A new survey shows more people prefer to log in" for their news than read a paper. Jennifer Saba of the Editor & Publisher journal explains.
More people go to newspapers Web sites for complete local information than any other source, according to a new survey from the Newspaper Association of America and comScore. Of the more than 3,000 adults surveyed, 57% chose newspaper Web sites as the top source for local information.
The survey was conducted by comScore in November 2009 and is based on a nationally representative sample of adults who use Web sites within the comScore panel.
"While newspaper Web sites often face dozens of competitors touting their own local offerings in any given market, they have been able to thrive by leveraging trusted brands and strong local content to appeal to consumers and advertisers alike," John Sturm, president and CEO of the NAA, said in a statement.
However, the survey reveals that the competition is moving in. While 57% of identified newspapers as the top source of local information, 54% cited online portals while 53% went with local TV web sites.
The respondents also rely more on portals for local information (31%) followed by local newspaper Web sites (23%)and local TV Web sites (22%).
Newspapers have a tiny lead when it comes to being the most trust worthy local source. Thirty-three percent said newspaper sites while 32% said local TV Web sties. The source used most often by respondents by content type? Newspaper Web sites had only 30% of the vote for local news versus 31% for local TV sites.
Newspaper Web sites bested other sources for local classifieds: 39% of respondents look to newspapers Web sites for that category -- far and away more than the next source, specialty Web sites at 14%.
Even when asked which source is most credible for local news, 35% said newspapers. Thirty-two percent said local TV. Newspapers easily won that contest with classifieds: 43% of those surveyed said newspapers are the most credible source for classifieds.
On the advertising front, more people trust newspaper Web sites -- 36% -- than any other source including local TV (23%).
Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The Top Ten Worst Olympic PR Disasters
With the Olympics in full swing, lets look at some of the ways rotten PR creeps into the most untouchable of human events- the Olympics. What could possibly go wrong when you pair world class athletes with glory and international attention? A lot- when the Olympic committee believes the rules don't apply to them. This is another perfect example of what we always preach to attorneys, the number one failure of any media plan is simple and deadly: massive ego.
Click here to read all ten!
Click here to read all ten!
Monday, February 22, 2010
Using a Lawyer's Words Against a Client
Peter J. Henning follows issues related to white-collar crime for DealBook’s White Collar Watch, he writes about an incredibly important development in what lawyers should and should not say to the press.
Lawyers are used to serving as a mouthpiece for their clients, especially those involved in criminal prosecutions. A statement by a party to a case may be introduced against that person at trial, so it is better to have the lawyer make any public statements to shield the client from the risk of a misstatement that could come back to haunt the person later.
But in the retrial of the former chief executive of Brocade Communications, Gregory L. Reyes, federal prosecutors have proposed introducing press releases that quote his lawyer as evidence of Mr. Reyes’s knowledge of his own wrongdoing.
Peter J. Henning, writing for DealBook’s White Collar Watch, is a commentator on white-collar crime and litigation. A former lawyer at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement division and then a prosecutor at the Justice Department, he is a professor at the Wayne State University Law School. He is currently working on a book, “The Prosecution and Defense of Public Corruption: The Law & Legal Strategies,” to be published by Oxford University Press.
Mr. Reyes was convicted in 2007 on charges relating to options backdating at Brocade. The key issue at trial was proving his intent, which required the government to show he acted “willfully” — i.e., he knew his conduct was wrongful. At trial, Mr. Reyes’s lawyer, Richard Marmaro from Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, put on a defense that while his client did in fact backdate options, he relied on the company’s accountants to properly report them, so he was not aware of any wrongdoing at the time.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the conviction in 2009 on the ground that the prosecutor misstated the evidence about whether members of Brocade’s finance department were unaware of the options backdating, which led the government to argue that Mr. Reyes could not have relied on them to properly account for the options grants. In fact, evidence gathered in the criminal investigation and by the Securities and Exchange Commission in its parallel civil case indicated that employees in the finance department were fully aware of the backdating, including one employee who resigned because of it.
The retrial is set to begin Monday and the government is now trying to introduce new evidence to show that Mr. Reyes was aware that his role in the backdating was wrongful. Like most white-collar crime prosecutions, the underlying facts are not in dispute, and the primary issue is whether there is proof of the defendant’s intent. The government needs to pull together different strands of evidence to give the jury a basis to infer that Mr. Reyes knew his role in the backdating was wrongful because there is no “smoking gun” memo or recording to show what was in his mind.
