Social media, social networking and texting have changed the way we connect with one another, and have opened up lines of communication in ways none of us could have anticipated only a few years ago. Unfortunately, it’s also changing our attitudes towards spelling and grammar, which I see daily on Facebook. I’ll say it right now. I care about spelling and grammar. I admit it. I read  books on grammar for fun. I follow Grammar Girl on Twitter and Facebook. I have a current AP Style book sitting on my desk, with flags on my common errors, and I actually pulled it down earlier this week. Before things spin too far out of control with spelling and grammar, maybe we should take a step back and ask: “Is grammar important on Facebook?” Granted, Facebook is a relaxed social network where we post pictures of our vacations, friends, kids, meals we’ve cooked. We share articles we are reading, and silly things that come to mind. Facebook is the go-to place where we connect with family, friends and all those people we went to high school with, but can’t really remember. Facebook is also a place where we interact with our colleagues, past, present and future. And, this is where things get a bit tricky. Facebook is the melting pot of our lives. My Facebook is populated by professional colleagues (30%), my personal community (30%), friends from high school (25%), family and other friends (15%). It’s a real hodge-podge of people, experiences, ages, education levels, etc. On any given day I can read about mortgage rates, a man bicycling down the street in leg-warmers and fishnet stalkings (come on, I live in L.A.), and the most up-to-date information on what’s happening at an industry conference. And a day doesn’t go by that I do not bristle at a post that is poorly phrased, spelled, and thought out. But then others get by me without notice or care. And, please note, I am not above my own “rant” here. So why do I care only some of the time?? I believe it has to do with the content and the presumed audience. If you use “ur” instead of “you are” on a post about going to the beach, I’m fine with that. But when you misuse “your” and “you’re” in a sentence, I bristle. You made a grammatical error, rather than taking a shortcut. I can also forgive and overlook a typo due to typing too quickly, or your smart phone’s auto-correct, but I cannot get past the error of using “excepted” when you meant to say “accepted” in a business related post. To me, it says a lot about who you are as a professional. I’ve been thinking about this for a few days. For me, it comes down to two things:

  1. As I am blending my personal and professional worlds, I am unconsciously making judgments based on how you present yourself by what you post. If we are personal friends, this can affect the way I view you professionally, and vice versa.
  2. I am finding that I have begun incorporating text/Facebook “accepted” shortcuts outside of these mediums. I have used “U” instead of “You” in e-mails, at work. Hello???? Earth to Ms. Communications Chick. Not okay.

I think it is a travesty that the Oxford Dictionary is moving to an online-only subscription model. I bemoan my children who would rather take the time to boot-up the computer to look a word up online, than pull off the shelf the Merriam-Webster dictionary or the Roget’s Thesaurus that my mother bought me as I headed off to college. Yes, I do love and appreciate the ease and ability to look up words online (especially on my nook), but I also love the discovery of new words when I pull those dusty books off the shelf. When I walk into a conference or a meeting room, studies have shown that within two seconds I am judged by how I carry and present myself. My hair, my clothes, my shoes, how I do my makeup. In a matter of two seconds you will make assumptions as to my intelligence, my value and worth. Why would it be any different online? What I Tweet, post, share, and how well I do these things, will provide you insight into who I am. It doesn’t matter if I am in a social situation or a business situation, or if I am writing in a casual manner on Facebook, posting to my blog, or writing a business communique. If the words coming out of my mouth, or off my keyboard, are garbled, unintelligible, filled with misused/misspelled words, or spewed with profanities,  you WILL (rightly) make assumptions. Which brings us back to my original question: “Is grammar important on Facebook?” Yeah, it is. Deliberate shortcuts are acceptable. Content and audience should also be taken into account. I can get away with saying “yeah” on my blog instead of “yes” because I have deliberately built and consistently maintained a colloquial tone. It is acceptable HERE, on The Legal Watercooler. But I cannot get away with using “yeah” in a work-related e-mail. And while I don’t think the “grammar police” need come out and give a ticket every time an accepted social media shortcut is used, I do believe it is important that we always place our best word forward. Photo via Grammar Girl on Facebook.

