In an explanatory note I added to my recent post about LegalZoom (here), I said that business publications had declined to run the piece, and that the explanation I had received was that it’s frowned on to publish a critique of a company by one of its competitors.
In my note, I observed that Koncision doesn’t really compete with LegalZoom. But I also said that “I suspect that only someone with skin in the game is going to care enough, and have sufficient expertise, to bother looking closely at what LegalZoom has to offer.”
It’s that point I’d like to expand on now.
This wasn’t the first time that because of what I do an editor has suggested that it would be inappropriate for a periodical to publish something I’ve written. Write about outsourcing template maintenance? But Koncision is in that business! Write about using document assembly in contract drafting? But Koncision is in that business!
If a publication is unwilling to accept contributions from someone if they write about the business they’re in, what they’re trying to accomplish, and what their competitors are doing, that publication is going to lose a valuable source of insight. Instead, it will rely more on the views of people on the sidelines.
And that comes at a cost, in that with critical distance comes … well, distance. Other people writing about LegalZoom may be admirably disinterested, but that might explain why no one other than me has felt the need to consider the quality of LegalZoom’s business contracts.
When considering contributions, a publication should primarily be on the lookout for self-promotion and unsupported assertions, but they’re easy enough to spot. Beyond that, it might be best to let people hash things out in the marketplace of ideas.
Lots of other people have felt the need to consider the quality of LegalZoom’s business contracts. You, however, happen to have a bigger soapbox than many other attorneys. And recognize that attorneys generally have the same problem — LegalZoom (and their kin) can just say that any complaints from attorneys are just sour grapes.
Part of the problem with is that 95% of people won’t have any problem no matter how they arrive at their NDA. Why? Because people generally understand their obligations and act in good faith, regardless of what the contract says. Further (especially on NDAs,) it’s often hard to discover that the other party breached.
It’s the other 5% of the time that you have to worry, where having a good well-drafted agreement will actually provide a benefit. But, if Legalzoom and its kin serve that 5% poorly, well, they still get 4 stars. (See http://xkcd.com/937/ ). [Alternatively, you can look at it like those customers are poorly served 100% of the time, but 95% of them never find out.]
Lots of other people have felt the need to consider the quality of LegalZoom’s business contracts. You, however, happen to have a bigger soapbox than many other attorneys. And recognize that attorneys generally have the same problem — LegalZoom (and their kin) can just say that any complaints from attorneys are just sour grapes.
Part of the problem with is that 95% of people won’t have any problem no matter how they arrive at their NDA. Why? Because people generally understand their obligations and act in good faith, regardless of what the contract says. Further (especially on NDAs,) it’s often hard to discover that the other party breached.
It’s the other 5% of the time that you have to worry, where having a good well-drafted agreement will actually provide a benefit. But, if Legalzoom and its kin serve that 5% poorly, well, they still get 4 stars. (See http://xkcd.com/937/ ). [Alternatively, you can look at it like those customers are poorly served 100% of the time, but 95% of them never find out.]
This is what publicists do, yes? They pitch stories to bystanders and then help facilitate putting them in touch with “experts” who are willing to comment on the story.
So you need to find other people to write the stories about the pitfalls of on-line legal services like Legalzoom and then get quoted in them as an expert talking about why they can be problematic.
Yes, you’re right. I try to act as my own publicist.
Unfortunately, I don’t think that works as well as having a third party doing that job. People like dealing with an intermediary that they can be more candid with about what their needs are. A third party might even be able to make the argument you make above and be perceived as less self-interested, even though they are essentially representing you (particularly if they have longstanding relationships with editorial people and mutual trust based on that).
Many “Credible/Serious” publications run editorial content all the time that is a glorified advertisement for a product. But having the intermediary in between gives them a bit more cover from charges that they are “selling” coverage to the highest bidder (even though, at some level, they undoubtedly are).
You already have a lot of writing out there stating your position on this stuff. What you don’t have is somebody writing a story that connects the dots between your existing writing and a news story in a good publication shining a light on your ideas and placing them in the proper context.
I guaranty that Legalzoom is paying people to do that for them.
You’re right, but I don’t yet have the budget for a publicist. :-(