In addition to evidence it used in the first trial, the government wants to use two press releases issued in August 2006, shortly after the indictment, that quote Mr. Marmaro as denying that Mr. Reyes engaged in options backdating. The key quotes prosecutors want to use include one made on Aug. 2, 2006, that: “Mr. Reyes did not backdate options. He granted options appropriately, and had the authority to do so.” The second was on Aug. 31, 2006, in which Mr. Marmaro is quoted as stating: “After our appearance in court yesterday, to plead not guilty to all charges, some media outlets reported that Mr. Reyes and I in the past acknowledged that he participated in backdating. That is incorrect. We never said or implied that, because it did not happen.”
The government argued in a brief filed with Federal District Court that these statement are not hearsay because they were made by a representative of the defendant and one of his agents, so that they can be admitted as if Mr. Reyes spoke them himself. Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(C) and (D) may well authorize admission of the statements against Mr. Reyes, although courts are hesitant about allowing a lawyer’s statement to be used against a client in a criminal case.
But that alone is not enough to get the statements admitted into evidence because they also have to be relevant to the case. To show relevance, prosecutors contend that the statements, made years after the options were issued, show Mr. Reyes’s consciousness of his guilt: “Where, as here, Reyes denied doing something that he did (and that his defense is expected to concede he did), his earlier denials demonstrate that he knew what he was doing was wrong.”
In effect, the government wants to use Mr. Marmaro’s statements — included in the press releases, so it is unlikely they were ever actually spoken out loud — to show that Mr. Reyes is a liar. Of course, liars know they are acting wrongfully — otherwise, why would they lie in the first place — so the statements could be used by the government to support an argument that Mr. Reyes was simply continuing to cover up his wrongdoing when his lawyer made assertions to the news media in the press releases.
Rather than call Mr. Marmaro to testify, the government has subpoenaed Michael Sitrick, whose firm, Sitrick & Company, served as the communications adviser to Mr. Reyes and his defense team in 2006. Prosecutors have even subpoenaed documents from the firm, to which the defense has raised claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection.
The lawyer’s statements are not the only items the government seeks to introduce in the retrial that were not submitted in the first proceeding. Prosecutors also want to offer evidence that Mr. Reyes received backdated options as proof that he had a personal interest in the transactions to show his knowledge of wrongfulness. This issue was not pursued in the first trial, but the government wants to use it now to counter what it calls the “selfless-C.E.O.” defense offered before.
Judge Charles R. Breyer has not yet ruled in Federal District Court in San Francisco on the admissibility of Mr. Marmaro’s statements, although at a hearing on Wednesday he indicated that he was leaning toward allowing them.
The government’s effort to use statements made by defense counsel raises interesting issues for lawyers representing high-profile defendants. Mr. Reyes was one of the first charged criminally for options backdating, and as a former chief executive of a publicly traded company, his case drew significant media attention.
Defense lawyers know how important it is to try to counter the initial wave of negative publicity about their clients, especially corporate chieftains who are often perceived by the public as guilty until proven innocent. Responding to a criminal indictment with a bland assertion that the defendant is not guilty does little in the public relations battle.
Mr. Marmaro’s strategy of asserting that options were not backdated turned out to be incorrect, and so the defense switched its theory at trial to the position that Mr. Reyes did not know they were not accounted for properly. In effect, the defense went from “it didn’t happen” to “the defendant didn’t intend for it to happen.”
Usually, that kind of change would not be important because the jury would only hear the theory introduced at trial, not what was spun to the press. But if the government can use the lawyer’s pretrial statements as evidence that the client misstated the truth through counsel, then defense lawyers may have to be more circumspect about what they say in the news media before trial begins, at least until they settle on a legal strategy. At a minimum, lawyers will have to weigh whether to respond immediately to the charges or wait until they have a better sense of what direction they want to go with the defense.
What is most interesting about the government’s argument for using Mr. Marmaro’s statements is that the lawyer is viewed not merely a spokesman for the client, but rather as the embodiment of the client. It is certainly a creative analysis of the evidence rules and could portend interesting uses of statements by a lawyer in other contexts. If the statements are admissible as those of Mr. Reyes, then defense lawyers have to be especially careful about what they say to the press because it may be viewed as the client speaking and not just the lawyer.
