Happy Memorial Day. For those in the legal profession, take time to remember two of your own who were lost in Iraq in 2003 when their Blackhawk went down: Warrant Officer of the Corps, Sharon Swartworth and Sergeant Major of the Corps Cornell Gilmore.

As May reaches its end, we’re within a month of Avvo’s third anniversary. Despite this tenure, and despite the tens of thousands of attorneys who have claimed their profiles, we continue to hear from attorneys laboring under misconceptions about how Avvo works.

So, in the interest of saving ourselves some time lawyer education, we’re proud to announce “Avvo Myths” – our compilation of the latest-and-greatest “ideas about Avvo that are wrong” – along with plenty of information on how Avvo really works. Enjoy!

For those of you who were not able to attend the webinar this week with Vanessa Fox, here is the recording of her presentation.

I’ll be speaking (?) at the TechFlash Town Hall on June 15^th.  TechFlash has set up an interesting, town hall format where a number of entrepreneurs, investors, commentators, etc. will share thoughts on raising money, specifically the pros/cons of bootstrapping vs. venture capital.  Here is the current cast of characters:

Michael Arrington, founder and publisher of TechCrunch.
Mark Britton, founder and CEO of Avvo.
Bill Bryant, angel investor and venture partner at Draper Fisher Jurvetson.
Hillel Cooperman, founder of Jackson Fish Market.
Ben Elowitz, founder and CEO of Wetpaint.
Geoff Entress, angel investor and venture partner at Voyager Capital.
Greg Gottesman, managing director at Madrona Venture Group.
Serena Glover, co- founder and former executive at Twango.
Glenn Kelman, president & CEO of Redfin.
Andy Liu, angel investor and co-founder of BuddyTV.
Steve Murch, founder of BigOven.com and former CEO of VacationSpot.com.
Dan Rosen, chairman of the Alliance of Angels.
Andy Sack, general partner at Founder’s Co-op.
Lucinda Stewart, managing director at OVP Venture Partners.

This format could be really interesting or a complete free-for-all.  We shall see.  Whatever the case, I have spoken on enough panels with most of the participants to know it will be tough for me to get a word in edgewise.  ;-)

So, please join us at Seattle University on June 15^th.  You can register here.

Mark

Recently, I wrote about attending F8 – Facebook’s annual conference – and their new “Social Graph” strategy, including incorporating your friends’ recommendations into third party websites, etc.  I talked about the pros and cons of this new initiative, but ultimately came out favoring its utility over its expense, specifically Facebook’s strategy of dominating social (and possibly all) search. 

In light of everything that has happened since, man, was that a boring blog post.  A whole firestorm has erupted around Facebook’s new strategy.  In a nutshell, Facebook has changed their privacy policy so that they have a greater ability to share users’ pictures and private data with other websites.  Not surprisingly (see below), they automatically opted-in all of their users regarding this sharing (requiring them to expressly “opt-out”), and that is really where the storm started building.  Many felt that Facebook should not have included anyone unless they opted-in.  Many also felt Facebook made its too complex to opt-out. 

All sorts of people — commentators, entrepreneurs and now even politicians — have decided to give Facebook a good old-fashioned smack down regarding the privacy issues related to their new functionality and underlying strategy.  On the entrepreneur front, one of the better publicized campaigns is called “Quit Facebook Day.”  This came out of the frozen technological tundra of Toronto, where two “technologists” are attempting to have the world quit Facebook on May 31^st. 

Sharing similar concerns (in much more formal way) is a group of Senators from the hallowed halls of Capitol Hill.  Even though they are not suggesting people quit Facebook, they are saying that Facebook’s new initiatives raise serious privacy concerns.  I have republished the full letter below, as it is entertaining.  But, when reading it, I couldn’t help but think, “Isn’t there a big oil spill in the Gulf?”  Possibly they think Facebook will pollute the digital world more than BP?  Hard to tell.  Maybe that’s why I’m not a Senator. 

