11 Apr 09

Tags: , .
Written by Richard Wood. 12 comments

The Law Firm that’s a real TWIT! And losing TweetCred!


So, I’m not going to name names, but a friend of mine in California emailed me that he was shocked to have been told by his law firm to stop retweeting their tweets.

My understanding is that the marketing department would use twitter to talk about themselves (you know, that great way of marketing a law firm), but that they were unhappy that my friend would retweet (RT) their entries because they “no longer controlled the content”.

What the heck are they thinking?!?!? They’ve completely missed the point of MARKETING, let alone twitter!

The fun kicker? The firm has about 15 followers and my friend has about 1,500.

All I can say is WOW! Get out of the marketing business if this is your method for enhancing your firm’s services. Whoever is making this ridiculous decision needs to be fired immediately.

So, let’s look at why this practice is wrong.

First, RT (retweeting) is the primary way to prove that people are reading your tweets and making sure their followers take notice that they find what you’ve said is important to them. You might also call this TweetCred. (hehe)

Let me guess, you also don’t allow comments on your blog? Oh, you don’t even have a blog? LOL

Good grief. File this under, “Moron TweetCred”.


Filed under: Uncategorized

Trackback Uri

  • J. Wong

    That is absolutely absurd. The law firm has no business on Twitter if it’s just trying to create a presence online without being open to all forms of communication. What happens if others follow and retweet their articles? Will the firm threaten legal action or request that their tweets not be retweeted? Doing so has the potential to hurt their brand, and that’s probably not the best thing to do in any economic climate.

    There’s so much potential in retweeting; if one person retweeted the firm’s tweet (which might’ve taken a minute to type), resulting in a new client that was in search of legal services, that would be a decent return on investment, especially if that client shared it through a blog, through an online review site, or by word of mouth.

    Unfortunately, it sounds like the firm is bent on its own property, even though it’s available to the masses on the Internet. What a shame…

  • J. Wong

    That is absolutely absurd. The law firm has no business on Twitter if it’s just trying to create a presence online without being open to all forms of communication. What happens if others follow and retweet their articles? Will the firm threaten legal action or request that their tweets not be retweeted? Doing so has the potential to hurt their brand, and that’s probably not the best thing to do in any economic climate.There’s so much potential in retweeting; if one person retweeted the firm’s tweet (which might’ve taken a minute to type), resulting in a new client that was in search of legal services, that would be a decent return on investment, especially if that client shared it through a blog, through an online review site, or by word of mouth.Unfortunately, it sounds like the firm is bent on its own property, even though it’s available to the masses on the Internet. What a shame…

  • Tim

    Blog + Twitter + RT’s = Online Conversions!

    Next question to come from the firm will probably be…”How do we get Google to have us not show up in their search engine?”

  • Tim

    Blog + Twitter + RT’s = Online Conversions! Next question to come from the firm will probably be…”How do we get Google to have us not show up in their search engine?”

  • Anonymous

    Why wouldn’t you name names! Then at least you give the firm a chance to up their Twitter following count from that paltry 15. Even my neighbour’s cat has more followers. And I bet they’re just dying to follow that firm too!

  • Anonymous

    Why wouldn’t you name names! Then at least you give the firm a chance to up their Twitter following count from that paltry 15. Even my neighbour’s cat has more followers. And I bet they’re just dying to follow that firm too!

  • Jesse Wilkins

    Hey, I think it’s perfectly OK for them to not want to be retweeted. Clueless and sad, but OK. Now, were it me, I would employ the Streisand gambit and publish the resulting communications, but then again, I’m not the one possibly being threatened with being sued.

    And Tim’s spot on – but I bet that conversation’s already been had. :)

  • Jesse Wilkins

    Hey, I think it’s perfectly OK for them to not want to be retweeted. Clueless and sad, but OK. Now, were it me, I would employ the Streisand gambit and publish the resulting communications, but then again, I’m not the one possibly being threatened with being sued. And Tim’s spot on – but I bet that conversation’s already been had. :)

  • Richard

    The reason I don’t name names is because I fear that my friend would be fired. Even though He’s doing them a HUGE favor by exposing the firm’s naughty ways.

    I’m not even sure it’s the “firm” who’s dictating policy, but simply a marketing person/department.

    I’ll dig into this piece with my friend. Perhaps there’s a gentle way to get through to the firm’s mucky mucks without getting anyone in trouble.

  • Richard

    The reason I don’t name names is because I fear that my friend would be fired. Even though He’s doing them a HUGE favor by exposing the firm’s naughty ways.I’m not even sure it’s the “firm” who’s dictating policy, but simply a marketing person/department.I’ll dig into this piece with my friend. Perhaps there’s a gentle way to get through to the firm’s mucky mucks without getting anyone in trouble.

  • Doug Cornelius

    You kids quit re-tweeting my tweets, and quit linking to my website, and get off my lawn!

  • Doug Cornelius

    You kids quit re-tweeting my tweets, and quit linking to my website, and get off my lawn!