Lawyers are used to serving as a mouthpiece for their clients, especially those involved in criminal prosecutions. A statement by a party to a case may be introduced against that person at trial, so it is better to have the lawyer make any public statements to shield the client from the risk of a misstatement that could come back to haunt the person later.
But in the retrial of the former chief executive of Brocade Communications, Gregory L. Reyes, federal prosecutors have proposed introducing press releases that quote his lawyer as evidence of Mr. Reyes’s knowledge of his own wrongdoing.
Peter J. Henning, writing for DealBook’s White Collar Watch, is a commentator on white-collar crime and litigation. A former lawyer at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement division and then a prosecutor at the Justice Department, he is a professor at the Wayne State University Law School. He is currently working on a book, “The Prosecution and Defense of Public Corruption: The Law & Legal Strategies,” to be published by Oxford University Press.
Mr. Reyes was convicted in 2007 on charges relating to options backdating at Brocade. The key issue at trial was proving his intent, which required the government to show he acted “willfully” — i.e., he knew his conduct was wrongful. At trial, Mr. Reyes’s lawyer, Richard Marmaro from Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, put on a defense that while his client did in fact backdate options, he relied on the company’s accountants to properly report them, so he was not aware of any wrongdoing at the time.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the conviction in 2009 on the ground that the prosecutor misstated the evidence about whether members of Brocade’s finance department were unaware of the options backdating, which led the government to argue that Mr. Reyes could not have relied on them to properly account for the options grants. In fact, evidence gathered in the criminal investigation and by the Securities and Exchange Commission in its parallel civil case indicated that employees in the finance department were fully aware of the backdating, including one employee who resigned because of it.
The retrial is set to begin Monday and the government is now trying to introduce new evidence to show that Mr. Reyes was aware that his role in the backdating was wrongful. Like most white-collar crime prosecutions, the underlying facts are not in dispute, and the primary issue is whether there is proof of the defendant’s intent. The government needs to pull together different strands of evidence to give the jury a basis to infer that Mr. Reyes knew his role in the backdating was wrongful because there is no “smoking gun” memo or recording to show what was in his mind.
In addition to evidence it used in the first trial, the government wants to use two press releases issued in August 2006, shortly after the indictment, that quote Mr. Marmaro as denying that Mr. Reyes engaged in options backdating. The key quotes prosecutors want to use include one made on Aug. 2, 2006, that: “Mr. Reyes did not backdate options. He granted options appropriately, and had the authority to do so.” The second was on Aug. 31, 2006, in which Mr. Marmaro is quoted as stating: “After our appearance in court yesterday, to plead not guilty to all charges, some media outlets reported that Mr. Reyes and I in the past acknowledged that he participated in backdating. That is incorrect. We never said or implied that, because it did not happen.”
The government argued in a brief filed with Federal District Court that these statement are not hearsay because they were made by a representative of the defendant and one of his agents, so that they can be admitted as if Mr. Reyes spoke them himself. Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(C) and (D) may well authorize admission of the statements against Mr. Reyes, although courts are hesitant about allowing a lawyer’s statement to be used against a client in a criminal case.
But that alone is not enough to get the statements admitted into evidence because they also have to be relevant to the case. To show relevance, prosecutors contend that the statements, made years after the options were issued, show Mr. Reyes’s consciousness of his guilt: “Where, as here, Reyes denied doing something that he did (and that his defense is expected to concede he did), his earlier denials demonstrate that he knew what he was doing was wrong.”
In effect, the government wants to use Mr. Marmaro’s statements — included in the press releases, so it is unlikely they were ever actually spoken out loud — to show that Mr. Reyes is a liar. Of course, liars know they are acting wrongfully — otherwise, why would they lie in the first place — so the statements could be used by the government to support an argument that Mr. Reyes was simply continuing to cover up his wrongdoing when his lawyer made assertions to the news media in the press releases.
Rather than call Mr. Marmaro to testify, the government has subpoenaed Michael Sitrick, whose firm, Sitrick & Company, served as the communications adviser to Mr. Reyes and his defense team in 2006. Prosecutors have even subpoenaed documents from the firm, to which the defense has raised claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection.
The lawyer’s statements are not the only items the government seeks to introduce in the retrial that were not submitted in the first proceeding. Prosecutors also want to offer evidence that Mr. Reyes received backdated options as proof that he had a personal interest in the transactions to show his knowledge of wrongfulness. This issue was not pursued in the first trial, but the government wants to use it now to counter what it calls the “selfless-C.E.O.” defense offered before.
