Really, my life isn’t so pathetic that I am stopping everything to spread the word, that, according to a tweet from AP Style Book today:

[They] are changing Web site to website. This appears on Stylebook Online today and in the 2010 book next month.

That’s right. You read it here. Oh, yeah!! There’s no more debate: It’s a website. One word. Lowercase. Woot Woot! I’ll have to agree with Mashable on this one, though:

We’re pretty ecstatic about the change, and hold our collective breath for other possible updates, such as changing “e-mail” to “email.”

More often than not I agree with Kevin O’Keefe, but not today. I think Kevin’s off in his recent post, Telling lawyers to build a personal brand may be a big mistake:

I’ve presented at law schools, bar societies, bar associations, and association conferences of legal professionals talking about building one’s personal brand. I’ve talked about the importance of creating a personal brand – and of making yourself indispensable by doing so. I’ve talked about the importance of using blogging and other forms of social media as tools in building one’s personal brand. I was as passionate about the topic as I was talking with a jury in a closing argument. But as with juries, I often received a hollow response from some of the folks I was speaking to. Maybe it was my treatment of lawyers like they were Cialis – something Eli Lilly and Company works hard to brand. Rather than talking of personal branding, I’d actually be more comfortable categorizing the below practices for lawyers as expressions of humanity and integrity, as opposed to forms of ‘branding.’

  • Build a reputation by doing good work.
  • Put that work where others can judge its value.
  • Contribute to the success of others, and credit others generously for their contributions to your success.
  • Never promote for its own sake.

I’ve learned a ton from Doc Searls over the years. Today it’s “Building trust and maintaining a reputation matter. Calling both ‘branding’ is a categorical error.”

I don’t disagree with Kevin’s four bullet points, but I will argue that building and maintaining a personal brand is important. Lawyers come to marketers daily with the request to “differentiate” them from their competition. Usually this is impossible because their competition also graduated top of their class from a similarly ranked university, top of their class from an Ivy League law school, and are AV-rated, Best and Super-duperist with their competition who practice law across the hall, down the street, or on the other side of the country. Having a personal brand is what differentiates you from your competition. Your personal brand is what you stand for. It’s based on your reputation. It’s what you’re known for in the marketplace. It’s what comes to mind when someone says your name. We all have a brand. We all have a reputation to maintain and manage. However, where reputations are earned, a brand can be built.

Eleanor Roosevelt once said, “Happiness is not a goal; it is a by-product.” It had me thinking about my life and how happy I am. Like many people, that hasn’t always been the case, so I started wondering, in the light of Eleanor Roosevelt’s sentiments, what have I done to generate this much happiness? To begin with, my life is full. A couple years ago I took a Sharpie to my life and cleared my calendar of useless activities, especially useless television, and began to fill it with activities worthy of my time, and with valued relationships.

  • Some of these relationships are virtual, we’ve never met, but we share online all the time.
  • Some of these were old relationships renewed.
  • Some of these were professional relationships that became personal.
  • Some of these were personal relationships that became intimate.

And then there are the activities. There’s The Legal Watercooler, which has not only branded my personally, but has allowed me to participate in a conversation with people around the world. It has led to speaking opportunities, and has opened a passion for social media and social networking. Then there’s the Girl Scouts, where I serve as troop leader for a multi-level troop  which includes both my daughters. Yes, I moan and groan the first and third Tuesday of the month, and don’t get me started on the cases of cookies that are stacked in my hallway for a month every year, but by the time I am done getting hugged and loved by 12 girls ranging in age from 5-9, I can’t help but feel blessed. There’s my daily meditation, weekly yoga, and daily visits to the gym at lunch time. Happiness does begin with our core being. But a lot of my “extra” time these past couple week s has been spent filling out my supplemental application to become a commissioner for California’s first Citizens Redistricting Commission:

Every 10 years, after the federal census, California and every state in the country, must redraw the boundaries of its legislative and other political districts to reflect the new population data. How these boundaries are drawn affects how people are represented. In California, the process of redrawing the boundaries—redistricting—was a duty of state elected officials. But when voters passed Proposition 11 (the Voters FIRST Act) in the November 2008 general election, responsibility for redrawing the legislative and Board of Equalization district lines transferred to the people in the form of a new Citizens Redistricting Commission. What is the Citizens Redistricting Commission? California’s first Citizens Redistricting Commission (Commission) is a new 14-member Commission charged with redrawing California’s Senate, Assembly and State Board of Equalization districts based on information gathered during the 2010 census. The Commission must draw the districts in conformity with strict, nonpartisan rules designed to create districts of relatively equal population that will provide fair representation for all Californians.