One of the consequences (perks) of dating the sports dude is that the NFL Network (or ESPN, or Fox Sports) is constantly streaming in the house. If it wasn’t, I would not have awoken from a mid-day nap on August 7th to  Emmit Smith’s incredibly inspiring induction speech (video, or read transcript) to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

I can’t get the speech out of my head, which, for those who know me well, is testimony to the power of Mr. Smith’s words.

After thanking the men who inspired him as a man and as a player, Mr. Smith laid out how he achieved his success (emphasis added):

Now let’s talk about some specific steps I took that were critical to sustaining my vision. There’s a difference between merely having a dream and fulfilling a vision. Most people only dream. I only not had my childhood dream, but I did everything in my power to fulfill it.

For example, I wrote down my goals and how I was going to achieve them because Dwight Thomas used to tell us, It’s only a dream until you write it down, and then it becomes a goal. By the time I was 20, I wrote, I want to play in the Super Bowl, be the MVP, become the all-time leading rusher, and finish college, because I promised my mother I would.

Over the course of my career, all of those things came to pass, and I know that writing down my goals was an essential strategy.

Another critical principle is consistency. Consistency shows value. Consistency is necessary for trust, durability and longevity. You have to show up every week no matter how difficult the game or life might be.

I not only showed consistency, but I did everything in my power to be the best that I possibly could. Over time consistency will allow you to achieve your goals.

Next is balance. As I stated earlier, balance was the key to our success. We had all the balance you could possibly have. I exhibit balance in my personal life when I put my family in its proper place, and that is number one.

During the course of my day, my week, and my year, I have the propensity to lose sight of my goals, and, when I do, they then revert back into dreams.

I suppose it’s time for me to do a personal audit: What are my current dreams? Are my dreams written down so that they may become goals? Do I maintain consistency?? Am I always doing my best? Bringing my “A” game every day? Do I always show up, no matter how tough, how inconvenient? And where is my family in all of this? My children? My parents? The sports dude?? Are they number one, or am I?

I hope you take the time to listen to Mr. Smith’s poignant remarks. Reading the transcripts will not do them justice. So, grab a cup of coffee, and perhaps your lunch, and click here.

Photo via Emmitt Smith’s enshrinement | The Pensacola News Journal.

I’m taking a vacation day, waiting for the “early morning low clouds” to burn off before heading out to the pool, so what better time to catch up on my Twitter Followers and see, well, who should I follow??

I follow people whom I believe would be interested in my message: fellow legal marketers, lawyers, service providers, consultants, and others connected to the legal industry;  those in marketing, business development, PR, communications, etc. sectors for other industries; news outlets and political pundits; and stuff/people I find funny or provide me personal value.

To identify these people, I depend on their profiles. With bit.ly I can just hover over a profile in Twitter.com (not Tweetdeck) and the profile pops up.

So, what does your profile say about you? Here’s mine:

legal marketer, mom, girl scout leader, 80s music chick, GF to Sports dude, Go Dodgers!! Tired

This mini-profile says a lot. It lets you know what I do for a living and it gives you insight into my personal interests. If my goal is to create personal connections, well, the follower has several choices here, each of which can begin a conversation. Your profile is searchable, so put search terms in there.

Here are a few profiles that I passed on today:

  • Everything about coaching and more…. msg me sometime
  • Social Media Marketer – Ask for a FREE social Media marketin…
  • Futurist, entrepreneur, keynote speaker, strategy advisor,
  • Startup Weekender, Idea Igniter, Entrepreneur, Mentor, Autho…
  • i am working on a large project to utilize my skills
  • Get SEOPower WordPress Plugin For Free
  • I Energise people and liberate talent – career change with

Not ONE of these profiles gives me any insight into the PERSON tweeting. They’re all about what they WANT from me … which is business. There’s nothing here that I can identify with, connect to, or find of interest.

I’ll also skip anyone with “diva” or “guru” in their profile, unless they are being sarcastic, because I like sarcasm.