Judge Charles R. Breyer has not yet ruled in Federal District Court in San Francisco on the admissibility of Mr. Marmaro’s statements, although at a hearing on Wednesday he indicated that he was leaning toward allowing them.
The government’s effort to use statements made by defense counsel raises interesting issues for lawyers representing high-profile defendants. Mr. Reyes was one of the first charged criminally for options backdating, and as a former chief executive of a publicly traded company, his case drew significant media attention.
Defense lawyers know how important it is to try to counter the initial wave of negative publicity about their clients, especially corporate chieftains who are often perceived by the public as guilty until proven innocent. Responding to a criminal indictment with a bland assertion that the defendant is not guilty does little in the public relations battle.
Mr. Marmaro’s strategy of asserting that options were not backdated turned out to be incorrect, and so the defense switched its theory at trial to the position that Mr. Reyes did not know they were not accounted for properly. In effect, the defense went from “it didn’t happen” to “the defendant didn’t intend for it to happen.”
Usually, that kind of change would not be important because the jury would only hear the theory introduced at trial, not what was spun to the press. But if the government can use the lawyer’s pretrial statements as evidence that the client misstated the truth through counsel, then defense lawyers may have to be more circumspect about what they say in the news media before trial begins, at least until they settle on a legal strategy. At a minimum, lawyers will have to weigh whether to respond immediately to the charges or wait until they have a better sense of what direction they want to go with the defense.
What is most interesting about the government’s argument for using Mr. Marmaro’s statements is that the lawyer is viewed not merely a spokesman for the client, but rather as the embodiment of the client. It is certainly a creative analysis of the evidence rules and could portend interesting uses of statements by a lawyer in other contexts. If the statements are admissible as those of Mr. Reyes, then defense lawyers have to be especially careful about what they say to the press because it may be viewed as the client speaking and not just the lawyer.
Friday, February 19, 2010
What Should Tiger Say Today to the Press?
Maggie Galehouse with the Houston Chronicle quotes Media Masters' communication specialist Tammy Kidd weighing in on what Tiger's message should be today. Check it out below:
What should Tiger do? Or, at least, what should he say today when he speaks in public for the first time since his fall from grace?
After a sustained silence while he purportedly went to therapy for sex addiction, Woods will say a few words to a small group of associates and media at 10 a.m. CST in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla. They will be his first public comments since crashing his SUV into a tree at his Florida home on Nov. 27.
But he won’t be taking any questions. His agent has said the appearance is not a press conference.
Can Woods, 34, redeem himself? And if so, how?
"He’s gotten off to such a slow start, it’s unfortunate," said Gene Grabowski, a crisis counselor for professional athletes, corporate executives and celebrities, including Roger Clemens and Rosie O’Donnell. "He has taken a baby step in the right direction by going in front of the news media. But by not taking questions and trying to control this process, he’s behaving like he’s calling the tune when, in fact, he should be facing the music."
Above all, Tiger has to apologize, Grabowski said. "He has to say, ‘I’m sorry. I let a lot of people down. It was the wrong thing to do. I spent some time thinking about it and getting some help. I’ll be a better person. Here are the charities I’m going to work with.’ And then he should take four or five questions."
Grabowski, who works for Levick Strategic Communications in Washington, D.C., said one of the best-played public reckonings came from New York Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte, when faced with allegations about steroid use.
"He held a news conference," Grabowski said. "He said he took steroids twice, said he was sorry, took a couple of questions and then moved on. Nobody has bothered him since."
The difference with the Tiger Woods debacle is that it involves personal deceit, as opposed to violating the rules of professional sports.
But it’s all the same to the public, Grabowski said.
"If the golf community feels you’ve deceived them, it amounts to the same thing," he said. "Tiger Woods is an icon to children. Mothers and fathers are going to be keeping images and information about him from their kids. That’s a big blow."
Tammy Kidd, a local attorney and legal media consultant with Media Masters, agrees that Woods should answer questions at some point — but in a controlled environment.
"If I was working for him, I wouldn’t put him out there in an open press conference," said Kidd, who is helping lawyers representing Conrad Murray — Michael Jackson’s former doctor indicted in his death — with their legal and media strategy. "I think a smart move would be for him to take some friendly questions from people who are sympathetic, who are going to help him come back from this. Do you use Springer or Oprah? You use Oprah. She’s obviously sympathetic to him."
