“You Wanna Be #1 on Google Forever?”

Oh, lordy, lordy, lordy, it just doesn’t get much better than this. An SEO salesman, trying to sell a lawyer a domain name, sounding drunk as a skunk, leaves a wonderfully rambling message. Not wonderful for him, of course, but for us.

And all of it deliciously placed on YouTube. Go ahead. Listen. It runs just over a minute. Trust me on this one.

So, was that, like, totally awesome, or what? Who the hell has to even write a post about it?

Can you imagine, someplace in America some lawyers might actually be outsourcing their marketing (and therefore their ethics) to this guy and his company?

A name, a name, my kingdom for a name! The recipient firm, McCollum & Griggs of Kansas City earns brownie points for putting this on the web, but publishing the name of the company, would have earned even more.

Hat tip to Bret Emison, also of Kansas City, who posted about it here.

Tags:

11 Responses Leave a comment

  • Ken 2012.11.29 at 19:53 | Quote

    Oh, how I wish we had the name of that fellow.

  • Eric Turkewitz 2012.11.29 at 19:59 | Quote

    Oh, how I wish we had the name of that fellow.

    Perhaps it is better that we don’t. All lawyers should think that this is the guy on the other end of the SEO pitch. Maybe it will keep some of them on their toes.

  • Joe Pullen 2012.11.29 at 21:32 | Quote

    “souding drunk as a skunk”

    My kingdom for another “n”.

  • Eric Turkewitz 2012.11.29 at 21:39 | Quote

    My kingdom for another β€œn”.

    You want me to write about it and use spell check? How demanding…

    (Thanks…)

  • Brett 2012.11.30 at 17:31 | Quote

    More information at the Missouri Lawyer’s Weekly news site (though it may be behind a paywall). http://molawyersmedia.com/blog/2012/11/30/audio-kc-law-firm-finds-humor-in-salesmans-rant/

    The caller’s phone number “went to Stephen O’Brien”. O’Brien said that last year he was “helping” to sell old domain names owned by Seattle Software Developers. He denied leaving the message, saying “I don’t remember anything like that.”

    Based on the slurred speech in the message, I’m inclined to believe him.

  • Eric Turkewitz 2012.11.30 at 17:46 | Quote

    saying β€œI don’t remember anything like that.”

    Classic. Most folks, I think would say, “No. That is most definitely not me.”

    The article is, indeed, behind a paywall.

  • Bill Shields 2012.11.30 at 22:30 | Quote

    That was worth listening to. Makes me think that he’ll need a [link to Stewart & Torgersen deleted] soon. Cause he’s gonna get jumped. In phoenix. By ninjas.

  • Eric Turkewitz 2012.12.1 at 01:17 | Quote

    That was worth listening to. Makes me think that he’ll need a [link to Stewart & Torgersen deleted] soon. Cause he’s gonna get jumped. In phoenix. By ninjas.

    You’re kidding, right? You’re actually using a post about abusive SEO bullshit to drop an unrelated link into my comments? I don’t know if I should torment you in the comments here or dedicate a whole new post about the firm that apparently hired you to do that. Which way do you think I should go?

  • Tim 2012.12.28 at 19:39 | Quote

    WTF? YouTube owns the whole web? The clip has been removed from numerous sites that don’t appear to belong to or be dependent on that one great though perhaps prudish purveyor of public antics.

Comments are closed.


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.