LAWYERS AND WEBLOGS, REDUX There's more reaction to my decision to retool this weblog. A few quotes from the posts I've read (some taken slightly out of context, so read the posts if you're interested in the debate):

• "Thought-provoking. Sounds like it makes sense, but also sounds pretty stupid." [Jeremy' Weblog]
• "Unfortunate (particularly in his case) and shortsighted." [Bag & Baggage]
• "I have heard similar inferences from law professors." [Professor Smith at Conglomerate]
• "Evan's revelation about blogging as a professional has caused me to rethink the matter myself. He's definitely right . . " [Matt Schuh]
• "I hope he doesn't blame that rascal Prof. Yabut." [f/k/a]
• "It seems 'Mr. Schaeffer' (if that is his real name) aspires to improve his reputation and ensure those that might judge him by his blog that he is a strong attorney." [Pelican Barbeque and Buckeye Beer]
• "Thank you and good luck with . . . whatever's going on." [Blawg De Novo]

I have also received lots of thoughtful e-mails, many from legal webloggers. The majority say that I've made the right decision, and that my concerns that a weblog's marketing potential is closely tied to the length, tone, and style of the posts is right on.  (To be honest, though, I've also received at least one highly critical e-mail arguing that I've unthinkingly destroyed a perfectly good thing.)

UPDATE: In a comment, I explained what I mean when I say I'm "retooling" this weblog, and why it really has come to an "abrupt halt."

Comments

[Prof. Yabut]

Let me get this straight: You concluded that your non-eponymous weblog might be a negative marketing tool. In response, you made the name of the weblog eponymous (stuck "Evan Schaeffer" in the masthead) and otherwise pretty much kept the weblog the same. All you've really done this week is bring the negative marketing issue into the public forum, attract more attention, and broaden your Commentor base.

As any good law professor would say: Hmmm.

As any good lawyer would say: What the heck is this guy up to?

[Prof. Yabut]

p.s. I understand how tone and style affect marketing potential, but what's the connection to length -- is more less or less more?

[Evan]

Prof. Yabut--Good questions. It's only been a few days, so perhaps the changes are hard to see. As I've said,

(a) no more recurring posts such as the law-school round-up and the advice posts and bling-bling for lawyers and the "blog reviews" and pretty much everything that is populating the archive "categories." I'm giving all these up (just giving up the law-school roundup and the advice posts is a huge change, I think--look at what Howard Bashman had to say about this weblog in an article);

(b) shorter posts (no more long "creative" essays or humor pieces or parodies);

(c) no more fancy titles for each post, which goes along with the shorter posting style (as I've said, one of my overall concerns was that there was too much content on this weblog; the new headlines style makes it easier to do short posts, see, e.g., the many weblogs that use the headline style I'm now using);

(d) a change in content without a change in attitude or personality.

That last item -- (d) -- is the one I'm puzzling over. I'll see how that evolves. I'll probably focus more on news, trial practice pieces, tort reform commentary, other issues that are discussed at other legal weblogs. Here's one way that I think about the content of this weblog. I thought of the first year-and-a-half as a book being written in real time. There are thousands of pages of text in the archives, and I'll probably pull a lot of that out and publish it in another format. Since the beginning, many of my posts did not have links within them for precisely that reason--so that I could republish them in book form if I wanted. Anyway, I'm still thinking about that. (And by publish, I mean self-publish, whether or not I set up a separate publishing company. It wouldn't be a money-making effort. I'm not interested right now in starting a debate over who would buy something that's available already for free, whether there's an audience, etc. etc. As I said, I'm still thinking about it.)

Anyway, going forward, I'll still be writing a book in real time, but the content and style will be different and it will be less wordy and more in keeping with the image I want to project as a lawyer.

All this is consistent (I think) with everything I've said in the past week about the changes in my weblog. This is a completely new weblog, though built on the old. It's not easy to give up all the many recurring features I've developed which many have told me they enjoy and which I see being copied now on other weblogs (which is great--copy away). But I think it's necessary to change, as long as this weblog remains tied to my law practice, which it is in many ways.

There's an article that could be written about all this--an article about the most appropriate content and style of legal weblogs--something like: "So you're a lawyer with a legal weblog. Now what?" My answer to this question is vastly different today that it was a year ago.

As for changing the name of the weblog--I've wanted to make that change for a long time, and this seemed as good a time as any. If the weblog is a good thing, I might as well get the credit for it. (Because I don't put "posted by Evan Schaeffer" at the bottom of the posts, lots of people thought this weblog was a group effort; weblogs are very confusing for those not accustomed to reading them, such as people who get here via Google.) Meanwhile, I also need a reminder that if this weblog turns into a train wreck, I'll be the one who is to blame--it's a reminder that will help keep me headed straight on the tracks.

[Prof. Yabut]

Thanks for the fuller explanation, Evan. I'm anxious to see if you can pull this off. It seems that you're taking a lot of the meat and the spice off your Cafe's menu. Less content because you want to invest less of your time on the weblog makes perfect sense, but I'm not sure the marketing worry itself justifies making the change.

As for the book notion: Some might say you're going from writing a book to writing the Cliff's notes.

As for the article: The topic looks more like "So you're Lawyer Evan Schaeffer with a weblog. Now what?," rather than a "focus" on all lawyers with weblogs. Weblogs and their owners and audiences are still far too diverse to pin down -- you can ask a lot of good questions, but not really give a lot of definitive answers.

[Yeoman]

FWIW, I'd recommend a new subtitle. The "Where most of the fun is in the comments" does not fit the blog, in my view. I enjoy the comments, but I enjoy the original post more.