This is the second post in my series on how attorneys can better leverage social media in 2015. My last post offered a quick overview of topics I will be discussing. I decided to write this series due to a simple fact – I regularly hear attorneys talk about “doing well on social media” as if doing so is one of the great mysteries of the universe when, in fact, it couldn’t be more simple. I’ll be using this and the next several discussions to show that doing well in social does not mean that you have to be this guy:
While we would all love to be as smart as Dr. Einstein, the truth is that doing better online simply means you have to be good with people. Let’s take a look at 1) the purposes of using social media in your law firm and 2) common mistakes you should avoid.
Attorneys need to understand that social media is about branding and relationship building
If you want to get value out of social media then you need to understand that it’s about two things. Branding your firm and building meaningful relationships. When you see this as the focus, and go about it the right way, then the reward on time invested can be huge.
Attorneys continue to spend a fortune on branding their firms. You see this everyday when you see a television ad for personal injury attorneys, a billboard for a criminal defense firm, etc. People driving down the road, who see a billboard, aren’t going to pull over and call that particular lawyer. That billboard, however, burns an image of that attorney into their head and when they need a lawyer they may be more likely to call. Well this same effect can be had, for a lot less money, by effectively leveraging social media. Think about it for a minute – the point of billboards, television, radio, putting your name on the Goodyear blimp, etc., is that those are things meant to stand out to people at a time when they are paying attention. Those methods of getting attention, however, cost a ton o’ cash and paying for them leaves you looking like this guy:
Let’s look at a better way.
There are other places where people pay heavy attention and you can grab a part of that attention – just like people do with billboards. That place is social media feeds. The truth is that many, many, many, many (many) people check their Facebook feeds in the morning and take an interest in it. If your firm has posts showing up in that feed then you grab the person’s attention and begin to “brand” yourself. All this takes is some time and costs a lot less than that frickin’ billboard. Focusing on social media as your branding platform will give you a greater reach and save you ‘da cash. Such an approach will help you look like this guy:
Later in this series I’ll talk more about how to get this branding effect through social media.
The second big purpose of using social platforms is networking. Attorneys have been going to networking functions for centuries (whether they go about it correctly is a rant discussion for a later time). Properly leveraging the web gives you the best networking opportunity you’ve ever had. Suppose you go to some type of event and there’s a few hundred professionals there. Good opportunity right? Now ask yourself this – how many professionals in your area are on LinkedIn? The answer is “a whole lot more than there will be at that networking event.” Am I saying to avoid networking events – absolutely not. It’s important to remember that there are only so many hours in a day and much of the time one is spending may be better invested in starting relationships through online resources. We’ll look more at this when we dive into how lawyers can better leverage LinkedIn.
Four social media mistakes attorneys should avoid
Do quite a few attorneys try to do well on social media? Yep. Do a large number of them strike out? Yep. Do you need to be one of the people who strikes out? Nope. Let’s take a look at four mistakes lawyers should avoid.
Lawyers err by thinking they can delegate their social media efforts
Would you pay someone, or have someone from your office, go to a networking function and hold themselves out as being you? Hopefully the answer to that is “no.” Now let’s get one thing straight. Social media is a conversation and those are other people on the other end of the screen. The physical world conversations which yield results are those which have some depth. Online conversations are no different and you can achieve a meaningful dialogue when someone is speaking on your behalf. Want to do better in social media? That means YOU have to do it. Having someone else speak on your behalf? Good luck with that.
Attorneys err by treating social media like a billboard rather than a place to interact
Why do so many attorneys struggle with social media? Simple – they don’t understand what it’s for! I recently wrote about the changing state of law firm marketing. One of the big problems attorneys are running into is that they’re trying to take tools which exist today, such as social media, and put them into the same type of marketing models that existing thirty years ago. In the case of websites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. this has resulted in a fundamental misunderstanding; lawyers are treating social websites in the same way they used to treat billboards and the phone book when, in fact, they need to be treating them as a networking function.
When you go online and post something, without interacting with other people, that’s the same as walking into a room, shouting something really loudly, and leaving. Social networking is “networking.” Treat it as such.
Law firms should never pay for followers or “likes”
Would you pay someone to be your friend in the real world? Hopefully not. People who follow you because an ad was shoved in front of their face are far less likely to interact with your content. For reasons I’ll explain later in this series, this actually results in fewer people seeing your content and hurts your social networking efforts. Paying for likes and followers is, therefore, counter productive.
Attorneys should never prioritize social media over their own website
You own your website. You control it. No one is featured on it except for you. Your efforts should revolve around driving traffic to your property. This point is made pretty well in the following video – Darren Rowse is one of the most influential bloggers in the world and has turned his blogging into a seven figure business. This discussion (while not geared towards lawyers) really drives home the point of focusing on your own website:
Want to ensure that you have sustained online success? Focus on properties that you own.
My next post will start the discussion of specific social networks by looking at the demise of Google+.