If you want me to follow you, tell me a bit about who you are. Your profile can also let me know why are you interested in me? We might be in different business sectors, but share in common being Girl Scout leaders (comes in handy during cookie-hell season), or maybe we’re both Dodgers fans and we can bemoan the McCourts together and the hell they’re causing the Blue Crew.

And then there are all the people who have NOTHING in their profile, or protect their profiles. Go away. #fail.

As I mentioned in Mad Men, Lawyers and … How Big is Your Sandbox, Episode 5 was so rich with content, I was going to have to write two separate posts. Part deux focuses on Don Draper’s interactions with Ted Shaw … the competition. I’m going to focus on the importance of competitive intelligence/research and the RFP process. Ted is a partner at a competitive firm and he’s picking up the clients that Sterling Cooper Draper and the other guy either dropped (Clearasil) or lost (Jai-alai). They’re that firm that just gets under your skin because you KNOW you’re better than they are. They’re not even in your league.  You know your work product is superior. Come on, you’re innovative, competitively priced, and you know how to entertain a client. And you know who your competition is. Your competition is in front of you. They take up 10 floors of premium space in a Class-A building in a major metropolitan city. They’re not this firm. Or are they? My question to you is: Do you know who your competition is? I’m not talking about who you want your competition to be. Most firms will name an AmLaw 100, or the top firm in town as their competition. Your competition, in reality, are the firms and lawyers doing the work that you want, for the clients that are in your sweet spot. They’re the firms and lawyers who won the beauty contest for which you spent hours preparing. So here’s where competitive intelligence and research comes in (in its simplest practice). Research the work that you want, but you don’t yet have. Who is doing it? Both Westlaw and LexisNexis have products that enable you to easily find this out (at a reasonable price if you are a current subscriber). When I search a specific type of litigation, in a certain industry, in a defined geographic vicinity or court system, I can CLEARLY see who is getting the work, and who is not. I can click on the company and know who they’re handing the premium work, and who is picking up the scraps. I know the attorneys and players involved, and I know what work they’re taking on, and what work we don’t want. And just like Don most likely sees Grey Advertising as his competition … most lawyers will name that firm in the ivory tower, when, in reality, it’s the Ted Shaw’s of the world. Let the research SHOW you the truth, and lead you to the business. Early in the episode Ted tells the New York Times reporter:

Every time Don Draper looks in his rear-view mirror he sees me.”

Who's in YOUR rear-view mirror??
Don’s “on the record” response is “never heard of him.” While Ted has declared himself to be the competition, and therefore Don’s equal, Don just thinks he’s a fly to be swatted away. Ignored. In many cases this is true, but sometimes the objects in that rear-view mirror are too big to be ignored. Word of advice:

Just because you think someone is your competition does not make it so.

When Don hears that Ted & Co. are going after the Honda Motorcycle account he’s determined to sabotage Ted’s firm. How does he do this?? By getting Ted to not follow the RFPs instructions. Which brings me to this: When responding to a Request for Proposal (RFP, RFI, RFQ, etc):

  1. Follow the rules (instructions). ALWAYS.
  2. Answer the questions asked, in the order asked.
  3. Don’t answer questions that they don’t ask.
    • If you have to add something outside the rules, put it in the cover letter.
  4. Don’t give them a product they didn’t ask for (i.e., if they ask for a story board, don’t give them a finished commercial).
  5. Understand the culture of the client you are pitching.
    • Read the firm’s website, press releases, Google search the company and everyone attending the meeting (if you make the beauty contest), read the 10K, etc.
  6. Learn who the competition is. How do you do this? ASK the client who else has been invited to participate.
  7. Determine up front if this a REAL pitch, or is it an EXERCISE and the fix is in?
    • RED FLAG: If the current firm is invited to participate in the pitch process, do more research. Why?? Is it a requirement of the corporation bylaws or because it’s a public agency? If so, the fix is in and you need to determine do you submit anyway because you have to (politically), or do you simply pass on the opportunity.

