![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Eric Turkewitz, The Turkewitz Law Firm, New York, NY |
||||||||||||||||||||
Sunday, January 25, 2009Twitter and The Age of Information Overload Several people have suggested I join Twitter, the microblogging service. With a 140 character "tweet" or "twit " you can send off a tiny little message to those that follow you. It's all the rage now with blogging lawyers, and there's 565 on this growing list. Heck even Barack Obama tweets (though the prior list somehow missed the First Lawyer).But I've resisted. My brain is being swamped with information and my days seem to be getting shorter as I try to stay current:
The internet and the burgeoning social networks that it has spawned have made it possible to acquire information in ways that our parents never envisioned. Information now pours over the transom in an unprecedented deluge, being pushed and pulled in myriad ways. But at some point I need to stem this tide. I'm not looking to retreat to a cabin in the woods, eating grubs to survive and working on an anti-technology manifesto, but I also don't feel a compelling need to open every valve of the technology river. There are only 24 hours in the day, and yes, I like to also use some of them to eat and sleep. It is true that there are times I would like to make a very short post, but a once-a-week round-up of linkworthy items on this blog seems to be efficient enough for that purpose. And I have to think that those that would "follow" me on Twitter already follow me their RSS feed or by subscription, so little would seem to be gained by way of a growing readership. Twitter really seems like an updated version of a listserv, which has served me quite well over the years. I've previously covered that subject (The Million Dollar Listserv), writing that "The listserv may be the single greatest tool the solo or small practice lawyer has," and if you don't belong to one in your practice area, you really should find or create one. You can read that post to see why. Twitter doesn't seem to improve on it in any meaningful way, and when you supplement the listserv with RSS feeds the ground is pretty well covered. There are some that think Twitter's great for breaking new stories, but that's really nonsense. For example, some "credit" Janis Krums with using Twitter to "scoop" mainstream media with a first photo of the US Airways splash landing in the Hudson. Krums was on the first ferry to reach the plane. The WSJ wrote, "Notch another win for citizen journalism," and the Daily News called his 15 seconds of fame "well-deserved." Why, on godsgreenearth anyone would think this is a "well-deserved" "win" of any kind and relevant to any serious issue of news reporting is beyond me. Why would it matter that someone twittered about a loaded airplane going down in full view of thousands of people on the edge of the biggest city in the country -- other than to the guy who took the picture and spent his time twittering it to friends? Did Twittering save lives? Of course not. Rescue was already in progress. While Krums was being lauded as a celebrity, I wanted to know why the hell he was spending time on his iPhone instead of asking the crew what he could do to help, getting life vests ready to toss overboard, looking for survivors in the frigid waters, and looking around to see where, if at all, there might be lifeboats that he might need to assist with. Obsessiveness to technology can also mean the difference between life and death. And then there is LexTweet -- a project of Kevin O'Keeffe's Lexblog business that builds sites for lawyers -- where the twittering is all about law. Or at least that may have been his thought when starting it. According to O'Keefe, "The community has already grown to over 1,500 members. But when I checked it out I found these pearls of twittering show up on his service:
Now I don't blame O'Keefe for putting that content up, or even encouraging it. He's the platform builder, not the content creator. But it doesn't help to claim 1,500 twittering lawyers if these are among the ranks. I'm not saying I will never Twitter. It certainly has its place as yet another method of information sharing. It's just that I don't see the need, given that I already can't read all the information that comes in. And it doesn't seem to be any improvement over a simple listserv or bulletin board with threaded subjects. And that type of technology was in wide use in the mid-90s. Will Twitter help me acquire yet more information that I can't get to, or assist me in sharing information that I might have? I don't see how. For more on twittering lawyers:
Comments:
I am certainly not a Twitter evangelist and can appreciate the comment about not getting stretched too thin in one's on line presence, however, this article misses one of the key benefits of Twitter.