I don’t know if I’ll make the commission, but I took the “why not me” attitude and completed my application to the best of my ability, which included the solicitation of letters of recommendation. I would like to take this moment to express my gratitude to the following people who wrote me letters of recommendation: Steve Barrett, Jayne Navarre, Nat Slavin, Cheryl Bame and Russell Lawson. I thank you for your kind words, but, more importantly, I thank you for your examples as professionals within our industry, your mentorship, and your valued friendships! So, Coolerites, where does your slice of happiness rest?

I can’t believe I have to say this again: Politics, social networking and business development DON’T MIX!! Never. Ever. Ever. I don’t care if you’re talking about saving puppies and unicorns, I caution you to self-edit what you say on Facebook, Twitter, or even on locked-down message boards. Why? According to the latest Gallup Poll on Party Affiliation this country is pretty evenly spit politically. What does this mean?? It means that anytime you mention politics in a social media or networking environment you risk alienating 46-54% of your target market, and you might never know it. I’m talking about, oh, you know, your clients, your potential clients, your referral sources, your influencers, your employers, potential employers, conference organizers, reporters, etc. Why do people continue to do this?? According to Jayne Navarre, it sometimes comes down to what might be a false sense of “trust” earned:

The social media space, in many regards, is a fertile ground for influencers and trust agents, however they must earn it. (skip) [Jayne believes that one earns that positioning] not by broadcasting (shouting) antagonistic messages, but rather through thoughtful contribution and community appropriate discussions.

Am I saying not to discuss politics and other “controversial” issues within your personal and professional (social) networks. No. You just need to do it one-on-one and discretely with people you know share your thoughts and opinions. Let’s bring it back to “real world” situations, such as around the water cooler at work. I have many a time been chatting politics with like-minded colleagues to see someone quietly and uncomfortably grab a cup of coffee or glass of water and walk away. We know that they do not agree with our political points. But in this scenario, we can see the non-verbal clues that let us know what actions to take to remedy the situation. At a cocktail party or reception it is easy to see your prospect “check out” when the conversation turns passionate and heated. You might see a client stand up to “get a drink” and never come back. Lesson learned. At the recent LMA conference, I saw people get up and walk out of the conference hall when the key-note speaker introduced the “non-political” topic of global warming. The displeasure of this group also made it onto Twitter in direct messages with like-minded colleagues, and via the conference hashtag. I was amazed at how many people thought those offended were being too “sensitive,” since “he didn’t offend me.” I would caution you to always keep in mind these unique challenges when it comes to politics and social networking:

  • You cannot see the faces of those you have offended, and therefore apologize or alter the direction of the conversation.
  • You will never know that you have lost your position of “influencer” or “trust agent.”
  • Once you post something within a social media or networking environment, it is there forever. You cannot take it back or erase it.

Jayne’s personal experiences sum things  up well for the point of this discussion, as well as provides constructive advice:

Finally, while Facebook is a more casual environment and there are many opportunities to speak out on your political positions, anyone that does so should understand that there are consequences. In my network some Friends are passionate about their politics but deliver their messages privately to their appropriate Lists or specific individuals. On the other hand, I have some attorney “Friends” in my network who wear their political passions on their sleeve and whether I agree with them or not, it is offensive to me. Further, they have no clue who they are offending, and maybe that’s their point. When Facebook comments appear on my wall that offend me, I immediately “LIST” that person to my “Limited View” List which has very tight settings. If they do that on Twitter, I dump em.

Personally, I think twice (or ten times) before I reply to a political thread on Facebook or Twitter. Many time I have really debated whether or not to become a fan of someone, or join a political group. If I decide to fan or join the group,  because I really want to follow the message, I will often times immediately delete the “activity” from my Wall. As for adding my voice to a political discussion, there are times that I will do so privately, or, when on a public wall, I will always maintain my respect for the other side’s position, and make certain that I stick to facts, avoiding passionate rhetoric or attacks. What I have found is that I am able to have these types of conversations with friends from “across the aisle” which allow us to deepen our relationships, without alienation. All of this being said, “You should not be allowed to claim diplomatic immunity when you’re a low-level a** hole.”