Beyond that, Kidd agrees with Grabowski that a big-time apology is in order, along with an admission of an addiction or disease.
"He cannot just go out there and make a statement like, ‘This is private,’ " Kidd said. "That isn’t going to get him very many points … He needs to apologize to his wife, children and the public. And he probably needs to admit to some type of disease. He has to say that something was controlling him, and it wasn’t just a matter of bad judgment."
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Tiger Schedules Press Conference: Operation Reputation Rehab Continues
As you probably know, Tiger Woods plans to hold a press conference on Friday in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., site of the PGA Tour headquarters. Well, it’s sort of a press conference — he won’t be taking any questions from reporters, and it will only last five minutes. According to the statement issued by his agent, the philandering golfer plans to talk about his past and future, and apologize. He will "be speaking to a small group of friends, colleagues and close associates," the statement noted.
A spokesperson for the PGA Tour told The Wall Street Journal that someone approached the Tour — perhaps Tiger’s PR rep, Glenn Greenspan — asking for a venue for the press conference. Maybe he wants to win over America’s heart again (along with a few lost sponsors). More likely, it’s a dramatic way to announce his return to golf in time for the Masters Tournament in April. The big question is will his wife, Elin, be by his side?
We will be watching.
A spokesperson for the PGA Tour told The Wall Street Journal that someone approached the Tour — perhaps Tiger’s PR rep, Glenn Greenspan — asking for a venue for the press conference. Maybe he wants to win over America’s heart again (along with a few lost sponsors). More likely, it’s a dramatic way to announce his return to golf in time for the Masters Tournament in April. The big question is will his wife, Elin, be by his side?
We will be watching.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
How the iPad Could Kill Newspapers
Publishers of newspapers and magazines who see potential for great reading experiences in Apple’s forthcoming iPad should be careful what they wish for. The device, if sufficiently successful, could be the next major blow to print publishing—possibly a fatal blow.
To be sure, the potential gain from the iPad is, no doubt, real. Take The New York Times, the publisher of the most-viewed newspaper or magazine Web site anywhere. Today, the Times offers a site that is comprehensive, creative, rich, and deep, constantly updated, and taking great advantage of many of the new tools and techniques the Web offers. But the Times site, however well executed, remains a Web site—a “sit forward” experience, highly imperfect for narrative reading, and nearly impossible to use in a manner that yields a sense of completion, a feeling of having read it all the way through, that can be a critical attribute of something to which you “subscribe.”
Thus, it has been clear, for perhaps three to five years, that any sudden conversion of all print readers to Web readers, while greatly reducing costs, would reduce revenue even more, deepening losses at unprofitable papers and throwing those that remain profitable into losses—losses that would likely be impossible to reverse except through huge further expense cuts, especially in newsrooms. The downward spiral in product quality would be accelerated, likely leading to fewer readers and more cuts.
Unfortunately, nothing about the iPad, as wonderful as it looks and feels, holds out the promise of avoiding this problem. It is hard to imagine how ads delivered on an iPad could garner a price three, four, or five times that for today’s online ads. But that is what would be required for a profitable transition.
On the circulation side, things look better, but not better enough. iPhone apps, the analogy on which charging for content on an iPad will likely be based, are amazingly inexpensive; many powerful apps are free, and $10 a year buys robust services—with Apple keeping a big cut for itself. It may be easier to charge iPad subscribers than it has been on the Web, but charging them even a decent fraction of what the Times, for instance, charges print subscribers—more than $600 per year after introductory discounts have expired—seems like a pipe dream.
One report from The New York Times earnings call this week noted that expectations for the iPad as a new platform for its content among analysts seem muted. But it could be far worse than that. Having early adopters of the iPad look at your content seems like a dream come true. But having them like it enough to substitute it for your print product would be a nightmare.
Monday, February 15, 2010
How the White House Thwarts a PR Disaster
President Obama’s communications team is trying to squelch a PR flare-up, which stems from an interview the president did with Bloomberg’s BusinessWeek that has riled activists on the left. Here’s the scoop. In the article, BusinessWeek quotes Obama as saying: “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.”
