Two comments in a recent Times article on law firm blogging support my view that the blogosphere occupies the position that the web itself did 10 years ago. Hands up those who, in 1996, did not appreciate the significance of the web as a marketing tool?

If your firm doesn’t have at least one lawyer who is blogging, you look like a firm who, in 1996, didn’t have a website yet.

(Andy Haven, a US legal marketing manager)

Having a blog conveys an impression that we are not a stuffy, old-style firm but are aware of and comfortable with new ways to communicate with a broad audience.

(Nan Joeston, a San Francisco intellectual property expert)

The article goes on to reflect the mixed current opinion of their marketing potential. A Clifford Chance spokesman seems to get it, albeit articulated in corporate speak:

Our aims for a blog would be to enable us to interact with our stakeholders on a personal level; to collect feedback on our services and products; and provide value in terms of useful content in the form of information, help, discussion and ideas.

On the other hand Martin Davies of lawontheweb.co.uk feels that law blogs “are not desperately interesting to clients” and Charles Christian of the Legal Technology Insider believes that “any firm that builds a marketing strategy on blogs is deluding itself”.

To my mind these latter comments do not deny that blogs have marketing potential, but point out that they are no magic bullet. All the same, you only lose if you publish a bad blog, and at this stage in the game there is little competition for the turf (remember 1996?).

More comment on the views expressed in the Times article are in Kevin O’Keefe’s Real Lawyers Have Blogs and Slaw.