California Supreme Court in San FranciscoThere’s a case before the California Supreme Court, Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc. v. Gore, which could give lawyer ads protection as free speech.

The contested ad, which you can view here (p. 17), is, well, quite boring and innocuous, but that’s a whole other discussion.

The questions at hand is: is the lawyer’s ad considered commercial speech, and therefore “isn’t protected by the state’s anti-SLAPP statute,” or is it free speech and therefore Constitutionally protected?

[The ad] — which was two sentences long — was composed by Los Gatos class action lawyer Pierce Gore and appeared in early 2006 in the San Jose Mercury News and the Los Gatos Weekly Times. It advised wood deck owners to contact Gore if they had built their decks after Jan. 1, 2004, with galvanized screws manufactured by three companies, including Pleasanton-based Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc., because they might be entitled to monetary compensation or repairs.

Simpson — the world’s largest manufacturer of screws for use in wood-frame construction — sued Gore, alleging defamation and false advertising, but Gore filed an anti-SLAPP motion, accusing Simpson of trying to stifle his free-speech rights. A superior court judge granted the motion and in 2008 San Jose’s 6th District Court of Appeal affirmed, creating a conflict with Los Angeles’ 2nd District.

As a legal marketer I’ve always had concerns about the restraints on lawyer advertising where the First Amendment is concerned, and the arguments in this case will have wide-spread implications.

[Jon] Eisenberg contends that the ad is unprotected commercial speech because it contained representations Gore made about his business and statements he made in the course of delivering his legal services.

But Thomas Burke, a First Amendment specialist and partner in Davis Wright Tremaine‘s San Francisco office who represented Gore, disagreed.

The commercial speech exemption to the anti-SLAPP law, he argued, applies only to “representations of fact” made about the operations, goods or services of the speaker or a business competitor. There was no statement of fact in the ad, he noted, and it did not pertain to Gore or his competitors.

Burke also mockingly said the ad could have won the Hall of Fame award for “benign” advertising and was based on warnings in the news.

“There was a consumer alert before Gore issued his notice,” he said. “There was an investigation by the Contra Costa County district attorney’s office.”

I, for one, am rooting for the First Amendment here and will keep an eye out for the decision in the case, which is due within 90 days.

Disclaimer: As always, I am not a lawyer and I don’t even pretend to play one at work or in bars. These are just my humble opinions.

I know that branding + law firms has always been a tough sell. But branding + consumer products is BIG business. Corporations, retailers, clothing manufacturers, restaurant chains, food & beverage manufacturers, sports franchises will spend billions of dollars developing and defending their brands … and they spend a lot of that money hiring lawyers to trademark, patent, purchase, defend and build those brands. So I had to chuckle when I read David Lat’s post Day Pitney Lawyers: No Coke for You! What would your firm do to snag a client?

Switching sodas to support a client seems a bit… silly. And, given Pepsi’s inferiority as a beverage to Coke, this imposes a real hardship on Day Pitney lawyers. There’s a reason why bartenders or waiters apologetically ask, in response to requests for a Coke, “Is Pepsi okay?” But still, it’s a nice gesture by Day Pitney. And every new customer counts. Maybe DP will represent the “tipping point” in Pepsi’s war with Coke.

