawger” is symbolic of an approach that I just don’t identify with, and I think I’d prefer to define Pink Tape as a legal commentary blog (albeit not always the most serious commentary), not a “blawg” or a “flawg”. And here’s for why…

I work pretty hard on this blog. In between the “real” work of barristering. It does make me a little bit of money in the form of advertising revenue, but not nearly as much as the lost billable time I spend writing blog posts. No doubt the blog has some benefits in terms of profile – but notoriety is not necessarily a surefire way to more instructions. Good bloggers do not necessarily make good lawyers and vice versa. If I just wrote in order to sell my “product” I would censor myself rather better than I do. For example I would probably not foreground the amount of legal aid work I do and would not complain that I can’t pay my mortgage. I make a conscious effort to write from the heart, to write honestly about my experiences, to say what I think rather than what I think potential clients might like to hear (within the bounds of professional conduct). Much of what appears on Pink Tape is unlikely to win me any clients. People might read it, but it hasn’t resulted in a queue outside chambers to instruct me on a Monday morning. And I’ve probably put the kaibosh on any hopes of a judicial career I might have had (far too bloody opionionated and hot headed). But overall I don’t think it hurts, and lay clients are sometimes impressed or are reassured by knowing their lawyer has a beating heart and a bit of a life.

So why do I divert considerable energy into this blog? I’ve got more than enough to be getting on with without it. It is partly a cathartic process, a means of managing the stress of the job. But it is also out of a sense, probably misplaced, that we need to be more transparent, more open to criticism, more willing to debate family justice issues. Out of a belief that the public need better information, and that those within the “system” have a responsibility to be part of that process. Idealistic crap probably, but it accounts for some of the more outspoken material on Pink Tape.

Other bloggers balance these considerations differently, but at one end of the spectrum are those who treat blogging as no more than an adjunct to a marketing campaign. I make no value judgments about that, but it’s not my bag. I think (and will be corrected if I am wrong) that there is a tendency for the term “blawger” to be associated with blogs falling at that end of the spectrum or to be used by those who are behind such blogs. So I’m finding that term a bit of a turn off.

Anyhoo. With all that in mind, it irritates me when people expect me to do their marketing for free. Pink Tape is not just a glorified advertorial for “Lucy Reed, Barrister” (of course I take the opportunity to signpost to services I offer, but if it were only a marketing campaign I would have ditched it long ago as the quantifiable ROI is negligible). And it goes without saying that a visibly CRAP blog would not enhance my practice. And therefore it ought not to be a surprise that I don’t rent it out to anyone who wants to promote themselves for free by piggybacking off my hard work on Pink Tape.

As I type this I am cringing. I’m not trying to be a self important pompous wotsit (I appreciate the bar suffers from a predisposition to pomposity). But it is important to me that what people read here is interesting, informative, real. And honest.

So, when I get an email from a marketing company saying,

when firm XXX has a sizeable budget for advertising and their own blog consisting mainly of posts amounting to a cut and paste headline, a link to a news story, and a tacked on sentence saying “Our solicitors can offer you advice on [a topic vaguely related to the news item in question]”: I generally send a tart response along the lines of “If you want an advert I can send you my rates”. And it’s not just me: this lazy approach to marketing is a pet hate of others too, as Kate Gomery coincidentally points out in a post today.

I don’t write blog posts like those and I don’t publish similar posts written by others. Apart from anything else, clients deserve a bit more respect. If it’s an advert then  say it’s an advert. That’s ok. But pretending you are offering something of value when you are just regurgitating some Daily Mail tittle tattle is sending out the message that you think your clients are fools. It’s insulting and probably counterproductive (OK, maybe a little value judgment).

Equally, when someone writes,

they get pretty short shrift. Lady, if you had in fact read my blog post you would know that I do indeed “do” advertising. But I identify it as such. And I don’t pretend it’s something it’s not.

I am amazed at the number of solicitors firms who spend good money on PR and SEO agencies that send out this sort of ridiculous rubbish on their behalves:

Readers will know I am NOT a PI barrister. Can you guess what my response was?

No reply yet.

Here’s another exchange:

My response:

They try again:

I’m not going to humiliate or have a go at individual firms so you’ll have to take my word for it that the website in question is in the style complained of by Kate Gomery. I did not add them to my blogroll. They did not purchase an advert.

So. For what it’s worth let me lay down this marker (and henceforth all similar enquiries will be met with the economic reply “No” followed by the permalink to this post – which I fully appreciate will also not be read by spamming PR idiots):

• Don’t pretend to have read my blog or to think it’s interesting. You know that’s b****cks and so do I.
• I don’t disguise adverts as content, even if you dress them up as guest blog posts.
• If I want a guest blog post from someone I respect who has something of value to say that my readers will find interesting I will ask them. If your client can’t be bothered to introduce themselves or build a relationship they are unlikely to get an invite.
• I don’t accept payment for content. I do accept payment for adverts (which are entirely at my discretion).
• If you want links for the purposes of SEO I’m happy to oblige for a fee.
• I do not run the blog for the purposes of making a profit off advertising. I do not need to haggle with you on advertising costs.
• I do not blog for the sole purpose of self promotion. I do not need to write a blog post for you, even if you imply you are doing me a favour by letting me work for free.
• I spend a lot of time on this blog. If your clients think it’s such a great idea and that has some positive marketing potential I suggest they invest some time themselves. It would be far better spent than the money they have wasted on your fees.
• Learn to spell. Learn something about the legal sector. Learn something about social media marketing.