But our fellow Canadians and noble politicians are not alone, in the last two weeks there have been dozens of articles taking Facebook and their boy wonder CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, to the privacy woodshed.  Just take a look at this blog post announcing the changes, with 2,000 mostly scathing comments welcoming it (I didn’t read them all mind you).  It’s all been a painful read, so I can only imagine how painful it is to be Facebook’s General Counsel right now. 

As total hysteria sets in on this (when senators send letters, total hysteria is already upon us), let me offer a couple of thoughts:

• Mark Zuckerberg is not Kim Jong-Il – Its funny, whenever a company becomes important to our lives, the public begins attributing all sorts of conspiratorial malice to it.  Really, from some of the articles you would think that Mark Zuckerberg runs the rogue nation of Facebookistan which is exploiting state resources to destroy the world.  Microsoft also experienced this when people (especially in the Valley) began referring to them as the “Death Star.”  In analyzing Facebook’s actions, I suggest we start with the presumption that these are pretty good guys. My hypothesis is that Zuckerberg and his Facebook posse are simply trying to build the most effective social networking experience on the Web.  As part of that, they want to make money.  Sounds fairly consistent with American principals to me.
• You don’t have to be on Facebook — OK, if Facebook is not a calculating dictatorship, then how can they steal my private information?  Well, they can’t and that’s where everyone should take a deep breath.  A couple of things:  Facebook is FREE.  You chose to be there.  You are free to leave.  “Wait a minute!” you say.  “I have to be there because all of my friends are there! I use Facebook for my email and book club!”  Exactly, and that’s why you need to cut Facebook some slack.  They are giving you something really valuable for FREE and their new initiatives are simply trying to enhance that really valuable FREE experience for you.
• Facebook made the best choice re: the automatic opt-in — Probably 95% of Facebook’s users *want* Facebook’s new functionality and all of the personalization that goes with it.  If Facebook automatically opted-out this 95%, then most would never know the functionality/personalization exists and the rest would have a tough time opting-in.  This is because it is really hard for people to understand (and then implement) new functionality when it is already difficult for them to even upload pictures.  You simply give it to them, they are happy, end of story.  Imagine your tastiest ice cream truck (summer is on the way after all) that wants to add a free waffle cone to every order.  Even though they believe that most customers would cheer this generosity, the ice cream truck requires everyone to fill out a form to receive the upgraded cone (because of the increased fat content, of course).  The ice cream truck will not give out many free waffle cones.
• Facebook should make it easier to opt-out – Admittedly, I have not tried to opt-out of Facebook’s new privacy settings; but, if it is as difficult as the articles say, they should change it.  Yesterday’s news reports say that Facebook is already capitulating on this point.  But, again, even if they make it easier, the overwhelming majority of their users will not opt-out.  Facebook was probably smart to see how many wanted to change their privacy settings before spending money on seldom-used functionality.
• Facebook is sharing benign information that many want shared — Facebook is not trying to reveal your medical records, medications, old boyfriends, criminal convictions or anything else that we currently see as very private.  They are simply sharing information with your network that you have already hung out for that network (and possibly the Facebook world) to see.  Moreover, not everyone has the same definition of private information.  Just take a look at what your 18 year old nephew chooses to share on the Web, and you can see that one size does not fit all.  Facebook is trying to be responsive to a younger generation that shares almost everything.  That’s not evil, that’s smart.  

Because this post is getting way too long (and there is no way to break it into two posts), let me close by asking everyone to take a big breath. Privacy is a serious matter, and any business that does not take it seriously will perish.  But Facebook is not attempting a home invasion here.  Let’s assume they are good people who are trying to advance social networking.  Let’s assume that more people want these changes than not.  Let’s assume that these changes will improve all of our social networking experiences across the Web.  Let’s not fault them for trying to dominate or make money.

Those assumptions paint a very different picture that does not require anyone to abandon Facebook or beg Congress to get involved.  If Facebook is acting inappropriately, they will quickly become irrelevant.  It’s that simple.   

Can we all now get back to the oil spill in the Gulf?

