Marty sent us an email yesterday that suggested that we do some posts he wanted to call "Deliberate Provocations" designed to start some conversations. He also indicated that he thought that I, rather than he, should start this new line of posts. I'm not sure why he wanted me to take the lead.
So, here's my conversation starter for the day.
I learned that the Law Professor Blog Network announced that all of the blogs in the network had gotten sponsorship from LexisNexis.
My first reaction was, wow, this is great, some bloggers are actually going to make some money with a major league sponsor.
My second reaction was remembering how I have seen the most criticism for wanting to do sponsorships on blogs from one specific group - professors. I've heard it all - conflicts, tossing away my credibility, blogs must be free, you name it.
Then, today, a group of professors takes the lead in blog sponsorships.
They are even openly inviting other professors to join their network. I'm not seeing any talk yet of sullying the hallowed halls of academia or anything like that.
In the old days of blogging (before today), the professors warned us against going commercial. Now they take the lead. What lessons are we supposed to take from the actions of our teachers? Is it a case of do what the profs say, but don't look at what they actually do?
My initial feeling is that if it's OK for the professors to take the dough, then what will stop the practicing lawyers, who are generally considered to be looking to make money off of this blogging thing rather than to educate, from jumping in? I mean, we look to the profs to set an example for us.
If the Law.com network was a baby step for legal bloggers, then the Law Professor Blog Network move seems like a giant step. Have the barriers to blog sponsorship been knocked down? Or, are the profs just a better marketing vehicle than other bloggers? Or am I making more out of this than is really there? Or am I simply suggesting to other sponsors who haven't jumped on the blogging bandwagon that they might have better options than the ones that have already been taken by the early sponsors?
Or am I simply trying to provoke you?
Denise Howell
Dennis M. Kennedy
Tom Mighell
Marty Schwimmer
Ernest Svenson
1. Ross Runkel on April 12, 2005 9:06 PM writes...
Is it your understanding that the profs are getting money in their pockets, or is it simply that the sponsor is picking up the tab for the cost of hosting the blogs? If it's the latter, then my reaction is that the profs got the short end of the stick.
Permalink to Comment2. Dennis Kennedy on April 13, 2005 12:59 AM writes...
Ross, appreciate your comment. I didn't see any details in the post I read. You can certainly make a good argument that advertisers and sponsors are getting tremendous bargains for their dollars spent on bloggers these days. I think that picking up hosting expenses, especially for podcasting, would be a great benefit of any sponsorship agreement for bloggers who pay for their own web hosting. I'd think that some sponsorships would include both direct payments and hosting or other benefits. When I talk to companies considering options for jumping into the world of blogs, I always mention that they should consider offering bloggers hosting, redesign or other benefits as part of the package. For companies who want to do more than buy me lunch, I would go into more detail about strategies they might consider. ;-)
Permalink to Comment3. Kevin O'Keefe on April 20, 2005 12:56 AM writes...
Ross is right. If all they are getting is the cost of running and hosting a blog, that's too little. Sponsorship of blogs when the blog has good content is a good value for the sponsor - all depending on the size of the readership of course.
Gawker Media, which hosts a number of blogs drawing a very large audience gets sponsors of their content paying significant sums. The day is going to come (probably very soon) when a law firm sponsors a blog on a niche topic on which they practice for which the firm may write very little, if any, content.
Plaintiff's trial law firms spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in marketing. In many cases their Internet presences suck. Sponsoring a blog for $75,000 a year focused on a particular product and the injuries & lives it has cost people is peanuts for a firm handling cases on behalf of injured victims and their families.
Was on a panel with Gabby Darbyshire, director of business development for Gawker Media, a few weeks ago in New York. She pointed out that some bloggers are too concerned with who is writing the content, who is the sponsor and what you call the thing - a blog or a Web site. If the content is good and draws people, it can be a great marketing buy for a sponsor.
Permalink to Comment4. Joel S. on April 20, 2005 8:58 AM writes...
I have been critical of this type of stuff in the past, on Kevin's blog, but I think the key is transparency. If you're going to run a site written by somebody else, you need to say that, and not pretend you did the work. If you are accepting advertising or being paid to write something on your blog, you need to be honest about it.
I agree that accurate legal information in blog form is a great idea, but no one is spending $75,000 per year to distsribute free legal info to the public out of the goodness of their hearts. It's legal marketing, and as such, it requires some real thought.
Permalink to Comment5. Dennis Crouch on April 21, 2005 2:33 PM writes...
Of course, with attorney blogs the greatest potential for a conflict of interest is not advertising but rather client relationships. On a number of occasions I have avoided posting on particular topics where a firm client was adversely involved. In those cases, writing a post would have been a bad move for the attorney-client relationship and perhaps even unethical under the model rules.
Permalink to Comment