For Don and the team, they knew they weren’t going to get the business, thanks to Roger, but they were determined that Ted & Co. not get it either. By forcing Ted & Co. to break the RFP rules, they ensured their competition’s loss. In the end … it turns out Honda was never going to leave Grey. Ted spent so much money preparing a finished commercial that he most likely killed his firm. And Don, well, Don got to create a moment that will make for a great story over drinks. Oh, and one final piece of advice. It’s actually my #1 RFP rule: FORWARD IT TO THE MARKETING DEPARTMENT ASAP. Don’t leave it sitting on your desk until the week it is due. Photo via AMC’s Mad Men

I had an interesting “ah-ha” moment at work today. While heating up my lunch, the firm’s managing partner, along with one of the other partners, came into the kitchen area. They were deep in conversation, and I was starved, so I didn’t interupt or engage. At some point I did realize that they were not talking about the upcoming program we’re sponsoring, or a client matter. They were deep in conversation about new Dodgers’ pitcher Rod Barajas. While I knew there was a new pitcher with the Blue Crew, I hadn’t read up on him, and didn’t have anything to offer to the conversation, so I went back to my office to eat. And then it hit me: At that moment, I did not speak the language of the water cooler at my firm. At my firm, in addition to our kids, local sports, politics, Mad Men and the gym upstairs are topics of conversation around the water cooler. We’ll add fantasy football to that list very soon. Just as every firm has its own culture, I believe every firm has its own language. By speaking the language of the attorneys (and I’m NOT talking legalease), I have been able to find commonality with the partners. I am able to place myself into a position of being a peer, at least around the water cooler, and not just the marketing director/staff. It did not get past my notice that at the attorney dinner earlier this year — to which I was the only non-attorney invited to attend — I was sat at the managing partner’s table. At the dinner that night, our table talked about sports, politics, rap music, etc. We were laughing, engaged and having a great time. Looking around the room, I couldn’t say the same for all the other tables. The founding partner of our firm stopped by my office today. We noted that it will soon be three years since I joined the firm. I commented on how I’m still having fun. I’m enjoying how marketing and business development are being accepted and adopted into the firm’s culture (slowly). He noted how much more at ease I am in my role. And, then it hit me … In the time that the sports dude and I have been dating, I’ve been exposed to watching, listening, reading, editing, and talking about sports on a daily basis. This has allowed me to become conversent in one of the dominate languages in my firm, which puts me at ease when having to speak to and approach my partners to ask for money, or ask them to do something . Hmmmmmm. Not too bad for heating up a leftover burger and asparagus. Clip art via azcentral.com

One of the BEST episodes of Mad Men last night. We’ll just leave the Sally Draper stuff for around the water cooler, and talk about the INCREDIBLE interactions between Roger Sterling and, well, everyone else. Because of the great stuff last night I’m going to break it up into two posts, so stay tuned for Episode 5, Part 2: Mad Men, Lawyers and … Who’s That in Your Rear View Mirror? In last night’s episode, Roger was either a xenophobe suffering from post-traumatic stress from his WWII days spent in the South Pacific, or he’s a calculating, greedy SOB. Peter Campbell thinks it’s the latter. Throughout the episode, Roger is deliberately sabotaging the firm’s efforts to bring Honda Motorcycles in as a new client. A potential $3 million account (in 1965 dollars), Honda will break the lopsided importance of the firm’s #1 client, Lucky Strike. Several times this season we have heard financial partner Lane Pryce voice his concern that

Don and Bert look aghast at Roger
Lucky Strike is more than 90% of the firm’s billables. This is NOT acceptable, and Peter’s job is to alter the balance. When Roger walks into the client meeting, insulting the firm’s guests, the boys of Sterling Cooper Draper and the other guy confront Roger. He cannot decide who the firm retains as a client. The war is over. But Peter hits the target head-on:

You are wrapping yourself in the flag to keep me from bringing in an account because you know that every chip I make we become less dependent on Lucky Strike, and therefore less dependent on you.