Mark

Letter from U.S. Senators Schumer, Bennet, Begich and Franken (D-MN) to Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg:

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg,

We are writing to express our concern regarding recent changes to the Facebook privacy policy and the use of personal data on third party websites. While Facebook provides a valuable service to users by keeping them connected with friends and family and reconnecting them with long-lost friends and colleagues, the expansion of Facebook – both in the number of users and applications – raises new concerns for users who want to maintain control over their information. The following three changes have raised concerns:

1. Publicly available data. Facebook’s expansion of publicly available data to include a user’s current city, hometown, education, work, likes, interests, and friends has raised concerns for users who would like to have an opt-in option to share this profile information. Through the expanded use of “connections,” Facebook now obligates users to make publicly available certain parts of their profile that were previously private. If the user does not want to connect to a page with other users from their current town or university, the user will have that information deleted altogether from their profile. We appreciate that Facebook allows users to type this information into the “Bio” section of their profiles, and privatize it, but we believe that users should have more control over these very personal and very common data points. These personal details should remain private unless a user decides that he/she would like to make a connection and share this information with a community.

2. Third party data storage. Previously, Facebook allowed third-party advertisers to store profile data for 24 hours. We are concerned that recent changes allow that data to be stored indefinitely. We believe that Facebook should reverse this policy, or at a minimum require users to opt in to allowing third parties to store data for more than 24 hours.

3. Instant personalization. We appreciate that Facebook is attempting to integrate the functionality of several popular websites, and that Facebook has carefully selected its initial partners for its new “instant personalization” feature. We are concerned, however, that this feature will now allow certain third party partners to have access not only to a user’s publicly available profile information, but also to the user’s friend list and the publicly available information about those friends. As a result of the other changes noted above, this class of information now includes significant and personal data points that should be kept private unless the user chooses to share them. Although we are pleased that Facebook allows users to opt-out of sharing private data, many users are unaware of this option and, moreover, find it complicated and confusing to navigate. Facebook should offer users the ability to opt-in to sharing such information, instead of opting out, and should make the process for doing so more clear and coherent.

We hope that Facebook will stand by its goal of creating open and transparent communities by working to ensure that its policies protect the sensitive personal biographical data of its users and provide them with full control over their personal information. We look forward to the FTC examining this issue, but in the meantime we believe Facebook can take swift and productive steps to alleviate the concerns of its users. Providing opt-in mechanisms for information sharing instead of expecting users to go through long and complicated opt-out processes is a critical step towards maintaining clarity and transparency.

Sincerely,
U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)
U.S. Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO)
U.S. Senator Mark Begich (D-AK)
U.S. Senator Al Franken (D-MN)

Microsites are small versions of your main website that are centered around a certain topic.  So, for example, if you’re a lawyer who does divorce and immigration, instead of having both practice areas on JoeSmithLawFirm.com, you’ll have AtlantaDivorceLawyer.com and AtlantaImmigrationAttorney.com.

Is having multiple websites a good idea? As it turns out, smart people disagree.  Read on to hear both sides of the story.

Drugstore.com’s microsites

Drugstore.com, an online retailer, recently implemented its own microsite strategy by launching Beauty.com, VisionDirect.com, SexualWellBeing.com, and other domains.  Obviously the capable strategists at DrugStore.com think this is a good idea.  However, ex-Googler and prolific writer/speak Vanessa Fox disagrees.  In her blog post “Microsites. A Bad Idea Most of the Time,” she thoroughly explains why she thinks microsites are usually a bad idea.  Her main points are these:

• You lose brand identity and audience engagement
• You lose the ability to leverage your audience
• You confuse people and search engines
• You may have to spend substantial additional resources
• You cobble your search acquisition efforts
• It can be difficult to match promotions to search visibility
• You don’t get the search engine value you think you get

Each one of these is elaborated upon in her blog post, so visit it for all the details, but if I were to try to sum up the case against microsites it would be this:  you’re better off concentrating all of your brand building, SEO, content and technical resources into one website because splitting it up is inefficient.