The story’s headline became, “Obama doesn’t begrudge bonuses for Blankenfein, Dimon.” (They would be the chief executives at Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase.) Activists are saying the president flip-flopped on his stronger stance against large bonuses, reports Politico. The White House, claiming BusinessWeek took the comments out of context, published a blog post attempting to clear up the matter.
So far that hasn’t stopped the news from spreading quickly across the media. What do you think of the White House's social media approach? Will it help resolve the negative PR?
The story’s headline became, “Obama doesn’t begrudge bonuses for Blankenfein, Dimon.” (They would be the chief executives at Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase.) Activists are saying the president flip-flopped on his stronger stance against large bonuses, reports Politico. The White House, claiming BusinessWeek took the comments out of context, published a blog post attempting to clear up the matter.
So far that hasn’t stopped the news from spreading quickly across the media. What do you think of the White House's social media approach? Will it help resolve the negative PR?
Friday, February 12, 2010
Beware: Your Blackberry Is Easily Hacked
A cautionary tale from Security Dark Reading's website recently. Your Smartphone isn't as smart as you think. The phone could be as easy to listen in on as a two-way radio.
A researcher at the ShmooCon hacker conference yesterday demonstrated how BlackBerry applications can be used to expose sensitive information without the use of exploits.
Tyler Shields, senior researcher for Veracode's Research Lab, also released proof-of-concept source code for a spyware app he created and demonstrated at the hacker confab in Washington, D.C., that forces the victim's BlackBerry to hand over its contacts and messages. The app also can grab text messages, listen in on the victim, as well as track his physical location via the phone's GPS.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
About ME Pages: Write them Properly
Kris Dunn with the HR Capitalist has a great post today about the correct and incorrect way to fill out those "about me" pages on Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter.
Whether you have a bio on your Firm's site, are a sole practitioner and have to tell people who you are, or simply have a bio via twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn, you've got choices to make regarding how you position yourself.
Whether you have a bio on your Firm's site, are a sole practitioner and have to tell people who you are, or simply have a bio via twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn, you've got choices to make regarding how you position yourself.
You have three choices when it comes to an "About" page and how you position yourself:
1. Take a "YAY ME" approach. Say you're the expert even if you're not or at the risk of seeming plastic to the world around you. LOTS of companies and people doing this.
2. Tell the world who you are. Tell the world who you are not. Be confident in the fact that by not trying to be all things to all people, you'll be more attractive to the people who are really looking for what you have to offer. This is similar to the Seth Godin "tribes" approach, and it's clearly the authentic way to go.
3. Be scared. You think the Brill Street approach sucks, but you just don't have the moxie required to tell the world who you are/aren't.
I've got news for you. #2 is the only way to go. It builds trust and authenticity, but it requires you to tell the world what you think sucks. Take a stand. People like it and the people who don't won't be nearly as active in being critical as you think they will be. I reworked my LinkedIn bio and came up with this:
"Who am I? That's an easy question - I'm a VP of HR type who has led HR practices in Fortune 500s and venture capital-held startups. I work for a living, and believe if you aren't an active recruiter/talent agent as an HR pro (regardless of title or position), you're overhead. I cringe when peer HR types act like administration is job #1 and allow it to dominate their professional identities. I cringe again if they make no attempt to be an active recruiter.
BOOM! If you like that description, you'll like me. It's that simple.
I'm also among the most transparent HR pros you can find, and here's why. I care so much about the art of HR that I've started two blogs (www.hrcapitalist.com and www.fistfuloftalent.com) with the goal of building a community I could learn from. I've been putting my thoughts down every business day for 3 years.
That means what you see is what you get. I can't hide, and if I ever pulled the blogs down, Google would probably haunt me forever anyway."
Monday, February 8, 2010
Generate More Revenue With Niche Practices
Here is a very interesting post on niche practices from Tom Kane with the Legal Marketing Blog- great advice for general practice firms struggling to make it in this tough economy.
Tom Kane: Niche practices can be marketed more effectively and cheaper than a general practice in my opinion. Law firms that promote their niche practices will easily standout from the crowd; and can charge more for the practice, if they do.
Two of my posts on niche marketing that come to mind from a few years back include "Narrow Your Niche for More Effective Marketing" and "Do You Have a Niche and What Are You Doing about It?" Take a look, because there is a hot new niche that just came on the market. And there ain’t going to be a recall any time soon.