(video beginning at 1:48):

The big question is, is Roger a racist? Or is he simply territorial? Protecting his turf? His power-base within the firm? How often does this happen within your firm? Not the racism, but a partner who “hordes” clients? A partner refusing to allow cross-selling to “his” client? How many firms out there are “out of balance” with a single client accounting for 50% of an office, or 90% of a partners billables? When we give too much power to a single partner, the balance of the business can become unstable. The partner will constantly threaten to leave the firm either directly, or not too subtly, if his demands are not met. When the client’s billables are out of balance, than there is constant fear of the client leaving for another firm. Or, attorneys working on the files become too busy (or too lazy) to bring in new clients. Either way, the toys in the sandbox need to be shared. In fact, the sandbox itself needs to be shared. By identifying the importance of balance, the firm, and the partners, will be better situated to:

  1. Grow (the majority of new business comes from existing clients);
  2. Weather economic fluctuations that impact lines of business (bankruptcy and employment are up in the recession; corporate and litigation are down. This will, of course, change once the recover is fully in swing);
  3. Provide a buffer when a partner or client leaves the firm; and,
  4. Instill a culture of new business development, and succession planning.

Oh, and are you loving Don’s new secretary as I am?? Photos courtesy of AMC’s Mad Men

Shakespeare’s Juliet famously asks,

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.” Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

Heather Morse's Twitter Avatar
For those of us who remember our high school literature class, Juliet is referencing Romeo’s last name. She’s letting him know that it is not the name that is of importance, but the person. For some reason, it’s socially and professionally acceptable for a woman to change her name when she gets married, but it’s not okay to change it back.
The "real" Heather Morse
I have been told that I “can’t” change my name. I’ve been Heather Milligan for too long. That’s what everyone in the legal marketing circles knows me by. Call me daring, call me stupid, call me rebel, but, I’m going to go ahead and change my name. It’s what’s right for me. You might not have even noticed, but I already began the change. More than a year ago I inserted my family name, Morse,  back into my signature line. I’ve used it at conferences, and I am ready to fully integrate it back into my life.

Change is hard. But it is inevitable. And sometimes all you can do is accept, because you have no control over it. Yesterday I changed my Twitter name to @heather_morse. If you’re already following me there, you don’t have to do a thing. The avatar is the same, only the name has changed. By January I hope the the conversion of e-mail, etc, will be complete and as seamless as possible.

It’s now official, and it’s easy to remember. It’s Morse, as in code.

Not Morris, as in the cat.

Oh, there was some meaty stuff in last night’s Mad Men episode with our protagonist Don Draper and the psychologist … but I’d rather go in a different direction today … something that was a little bit more subtle. The scenes between Pete Campbell and Harry Crane. Pete is a pretentious ass and will step on and over everyone he needs to to make his way to the top. He’s the sales guy at the firm. The BD guy. He finds the potential clients, schmoozes them up, supplies the hookers, and brings in Don and the creative team to close the deal.

Are you a Pete??
Pete’s job is all about connections, relationships and making rain. Sound familiar (well, except for the hookers … I hope)? Early in the episode, Harry invites Pete to join him for lunch with Ken Cosgrove, a colleague from their firm’s prior incarnation. Pete always viewed Ken as a competitor, and was jealous of his success. Pete’s insecurities lead him to criticize Ken, rather than embrace him. Harry rightly recognizes that they are all up and coming and need to maintain relationships with those, like Ken, from the prior firm.
Or, are you a Harry??
When it comes to maintaining relationships with former colleagues, are you a Pete, or are you a Harry? Pete sees Ken as a competitor. A threat. A waste of time. Harry sees Ken as a friend. A colleague. A collaborator. When you, or your peers, move on from a firm, does your working relationship end and you now view them with scorn, contempt, or cynicism?? When they are deleted from the firm’s website and roster, do you also delete them from your Outlook Contacts?? Or do you recognize that moving on is part of one’s career path, and that paths often intersect further down the road?? Do you choose to use this time to connect via LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter and other opportunities that you might have? NOW is the time to transition the relationship from colleagues, to, well, colleagues, albeit of a different type. Pete, in his own self-concerned timing, recognizes towards the end of the episode that there is value in maintaining a working relationship with Ken. When a conflict comes up between Pete’s client Clearasil and the firm’s (bigger billing, and more important) client Ponds, well, Pete is told to “cut Clearasil loose.” What to do?? What to do?? Well, he plays hardball with his father-in-law to bring in the parent company as a client (oh, Pete, THIS should make for good fodder once that baby arrives), and then shifts the Clearasil account over to Ken. A (now) trusted former colleague. Photos courtesy of AMC’s Mad Men