The case for microsites

Reasons to use microsites can include:

• You offer such different products or services that people would be turned off by seeing both in the same website.  For example, if you offer criminal defense and corporate law in the same firm, both could be turned off by seeing the other.
• It can help with specialized advertising.  For example, if you’re going to run a big national TV commercial campaign about mesothelioma, it might be most effective to display MesotheliomaLawyer.com vs. JoeSmithLawfirm.com and have the visitor land on a website only about mesothelioma.
• You’re doing a viral campaign, when your normal website would turn people off.  For example, it might be an uphill battle for any content on a personal injury lawyer’s website to spread virally in certain social media.
• You can take up multiple spots in search engine results instead of one.
• You can more easily rank for keywords when those keywords are in your domain (for the reasons explained below).

Microsites with keyword rich domains for SEO

One of the main draws of microsites for SEO is the ability to use a keyword rich domain .  So if you’re trying to rank for “Houston DUI lawyer,” many people believe that having HoustonDUILawyer.com as your domain will help.  Why do they think this?

Here’s an explanation — if you want to rank for a specific keyword, it’s indisputable that attracting links with anchor text containing that keyword will help.  For example, if Avvo wanted to rank for “Philadelphia DUI lawyer”, it would help to have links that look like Philadelphia DUI lawyer instead of Avvo.

The difficulty in getting keyword-rich anchor text is that many people are lazy and simply use your domain as anchor text, so instead of linking with Philadelphia DUI lawyer, they’ll just link to Avvo.com.  If our domain name were PhiladelphiaDUILawyer.com instead of Avvo.com, we wouldn’t have this problem because people using our domain as anchor text would be automatically including the the words “Philadelphia DUI lawyer” in the anchor text.

This anchor text boost is the indirect way in which a keyword-rich domain name can help with SEO.

Are keyword rich domains worth it for the anchor text SEO boost?

Vanessa doesn’t think so.  She says this:

“Keywords can indirectly help when they’re in the URL because you’ll get anchor text credit for any URL-only links. But that really has nothing to do with the domain, so why not just use keyword-rich URLs on your main domain and get those benefits without incurring all of the drawbacks of microsites?”

She’s basically saying that you don’t need to have the domain PhiladelphiaDUILawyer.com to get auto optimized anchor text — simply use those keywords in your URL, like Avvo.com/Philadelphia-DUI-lawyer, and you’ll get the same effect when people link to that page.

That’s true, but I think having keywords in your domain still helps in ways keyword-rich URLs can’t.  For example:

• The press tends to link to website homepages (if you can get them to link to you at all).
• Many directories will only link to homepages and only let you use anchor text that’s the name of your website.
• Trade associations and the like often only link to your homepage.
• People, whether they like you or hate you, often only link to you homepage.

In all of the above situations, you’re unlikely to get a link to http://www.avvo.com/dui-dwi-lawyer/pa/philadelphia.html.  Most likely you’ll just get a link to http://www.avvo.com or Avvo, so I think the indirect effect of having keywords in your domain can be substantial.  It just makes link building a lot easier, particularly for “boring” industries like law.

The big picture

Regardless of keyword rich domain issue, I agree with Vanessa that microsites are a bad idea most of the time for a variety of reasons.

From a practical standpoint, few people have the resources or inclination to maintain a slew of different websites.  From an SEO standpoint, Google is big on “authority” and brand trust to figure out which websites are best, and they seem to be going more in this direction as time goes on, so it makes sense to concentrate all of your links onto one domain.  And, ignoring SEO completely, having one websites helps with brand building, user experience and efficiently creating/managing your content.

Those of you who were lucky enough to join us for the Avvocating conference in January will remember the Search Engine Optimization talk delivered by ex-Googler Vanessa Fox. Her book, Marketing in the Age of Google was released a month ago and is already a Top 10 Bestseller on Amazon. Join Avvo tomorrow at 10:00 (PST) for a one hour free webinar with Vanessa for an overview of her book along with an opportunity to lob questions at one of the leading minds in search engine optimization. See you there.