It’s not about sending a few sheckles to Pepsi; it’s a nod to your client that you understand the value of their brand. Hey, it’s a really simple concept: if you want to represent Pepsi you can’t drink Coke. If you were the underdog brand to Coke, you’d expect EVERY VENDOR, including your law firm, to drink Pepsi products at work, and at home. In fact, if you want to win the FedEx RFP, I suggest that you don’t send the response via UPS … I don’t care what your corporate rate is. And when you go to the Gucci beauty contest, it’s okay to charge a new purse to the marketing department. Just make sure that your kids play with it for a couple hours to break it in. Oh, and you might want to leave the Gap jeans at the hotel when you go in to meet the Levi’s folks, I don’t care how comfy they are, and besides, you wore a jacket over the label. They can identify their products, and their competitors! And I really suggest you empty the Hershey Kisses from the secretary’s candy jar before the Nestle clients come in for a visit. And, by the way, they own Arrowhead, so go ahead and enjoy that Perrier, or their chief competitor,  San Pellegrino for that matter. And, if you’re throwing out the opening pitch for the Nationals home game opener, you might want to leave the Sox cap in your pocket. As lay people, we might see this protection of one’s brand as silly. But when your brand is valued in the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS it no longer seems so silly. It’s BIG BUSINESS … and, isn’t that what we legal marketers are always preaching: KNOW AND UNDERSTAND YOUR CLIENTS’ BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY. That includes their brands! All of them. So, clean out your closets, refrigerators and candy dishes and do a little shopping and proudly support your clients’ brands.

I could do a whole “hmmm, here are my thoughts on this,” but, come on … just click on the link and read Kara’s interview with Chris Brogan …

Trust Agents: Using the Web to Build Influence, Improve Reputation, and Earn Trust by Chris Brogan and Julien Smith is an incredibly straight forward guide for anyone communicating regularly with a large group of people on the internet who give what we say enough credence to follow, friend or quote what we have to say with some regularity. The book is chock full of useful information and mirrored so many of the experiences I had been going through as a public relations legal marketer over the last two years, that I ended up taking some very copious notes as I read. By the time I finished, my copy was surrounded by a rainbow of sticky notes, and I  was compelled to send my top ten questions to Chris. Chris was gracious enough to respond.

I saw a question posed recently on a closed network asking why it’s so difficult to get lawyers to purchase a specific service product. The specifics of the situation aside, I did start thinking, “why is it so hard to sell a product to lawyers.” Short answer: “Because they are lawyers.” First of all, lawyers, for the most part, are skeptical people and risk adverse. Whether you’re trying to sell them light-up pens, a redistribution service for their blog content, or a new Website, the lawyers will come at it with “why?” and “who else is doing it?” before they ever question the price. I have rarely met a lawyer who is willing to risk being the “first” to do anything, and, when they are, well, they’re not your typical lawyer. For any lawyer, whether in-house counsel or senior partner at a private law firm, they purchase products from those they know, like and trust. Here are a few suggestions/comments I have (Disclaimer: Although inspired in part by true incidents, the following scenarios are fictional and do not depict any actual person, event, product or law firm that I may or may not have ever worked at):

  1. If we don’t know you, we don’t care what you think. When you cold-call us, out of the blue, with a great product and service … if you do not have a relationship with us already, we don’t care. And, if I haven’t returned your call after three messages, I probably won’t.
  2. Know who we are. Don’t call me or my firm to sell me a service that we don’t need. Check out our website and blogs.  Google us. My current firm is a boutique. I don’t care to get in front of every CEO in the Fortune 1000. I want to get in front of the legal service decision makers within a certain SIC/NAIC code. And while we’re at it …  if you had read my personal blog you would have known that I’m not interested in your ghost writing/ blogging services.
  3. Budgets are tight. I don’t care if we’re in the middle of a recession, or boom times. The budget for the marketing department spend is always tight. Just how it goes. Don’t call me in July to sell me something for this year … odds are, if we’re not on track to hit our PPP, my budget will be frozen. As a former managing partner told me: “Consider your budget a wish list.”
  4. It costs HOW MUCH??? Great product, priced poorly won’t do, especially for smaller firms. I understand that you’re used to selling to AmLaw 100 firms. We’re not. Get your pricing in line with our firm’s revenues/budgets.
  5. Don’t be an ass. Sorry, but don’t try and slip around me and go directly to my partners to sell them some vanity product. Don’t call — or better yet, post on Twitter or your blog — to tell me how crappy my website SEO is,  how poorly written a recent blog post is, how you could print a much better brochure than what we distributed at a conference, all in the name of selling me your services.  Use the opportunity to build trust (and send me a PRIVATE or direct message)  “Hey, Heather, your link is dead” or “Hey, Heather, that sentence sounds funky … why don’t you try this?”

And remember this: I’m not going to risk my job and reputation on you. I’m not going to bring you into my firm to present, sell or speak to my attorneys if I don’t TRUST that you will make ME look good.

