http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/blog/index/ Search Engine Marketing for Lawyers en pdv@semesq.com Copyright 2009 2009-02-05T16:22:01-05:00 http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/why_havent_i_posted/ http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/why_havent_i_posted/#When:16:22:01Z Two reasons.  First, I’m waiting for the upgrade to Expression Engine 2.0 (the platform that drives our sites) before taking on any more projects.  Second, I’ve decided to limit customers to those who are tech savvy.  I want to build a community of lawyers interested in this stuff. 2009-02-05T16:22:01-05:00 http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/traffic_driving_tips/ http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/traffic_driving_tips/#When:14:04:00Z I just love reading tips on how to drive traffic to your web site. Many of them seem like good, or even great ideas, but I always end up thinking the same thing: “how do you know it drives traffic?”. Sometimes I’ve actually asked the question, and each time I have, I get the same answer: “I just know it does”. Of course, the question isn’t whether a technique drives traffic to your site (or blog). The question is whether it drives more traffic than an alternate technique. To know that, you would have to compare the two side-by-side on the same site, or at least get a large enough sample to develop statistically significant evidence. “Tip” techniques rarely qualify for a study topic. That leaves you with trying techniques, which on most sites is difficult or expensive to do. (Of course, our platform gives you the opportunity to do that very easily, particularly as it relates to pay-per-click advertising). My advice is to use your gut when it comes to adopting someone’s traffic-enhancing “tip”. You should know your intended audience well enough to know whether the tip will pay off. Law Firm SEO and Site Design 2007-11-20T14:04:00-05:00 http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/page_rank/ http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/page_rank/#When:17:15:01Z There’s some buzz today about Google adjusting PageRank, particularly for sites that sell links.  This should be a non-issue for most lawyer web sites, as I can’t imagine why a lawyer would waste time trying to sell links on his or her site.  Lawyers, however, should be aware of what PageRank is, so here are two articles that discuss the topic in a user-friendly way: Search Illustrated: Google PageRank Explained What Is Google PageRank? A Guide For Searchers & Webmasters. Law Firm SEO and Site Design 2007-10-25T17:15:01-05:00 http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/how_popular_is_your_web_site/ http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/how_popular_is_your_web_site/#When:12:59:01Z I’ve been running my Employment Law Website for seven years now.  I’ve learned many things over that period, but none more important than the willingness of web site operators to overstate the popularity of their web sites.  I still cringe when I hear someone say that their site gets a million “hits” a month.  A “hit” is a completely useless statistic that tells you almost nothing about the number of people that visit a particular web site (see hits vs visitors). So, if hits aren’t important, what is?  That’s a tough question, and one subject to reasonable debate, but for lawyer web sites, the most important metric should be the number of unique visitors.  That is, how many different people visit your site each day.  Unfortunately, there is no exact method to determine unique visitors, somthing discussed in this New York Times article (October 22, 2007).  As they say, “nobody can get the basic visitor counts straight.” Understandably, the lack of accuracy frustrates most lawyers because they see things like web site analytics and SEO as snake oil.  When you add all the marketing firms promising nonesene, like “we can get you the top search engine spots”, it only makes matters worse. I would suggest that most lawyers concentrate on unique visitors measured over time (which is what I do).  This is particluarly important when you first launch your site.  If you’re doing the right things, you should see a pretty steady increase in traffic.  The upswing will probably flatten out over time, but it still should give you an idea as to whether you are making the right moves to attract new visitors. Law Firm SEO and Site Design 2007-10-23T12:59:01-05:00 http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/law_firms_recruiting_and_the_youtube_generation/ http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/law_firms_recruiting_and_the_youtube_generation/#When:14:05:00Z Great article in the New York Times on law firm recruiting.  I love the last quote about “true personality”, particularly when it comes to using actors to portray your associates. Solos and small firms should take note of the trend, however.  Recruiting trends should be a few years ahead of other business marketing trends because recruiters have to appeal to the next generation, not the one currently making decisions.  