Twitter is about networking more than anything else. The lawyers twitter comments posted as an example of 'crap' reflect the personal nature of Twitter. Twitter is great for making personal connections with a wide variety of people. The networking power of Twitter is tremendous. Twitter is not a listerve (I am also a huge fan of local lawyers listserves as a key professional development tool) and should not strive to be. Lawyers 'tweets' about the law are generally very dry and boring. For me, twitter is great for networking with folks who I don't come across on my local listerve, particularly SEO experts and legal marketing advisers. Just as I would not expect quality legal advice from Twitter, I don't expect much quality legal marketing advice from my peers (not to mention my direct competition for business) on my local listserve.
I largely agree, which is sad, since I'm on Twitter. I've connected with people I otherwise would not have and, indeed, have found some new business, but on the whole IMHO there's very limited business purpose to it.
But there is a lot of personal purpose to it. For, say, a solo working in an office by themselves, I can see a lot of value in, e.g., feeling that connected to others throughout the workday. The 140 character limit helpfully prevents drawn-out ramblings and extended conversation, making it easy to enter, exit, and re-enter Twitter at will. So that's my take: limited business purpose per se but lots of personal purpose, personal purpose which can in some circumstances improve business productivity. YMMV. It's not the best thing since sliced bread.
Whew - I thought one of my tweets was going to end up on your list of examples of why twitter is such a waste of time.....
Eric - I understand your reluctance to get into Twitter. It is confusing at first and it's not so clear there are benefits such as with the Million Dollar Listserve. I joined a month or so ago and am watching and "tweeting" from time to time. I am not yet an evangelist but I am pretty sure it's like a lot of things - what you put in is what you get out. There's an awful lot of very bright people (at least I think so) who are sure this is the next big thing. I think they are right. And I think Tweetdeck will develop into quite a resource for our personal injury practices.I'll let you know when I'm sure they are right (or not). - John
Needless to say-I'm a huge Twitter fan (@nikiblack).
For those lawyers interested in finding out more about Twitter, you can read my Daily Record article "Twitter 101 for Lawyers": http://21stcenturylaw.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/twitter-101-for-lawyers/
Thanks for giving us your perspective on Twitter and information overload. To me, it also seems to raise the constant reality of Distraction Overload. To the extent it is "all about networking," the distraction needs to be confined to a discrete part of the day -- preferably not when your client or boss needs you to focus on the business at hand. I'm happy to see that you and Scott Greenfield are Tweeting at night. I bet few of our younger colleagues can truthfully make the same claim.
I'm envious, of course, that you can state these opinions without being called an ignorant, uptight, naive dinosaur. On a related note, I clearly thought of Twitter and Info-Source-Glut when I saw the Trailer from "He's just Not That Into You". At 2:12 of the Trailer, Drew Barrymore's character says: "I had this guy leave me a voice mail at work, so I called him at home, and then he emailed me to my Blackberry, and so I text it to his cell, and now you have to go around checking all these different portals just to get rejected by seven different technologies. It's exhausting." See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtMLvv9w0Nc
David:
After my trial was adjourned the other day, I decided to do a review of Twitter by joining and playing with the tools. That review will follow shortly (I hope)...
Great article and excellent points. With an initial abandon rate of 60%, Twitter begs to question how much sustainable "value" is truly provided to attorneys.
Since this service is offered for free, I advise attorneys to think of the opportunity cost of their time and how best to utilize it. If they bill at say $300/hour, Twitter just became a net liability to them the first minute they created their accounts UNLESS what they have to say is measurable and valuable to others. What they had for breakfast does not qualify.
Twitter is hit and miss. It has the hightest bounce rates of popular networking sites. Many people join, and most are gone within a couple of months
Post a Comment
Links to this post: << Home
The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way. Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained. Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice. Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.
|
Subscribe by Email
|
|||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |
An Affiliate of the Law.com Network
|
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
Copyright © 2007 Eric Turkewitz & The Turkewitz Law Firm
About the New York Personal Injury Law Blog:
An attorney's blog on New York personal injury law,
medical malpractice, the civil justice system
and cases of interest.
|
|
Design by Lidija Tomas Design / Studio 4D |