What are your thoughts on PPC for Facebook that are NOT for people liking your page or following you or promoting your website, etc. I’m talking about PPC that is for people to see one particular post (the promote a post option). Really it’s not even pay-per-click but more of a quasi pay per impression. I say that because, it’s not about someone clicking on an internet ad. It’s playing for someone to see a specific post (be it a comment/tip on a local issue or a blog post from your website) and they can interact with it directly in their feed. This is so different from pay-per-click because you’re not paying for them to click on any link but instead to be in their feed where they can comment or like the post without actually clicking and ending up elsewhere. We all know you’re approached to PPC, which is quite simply NEVER. But could this be the exception? Facebook is different in many respects, but you two ways in particular. Firstly, facebook offers the best audience targeting hands down. Not even Google comes close. Secondly, when it comes to cost, no matter what metric is used (like pay per like or per comment or per engagement, etc.), facebook is the cheapest by a landslide. With that being said (and I won’t even get into their algorithm change which eliminated almost all commercial organic posts from people’s feeds) when you’re paying for a post to show up you’re getting people to engage with you; you’re starting that dialog which you mention is the entire goal of the exercise. I am so very curious if this could be the one and only pay-per-click exception?
Hi Bretton,
No offense – but there’s an incorrect assumption there. Facebook’s algorithm updates did not “eliminate almost all commercial organic posts from people’s feeds.” What Facebook did was say that they were going to start favoring one particular type of content over another. Rather than complying with the change, people simply threw their arms up in the air and complained that the type of content they had been sharing was no longer showing up in people’s feeds. I find this interesting – when Google changes their search algorithm then people say “that’s something I should comply with” and, yet, many don’t take the same approach with Facebook even though they should.
As I mentioned in this article Darren Rowse grew his commercial site’s organic Facebook reach by over two hundred percent through complying with the changes. My advice would be to not pay for reach which can be obtained for free by simply following the strategy FB encourages and makes public.
Also, in the end, paying for reach is going to harm your organic reach. The followers your pick up organically are going to be the ones more likely to share an abundance of your future content. This higher share rate makes your page more desireable in FB’s algorithm. By picking up followers, who may like one piece of content but will be unlikely to share future content, you harm your page in the future.
No offense taken. I definitely engaged in a bit of hyperbole there. I also agree with your statement that the best way to show up in feeds is to, like with google, simply do what Facebook tells you to do! I actually many people don’y look at the changes in search algorithm and say “that’s something I should comply with” any more than with Google than they do Facebook!
I do have to say I think that it is not an apples/apples comparison. Google is in the business of only one thing (made even more evident by their divorce from Google +), and that is *relevant* search results. Facebook is in a very different business. They are in the business of social media; that means they are on the one hand trying to show people relevant content for social media purposes (“what is my crazy uncle doing this time”’…click) but in order to stay in business they need to sell ads, and often times those are mutually exclusive (unlike Google). Succinctly Google can always combine relevant search content with an ad someone would want to pay for, whereas Facebook is just providing content (mostly) without someone searching for something specific. I go on google because I am looking for a lawyer. I don’t go on Facebook because I am looking for a lawyer.
That brings it all back to branding and relevant content. The billboard effect. Billboards, as you said, are effective. They just cost too much. I am inclined to think, perhaps quite wrongly, that Facebook is effective, and it doesn’t cost too much. I can pay $75 a month on Facebook and be seen by, quite literally, thousands of people. Even if they just scroll past my logo. But if they see that logo and “lawyer” enough, it is, well, a cheap billboard. Or is this analysis wrong? I am quite open to criticism of this thought process.
There is a final point. Facebook gives me data that I can only dream Google would give, but the good stuff you can only get from ads. The two most important pieces of data are the “relevance score” only with ads and the “post-engagement rate.” I have spent three years building, with almost all organic use, over 2400 followers on Facebook. I can post something and pay $10 to be sure that my 2,400 followers (people who have shown an interest in my page) see it. I can then see how effective the post was. This allows me to gauge what type of content to post (and not pay to advertise) and what not to post more easily. It is like a test balloon.
I think the counterargument would be “well, you can just figure that out for yourself by seeing how many people click on it.” But the reality is that the amount of organic traffic from businesses has gone down tremendously. I point to the well supported figures of a reduction from 5% to 3%, and also Facebook’s own admission here https://www.facebook.com/business/news/Organic-Reach-on-Facebook . Long story short the first thing they say is that the amount of content has increased so much that there is just more competition “the total number of Pages liked by the typical Facebook user grew more than 50% last year. With each new Page like, competition in News Feed increases even further.” Combined with there being a higher demand from users of Facebook for more organic content from friends and less commercial, even if you do what Facebook says to do you are not going to appear in Facebook like you did three years ago.
The reason I am going at such length on this is not because I am interested in arguing with myself, as it appears I am getting to the point of doing, but because I want to make sure that I am a fool to spend that $75 per month before I stop. And your input is quite valuable. What are your thoughts on Facebook’s insights reports? The value of the ability to know what content your current followers’ interest in the content you are posting?