For those in the know, and on my personal Facebook page, I’ve been in Vegas celebrating my birthday with some friends and family. The pictures were being posted to Facebook almost as fast as they were being taken … and yet, I am quite comfortable that if my boss, a client, a conference organizer or the FBI somehow peeked into my Facebook page, I have nothing to hide. In addition to setting the security default for my Wall and ALL my photo albums to “Friends Only,” and not accepting every “friend” invitation that comes my way, I don’t post pictures of me or my friends doing or saying stupid things. Apparently, not everyone is so judicious as to what they are posting on Facebook, etc. And I’m not talking about high school and college kids … I’m speaking to you adults out there. How many times do we Social Web “experts” have to tell you “don’t post anything that you’ll regret” only to see the pictures, and stories, from your Cancun “lost weekend” start popping up in water cooler chat? How many celebrities need to get caught sexting for you to realize it’s not a good idea to send your paramour du jour messages while your spouse is off shooting a movie or taking care of the kids? CNN reports on a recent survey commissioned by Microsoft which”found that 70 percent of recruiters and hiring managers in the United States have rejected an applicant based on information they found online.”

What kind of information? “Inappropriate” comments by the candidate; “unsuitable” photos and videos; criticisms of previous employers, co-workers, or clients; and even inappropriate comments by friends and relatives, according to the survey report, titled “Online Reputation in a Connected World.”

In the past, hiring decisions were made by calling a few references; references, mind you, supplied by the candidate. Oh, every once in a while some “personal” due diligence was done. Call a friend at the firm to get the “real” back story. Completely illegal here in California, by the way, but we’ve all gotten those calls. Now all the HR department needs to do is Google the candidate:

The Microsoft survey found that 79 percent of U.S. hiring managers have used the Internet to better assess applicants. Dan Eggers of Partners Marketing Group in Marietta, Georgia, is among that 79 percent. “We review and certainly do research on anyone we’re looking at hiring or using as a contract employee,” Eggers said. “We would Google their name, look at LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.”

So what does your on-line reputation look like?

  • Take the time to Google yourself on a regular basis. This is your personal reputation, and you alone are responsible for managing it.
  • Set up Google alerts on your name, Website, etc. to “listen” in on what is being said about you.
  • Quickly untag unflattering photos of yourself in others’ albums, and request that your friends take them down (including your MOM!).
  • Don’t wait until you are in the midst of job hunting after a corporate downsizing.
  • Delete any inappropriate photos, conversations, rants about your boss — of firm clients — where you can.
  • If you’ve been Tweeting rants about politics, co-workers, etc. … well, not too much we can do for you.
  • Before posting, pause and think: “would I want my mother to see this picture?”
  • Or, as I tell my kids, before you say it, ask yourself:
  1. is it TRUTHFUL?
  2. is it NICE?
  3. Is it NECESSARY?

(h/t to Jayne Navarre for sharing the CNN story)

Taking a quick breather in what has turned into a very busy day to reflect on “Damn, I’m having a really busy day. I wonder why?” Turns out that attorneys in my firm are not letting potential opportunities pass them by. Hmmm. Let me repeat that for those in the back of the room:

The attorneys in my firm not letting potential opportunities pass them by.

I’m not saying we’re jumping on anything and everything. In fact, we’re taking a very strategic look and position as to what we’re doing right now, today! What I am saying is this:

If you see a good opportunity, don’t let it pass you by.

I’m finding this to be true in my personal life as well:

  • When I have the opportunity to speak at the right conference, I am all too happy to say yes.
  • When a good blog post idea comes to me, I write it.
  • I am filling out my supplemental application to be a citizen commissioner in my state. Really, why not me??
  • When I had the opportunity to coach a couple KEY people in social web, I took it!!
  • I am all too happy to take calls and mentor those around me.
  • Yes, I did say Yes to being a Girl Scout Leader a few years ago …
  • And when my high-school sweetheart asked me out on a date last year, I just couldn’t say no, and we haven’t looked back yet.

By saying “Yes” a lot in my life, and by not allowing GOOD opportunities pass me by,  I now have a very rich and fulfilling life personally, professionally, and within my community and city.