Can I get a Hooyah! for Ed Poll’s tip today, Lawyers in a “Guilded” Cage? (sic) Anyone who works in the legal industry in Florida, and most legal marketers nationwide, know that the rules restricting lawyer advertising and communications in Florida are the most restrictive in the nation. Hiding behind the “profession” of law, the need to protect the “unsophisticated” purchaser of legal services, and, well, the snobbishness of corporate attorneys on how to deal with those pesky consumer defense practices, the Florida Bar prohibits and restricts most forms of communications which, per my non-lawyer’s eyes and for what is strictly my PERSONAL OPINION, are in clear violation of the First Amendment rights of lawyers and law firms. As a legal marketer, I cannot imagine taking on the challenge involved when it comes to overseeing law firm marketing and advertising in Florida, and have great respect for my friends and colleagues who do so. There are so many hoops to jump through, that, well, I just avoid Florida every chance I get. In the past few years, however, individual lawyers, law firms, and the ACLU have begun fighting back, and the First Amendment is winning. Hooyah! Per Ed’s post today:

Now it appears that some lawyers may have had enough. As reported in the New York Law Journal and summarized in the ABA Journal, the Florida Bar (which imposes some of the strictest regulations in the country on lawyer advertising) has run into a “firestorm” of objections from law firms, the ACLU and the Federal Trade Commission over its attempts to make those rules even tougher. The rules proposed to ban online testimonials, summaries of case results and “deceptive, misleading, manipulative” or confusing audio or visual content, resulted in protests that such restrictions are overly vague and unfair. The Florida Bar offered a “compromise” that would allow existing web sites to be viewed if visitors clicked through a disclaimer process and double-click barrier in order to get useful information about legal services. When major law firms protested loudly, the Bar put off its July 1 implementation deadline and is allowing lawyers to submit comments through mid-August for further modifying the rules. It is one thing to regulate for truth and fairness in promotional statements, and to restrict hyperbole so as not to create false expectations. It is another thing to say how the communication can be framed, create vague restrictions on what can and cannot be said, and impose physical restrictions on information that should be freely available. The Bar seeks to regulate lawyers in ways that other professional associations do not, would not and could not. The losers are small firms and sole practitioners – and those clients who would benefit from learning about them.

Josh King, General Counsel and Vice President of Business Development for Avvo, guest blogged here about the recent 11th Circuit decision in Harrell v. The Florida Bar. That’s right, Florida. Take that. Lawyers are business people and you will soon see that they have the RIGHT to operate their businesses as, well, businesses. States already have laws in place for “truth-in-advertising,” for ALL businesses. In California, businesses are governed under Business and Professions Code at §17200 and §17500. Federally, the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1125), which is generally enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can, and should, cover law firms. Really, for how long must we continue to stamp “advertising” on all of our advertisements and communications, just to be on the safe side? For how long will we have to include “newsletter enclosed” in a 10 pt font on all envelopes carrying newsletters? How many disclaimers on websites, blogs, and at the bottom of every email MUST we include, and how often, and how big, and how long?? Is it our responsibility to make certain that the consumer understands that the disclaimer at the bottom of the web page includes the disclaimer? Or, per the Florida Bar Association’s proposed “compromise,” why should the consumer have to click “through a disclaimer process and double-click barrier in order to get [to the] useful information about legal services”? Come on, if you’re going to ban anything, how about banning legalese?? That will do more for consumer confidence and understanding than the standard disclaimers I read. Ahhhh, I do love the smell of a First Amendment win against restrictive bar rules. The battles are being won, and, hopefully, the war will be won one day as well. Hooyah!