Advertising on Avvo is easy, innovative, and effective.  Once you’ve made the decision to expand your practice with Avvo advertising, how can you make the most of your experience, and ensure the greatest return on your investment?

Here are inside secrets on optimizing your ads:

1. Identify your goal. Obviously you want to get new client contacts through your ads.  We are going to ensure that you get the most visibility possible – but you want more than eyes on your ad.  You want those prospective clients to take action.  Think about your preferred form of communication – do you want website visits, emails, or calls?  Set your goal and gear your ad accordingly: providing a tracking phone number is usually the best bet for a quick impact.
2. Target your audience. Are you a DUI attorney?  Personal Injury?  Divorce?  Put yourself in your clients’ shoes.  How would you feel after considering divorce, and what promise of service would you expect from your legal counsel?  What have you delivered most effectively to your existing and former clients?
3. Keep it clear. Now that you’ve identified your goal and your audience, offer a clear and helpful tag-line with emphatic keywords.  Your Account Managers know what works – work with us to customize your ad to offer your personal best to your prospective clients.
4. Use a strong call to action. Often people seeking legal advice are confused, unsure, and perhaps trepidatious about what might come next.  Make it easy for them with a clear invitation to contact you.  If you offer a free consultation, that’s invaluable: let them know by stating it.  “Call today for a Free Consultation” or “We can help – Call Us 24/7” are just a couple of the top performing calls-to-action.
5. Present your expertise. Your ad links directly to your own website.  Make sure you give your Account Manager the best link for that site.  If you handle the full spectrum of criminal defense, but are advertising specifically for DUI defense, for example, have that ad link to your DUI page.  Showcase why you are the very best by targeting your link to your ad.

Your Avvo ad is a significant step toward expanding your practice.  Work with our team of experts here at Avvo to ensure that you are making the very most of it.  The most effective ads lead to the best attorney-client relationships.  We’ll help you realize that goal.

If you were not able to attend our webinar last week with Stephen Fairley, here is a recording of his presentation.

Download: 7 Strategies to Recession Proof Your Law Firm

Last month, I blogged about Avvo getting a “new suit.”  Well today we added a couple of shiny new buttons to that suit.  Below are a few of the more visible new features; and, not surpisingly, I urge you to visit Avvo and check out the rest!

• Results Map:  We have a new map on our lawyer search results pages.  This map will show all of the lawyers on the page that have claimed their Avvo Profiles.  The really neat part is that, when a user hovers over each pinpoint on the map, a summary of the corresponding lawyer’s Avvo profile pops-up, effectively giving the lawyer a free billboard on some of our most valuable real estate.  We think of this as a gift to all of the lawyers who help make Avvo a hearty marketplace.
• Neighborhood Filters:  Do you need a lawyer close by?  Beginning today, you can search for lawyers based on neighborhoods within a city.  Not only can you type a specific neighborhood into the Avvo search box at the top of the page, but you can also start with a city search and then, from that search results page, filter to your favorite neighborhood.
• Avvo Profile Filters:  When selecting a lawyer, different elements of competing lawyers’ profiles are important to different people.  Some focus on client ratings, others the Avvo Rating or languages the lawyers speak.  Because of this, from the lawyer search results pages, we now allow users to filter Avvo profiles by client reviews, attorney endorsements, misconduct, Avvo Pro subscribers, Avvo Ratings and whether the lawyer offers a free consultation or speaks a specific language. 
• P.O. Boxes:  Post office boxes will no longer be indexed for search results.  This means that, if a lawyer has a  p.o. box for his/her primary or any other office, the attorney will not show up in the search results for the city where the p.o. box is located.  So, let’s say a lawyer has a primary office in Manhattan and a p.o. box in Brooklyn.  Going forward, the lawyer will only show up in Manhattan search results.

We hope you like all of our new buttons.  I had someone say to me recently, “You guys are always changing.”  In response, I took the liberty of citing the mighty Heraclitus* who said, “The only constant is change.”

Mark

* Thanks to Wikipedia for helping find the source of this quote.  I know a lot of great philosophers, but Heraclitus is not one that comes immediately to mind . . .