10) They might fail. Goodness knows you don't want to try something that isn't 100% guaranteed to work.
9) Those in marketing can't control it. Its those renegades over in the IP practice area. The one's who it is rumored keep Macintoshes in their homes. And I think some of them are just associates. So what do they know?
8) Somebody might call you an early adopter. You know pioneer's are the one's with the arrows in their backs. Turtles who stick their heads out of their shells, well, whack! Mom said, "Don't grow up to be an early adopter - be a lawyer."
7) I.T. doesn't approve let alone know much about them.
6) Somebody might take issue with something stated in the blog and, well, everyone knows that controversy is disastrous not to mention newsworthy, viral and eye-catching.
5) There's no good source for pre-chewed & digested blog content like professional services firms purchase for their regionally protected newsletter which they pass off as their own knowledge.
4) Marketing is sure that, after about 63 blogging days, the buck lands on their desk and they'll be ghost writing content.
3) On some marketers scale, it doesn't make the top 5 list, which I gather is the maximum number of marketing initiatives a law firm can handle at any one time.
2) Those who are rumored to be succeeding are selfishly posting content to their blog and not extolling the virtues of blogging.
1) And the number one reason blogs are a bad idea is that, although a new blog is created every 2 seconds, that search engines are favoring blog content with algorithmically driven prominence, and blogs are really nothing more than a website with a simple content management system, the only people who seem to understand them are two guys named Larry (Bodine) and Kevin (O'Keefe).
Do you agree? I don't think as a lawyer does, but some of the reasons for not having a blog have to do with a different era: no transparency, no sharing knowledge, no conversation...
Have to go on with my PR related posts, after the robbery.
Via Real Lawyers have blogs.