These recruits will soon be making the important decisions - like which lawyer to hire. So what are you doing to attract that type of client? SoloMarketing 2007-09-28T14:05:00-05:00 http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/job_market_for_lawyers/ http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/job_market_for_lawyers/#When:13:01:00Z Check out this sobering article from the Wall Street Journal: Hard Case: Job Market Wanes for U.S. Lawyers. SoloMarketing 2007-09-25T13:01:00-05:00 http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/is_the_conversation_more_valuable_than_content/ http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/is_the_conversation_more_valuable_than_content/#When:12:55:00Z It’s been suggested to me that engaging in an interconnected blog conversation might be as important as providing new, unique content.  That is, talking about a topic raised by others might give you as much marketing punch as if you raised the topic yourself.  I don’t think there is any way to test that suggestion, and, even if there were, what does that say about your marketing efforts?  Providing insight into a trend or newspaper article is one thing; but talking for the sake of talking seems disingenuous. It also raises the issue as to whether successful blogging is about nature or nurture.  Those selling blogs will tell you that anyone can learn to be an effective blogger (by, for example, engaging in blogging best practices, like “just talk about it”).  I’m not so sure.  I read blogs where people have either a unique perspective or expertise on a particular topic.  All lawyers should fall into the latter category and make blogging work for them. Law Firm Blogging 2007-09-19T12:55:00-05:00 http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/times_to_stop_charging_for_parts_of_its_web_site/ http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/times_to_stop_charging_for_parts_of_its_web_site/#When:12:53:00Z The New York Times announced today that it would stop charging for select content on its web site, a move that was made exactly two years ago.  I am a devout reader of the New York Times online and remember vividly when they made the decision to start charging for content.  I was also certain that this signaled one of the first moves on the Internet to a fee for content-based model.  I guess you can’t always be right.  What’s interesting about the Times’ decision is the fact that it’s based on traffic lost from search engines like Google and Yahoo.  Basically, the Times recognizes that it can earn more income from advertising sales generated through search engine traffic than it can by charging for its content (roughly $10 million a year).  I don’t think that you can underplay the significance of this calculation and the underlying importance of search engine traffic, whether you’re a solo practitioner or the New York Times. Law Firm SEO and Site Design 2007-09-18T12:53:00-05:00 http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/video_killed_the_blog/ http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/video_killed_the_blog/#When:14:16:00Z Kevin O’Keefe at LexBlog recently posted on the notion that video might, in part, replace text based blogging. I can’t imagine that even a small percentage of bloggers, particularly lawyer bloggers, will adopt a video-based posting model. The truth is that most bloggers don’t have the presence or production values to make me watch more than a few seconds of a video post. It would take you twice as long to watch a video of me saying what you’re reading now and I would probably come off poorly...I’m no Brian Williams. That’s not to say that you shouldn’t post a video or two online, but make sure they’re not off-the-cuff and that you meet some basic production standards. Law Firm Blogging 2007-09-17T14:16:00-05:00 http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/analytics_and_optimizationa_catch_22/ http://www.semesq.com/search_engine_marketing_for_lawyers/site/analytics_and_optimizationa_catch_22/#When:18:34:00Z I just read a post about tailoring your site copy based on keyword phrases you find in your analytics reports (your website analytics reports will tell you what search terms visitors are using to get to your site).  The post suggests that you should optimize for these keywords because it will help drive traffic to your site.  I’ve heard this many times before, and it always sounded like good advice, but it got me thinking...isn’t this a catch-22?  People find your site based, in part, on what your site already says.  Those words and phrases are in your analytics reports because they either already appear on your site pages or are used in links pointing to your site.  Now you can increase traffic by optimizing for those keywords, but it doesn’t answer the more fundamental question: what keywords are searchers using to find the service you’re selling?  Your analytics shouldn’t answer this question because they’re based only on what your site already “says” (in quotes because I mean that in the largest sense of the word). Put more simply, if you’re an employment lawyer in New Jersey, you shouldn’t find the following keyword phrase in your analytics report “treatment for low voltage electric shock” (an unfortunate search I recently had to run ).  That phrase wont be there because you don’t deal in that subject matter.  The important thing to note is that you’re not going to find “New Jersey whistleblower laws” if your site doesn’t already address that topic.  The bottom line is that your first SEO mission is to ensure that your site discusses all of the legal topics that your ideal client is likely to face.  Once you’ve done that, you can then sort out which phrases are driving the most traffic. Thanks! Law Firm SEO and Site Design 2007-09-06T18:34:00-05:00