Thanks to the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC (No. 08-205), January 21, 2010. I’m sure many firms will be adding a niche practice representing plaintiffs or defending corporations/unions over their respective political contributions.Some shareholders and/or union members may be vehemently oppose to the particular political choices made by the corporation or union. Could get to be messy out there, and those with a early lead in marketing such a niche might just win big.It could be a sub-niche to existing Shareholders’ Rights Practices, or stand-alones called something like “Shareholders’ Political Rights Practice” and “Union Workers’ Political Rights Practice.”
The point is that you should jump right in if you think there is anything to this, and you too believe in the value of niche practices. Get out there ahead of the competition, and don’t forget to grab that domain name for your area while you're at it.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Best Law Blogs
Top law blogs to check out today:
- Civil Rights Division Announces Plan to Target Public Employers - Harrisburg attorney Adam Santucci of McNees Wallace & Nurick on the firm's Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Blog
- Dealing with Data Breaches: Health Net Suit Highlights Need for Effective Security Incident Procedures and Training - New Jersey lawyer Jason Gavejian of Jackson Lewis on the firm's blog, Workplace Privacy, Data Management & Security Report
- The State's "Biederman & Burleson" Motion in Limine - Frisco attorney Hunter Biederman on his Frisco DWI Lawyer & Attorney Blog
- Georgia Court of Appeals Reverses Trial Court's Dismissal of RICO Indictment Against Pastor, Bank Officer - Georgia lawyer Anthony Lake of Gillen, Withers & Lake in the firm's Federal Criminal Defense Blog
- Is your business too small to have to pay overtime? - New York attorney Joel Greenwald of Greenwald Doherty on the firm's blog, Overtime Advisor
- Climate Update: SEC Guidance, EPA and Cap & Trade - Cleveland lawyer Joe Koncelik of Frantz Ward in his Ohio Environmental Law Blog
- NC Court Of Appeals Affirms That Dynasty Trusts Don't Violate The Rule Against Perpetuities - Greensboro attorney Mack Sperling of Brooks Pierce in his blog, the North Carolina Business Litigation Report
- The True Scope of the Salami/Pepper Salmonella Outbreak - Seattle lawyer Drew Falkenstein of Marler Clark on the firm's Food Poison Journal
- Louisiana Court Affirms Denial of Certification of Class Alleging 40 Years of Exposure to Radioactive Dust - New York attorney Russell Jackson of Skadden on his blog, Consumer Class Actions and Mass Torts
- BIG NEWS: Google Search Engine Results Now Provides Social Network Updates - Dallas lawyer Peter Vogel of Gardere Wynne Sewell on his Vogel Internet, Information Technology and e-Discovery Blog
Monday, February 1, 2010
GOP PR Blunder- Don't Debate an Opponent on his Home Turf
By many accounts, President Obama’s meeting with GOP House leaders was a success — for the White House. “[Obama], groping for a new strategy after the Massachusetts defeat, seemed to find the perfect foundation for one Friday: direct engagement with the GOP in front of a national TV audience,” Politico reported.
Turns out the Republicans were hesitant about televising the exchange, but bowed to pressure at the last minute — a decision they regretted. “Sources say that Republicans immediately realized the perils of giving Obama such a platform but had little choice but to say yes,” according to Politico.
While the president and his allies were pleased with his performance, GOP members accused Obama of meeting with Republicans simply to score political points — “exactly the kind of cynical ploy he accused them of.” Related The Huffington Post. Many media outlets, primary left-leaning ones, gauged Obama’s success by Fox News’ coverage of the event. “So effective was the president that Fox News cut away from the broadcast 20 minutes before it ended,” Sam Stein wrote for The Huffington Post. Will this soon be the measure of every TV event: How long Fox covers it?
Turns out the Republicans were hesitant about televising the exchange, but bowed to pressure at the last minute — a decision they regretted. “Sources say that Republicans immediately realized the perils of giving Obama such a platform but had little choice but to say yes,” according to Politico.
While the president and his allies were pleased with his performance, GOP members accused Obama of meeting with Republicans simply to score political points — “exactly the kind of cynical ploy he accused them of.” Related The Huffington Post. Many media outlets, primary left-leaning ones, gauged Obama’s success by Fox News’ coverage of the event. “So effective was the president that Fox News cut away from the broadcast 20 minutes before it ended,” Sam Stein wrote for The Huffington Post. Will this soon be the measure of every TV event: How long Fox covers it?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
