It ain't all good...
Tuesday, April 20, 2010 at 8:28PM I have been thinking lately about how lawyers might use social media to deal with less positive publicity and comments.
The background to this is that one of our local firms of solicitors recently launched a new website as part of a rebranding exercise. They announced it with a bit of a fanfare and also plugged it on their new Twitter account asking what people thought.
Like most tweets about local lawyers, this found its way to me via the Twitter searches I have set up using RSS so I decided to take a look. I don't really have an unhealthy obsession with law firm websites, but I like to keep on top of new ones which are launched locally to see if they have come with anything exciting.
In this case, the answer was basically no, but I noticed that the "contact us" box didn't seem quite right in Safari... text was superimposed over a picture in a way which made the whole thing illegible and the elements of the form seemed to be in the wrong places.
A quick look on Firefox showed what it should actually have looked like... definitely a problem with how the site rendered in Safari (and mobile Safari too... I checked!).
I tweeted back to point out that there seemed to be a problem with how the site rendered in Safari and that they might want to check this out.
The response... absolutely nothing. Not a "thanks for the heads-up" or even a "get stuffed!" and a week later the site still doesn't work properly in Safari.
I can't understand the thought process behind this. Are they ignoring me because I work for a competitor? Are they not interested in Safari users? Do they think I am trying to wind them up?
If it was my site I would want it fixed and I would be happy that someone pointed it out (whoever they were).
This isn't even a case of negative publicity or unpleasant comments (I was genuinely trying to be helpful rather than snarky... which is why I haven't named them in this post), but is a blank silence the best response?
In this situation there is nothing to be lost by a polite response (by DM if you are worried about losing face)... followed by a prompt call to your web designer!
I don't think that it is ever appropriate for law firms to deal with serious negative publicity (complaints by clients etc.) via Twitter... but if you are serious about social media you can't only engage with those who are saying what you want to hear.
One quick example:- the recent story about Coca Cola supposedly encouraging workers to call in sick in their adverts for Glaceau Mineral Water.
I actually follow @glaceaunwest (the local account for Glaceau Mineral Water) on Twitter and on the day the story broke I tweeted:
I doubt this had Coca Cola nervously checking their stock price (and it probably wasn't all that funny either), but a little while later a response popped up from @glaceaunw:
Made me chuckle... and also showed that they are not just on Twitter to send out Tweets plugging mineral water, but are actually serious about engaging with people who have something to say about their business.
Law firms who are venturing onto Twitter would do well to bear this in mind. It isn't a broadcast medium (at least not if you want to see any benefit).
If you aren't prepared to deal with the tricky Tweets as well as the flattering ones then maybe you should think twice before putting yourself out there?
Reader Comments (4)
Good post and important point, social media is a dialogue not a monologue. Those that try to engage with it in an old model of broadcast messaging will fail in it's potential. This presentation sums it up nicely from slide 44 onwards: http://www.slideshare.net/mzkagan/what-the-fk-is-social-media-one-year-later
This is a real bug bear for me. Many law firms on Twitter, many law firms actually don't know how to use it, (or most other social media tools), they just think they do.
Some basics in my opinion are,
1. Anyone who makes a comment about you, constructive criticism is saying "I want to engage with you" Depending on the circumstance this can be done via Twitter or if more specific, detailed, acrimonious can be moved to offline. the point is it is nothing to do with Twitter and everything to do with managing the enquiry.
2. Too many law firms use social media as a 'gimmick' because its what is hip and happening, which I have to say is a tad ironic.
3. Too many law firms use Twitter as a mouthpiece for their PR. People switch off from this very very very quickly and it is hard for them to re-engage, if ever.
4. Too many law firms just retweet other peoples tweets. Sometimes that is relevant, most of the time it just creates unnecessary noise, so people unfollow.
5. Most law firms tweet about 'the law.' Interesting to you not very interesting to your potential audience. Big clue...pssst they do know you are a solicitor 'cos you know what...they aren't stupid. So you are more interesting if you talk about the things they talk about.
Twitter delivers immediacy and what really really impresses a follower is if your response is clear and quick and provides a solution roadmap. Maybe you sort it in a Tweet maybe it leads to a telephone call or face to face. But what it is absolutely about is sorting it. Ignore it and they are gone for good and if anyone asks them, "do you know a solicitor?" I bet they don't recommend you.
For example take @SteveKuncewicz, a media lawyer who I tweet with. I have no need for Steve's services presently but I still Tweet with him bout music and leftfield stuff like our love of 'The Wall' by Pink Floyd. Now if I ever do need a media lawyer or I know someone who is looking for one who do you think I am going to call. You got it Steve. I ain't gonna shop around or all that molarky, I go with my instinct. That is the power of social media.
If anyone has been following the #140conf you will have read some good stuff. Twitter is the great listening tool and if you don't listen on Twitter, let the crowd lead the conversation frankly you may as well ditch your social media strategy and go have another round of golf.
I agree with Jon Busby's point above, but in my view, this issue simply arises because social media requires a massive shift in mindset for most private practice lawyers. My main recollection of being a private practice lawyer was that I spent my time providing formal legal advice, and then making sure every eventuality (and my back) was covered so that I couldn't be sued over it! . Social media doesn't have anything in common with that: firstly, it isn't about providing legal advice and, secondly, it requires those involved in it to ask questions, seek information from others, be light-hearted and sometimes even controversial - its all about "exposure", a much riskier behaviour than back-covering.
I've recently blogged about the need for law-firms to talk my language (http://in-house-lawyer.blogspot.com/2010/04/are-you-talking-my-language.html) and to play the advantage (http://in-house-lawyer.blogspot.com/2010/04/play-advantage.html) when it comes to social media.
I'm kooking forward to more law firms and lawyers from all walks of life to engage in this medium, it benefits us all.
Thanks for your comments!
Melanie - I agree totally about the "mindshift" point - it is something which some individual lawyers have embraced, but it seems to be more difficult for law firms (via their official twitter accounts) to do.
It's interesting to have your perspective as a lawyer, but also effectively a client (or potential client).
Jon's point about tweets about the law is interesting as well. I suspect that in general people are only really bothered about legal updates which are directly relevant to them... e.g. if your company is going through a redundancy exercise you will probably pounce on an update about the latest developments in employment law. A stream of updates on different areas of the law is likely to contain a lot of stuff which isn't relevant to most of your followers is likely to turn people off.