Who Owns Marketeering Hashtags On Twitter? NO NOT U.

Print This Post

You may also like...

34 Responses

  1. Squillo says:

    Could someone conceivably trademark a Twitter hashtag?

    (Note to censorious tools: this is not a suggestion. Oh, and snort my taintTM.)

  2. ageorgialawyer says:

    I thought about this very premise when I sent along a tweet or two with #LMATech last night.

    The good and bad of twitter is the similarity to a real conversation – which in real life involves interruptions, shout downs, engagement. It's a conversation, not a monologue.

    About a year or two ago some tech conference was putting up tweets on a screen while speakers gave their speeches. I thought some of the tweets were BS, and I said so.

    Little did I know – since I was sitting in a courthouse waiting my turn – that the tweets were live – until I started getting messages about my 'nastiness.'

    Well, if you don't want the conversation to be heard, go private with it. But hey, that defeats the purpose of posting on twitter, doesn't it?

    So for those who don't wanted the unsolicited engagement, don't use a hashtag, OR get a tougher skin, or just don't use twitter.

  3. PhilG says:

    Am I part of the problem if "TANNEBAUM AWESOME LAW" totally makes me want to hire him?

  4. mojo says:

    "You can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything's gotta go somewhere, and I'm everywhere."

  5. Reuven says:

    Thanks! I'm going to start adding #lmatech to every NFSW tweet I make from now on. Because clients!

  6. Laura Wallace says:

    you're being biased and it hurts the creditability of this article. as far as comparing content between Larry and Brian, you should link to Larry's author page on Lawyers.com and not an old YouTube video: http://blogs.lawyers.com/author/larry-bodine/

  7. TJIC says:

    "If someone sending a tweet disrupts your conference, you get better conference planners" LOL!

  8. TJIC says:

    @ageorgialawyer:

    > So for those who don't wanted the unsolicited engagement, don't use a hashtag,

    NOW he tells me.

  9. BAWWWW PEOPLE AREN'T SAYING STUFF I AGREE WITH BAWWWWWW

  10. Josh Brody says:

    i was embarrassed to attend this conference. who would have thought that a bunch of legal marketers and lawyers would turn into a bunch of heckling babies.

  11. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Ken: I feel betrayed. Where is the "From Taint To Twatwaffle: Catching the General Counsel's Eye With Vivid Blog Language" podcast!??!?!

    You do realize that promising podcasts but not delivering is a big social media no-no…

  12. Beth says:

    I find it especially amusing that Mr. Bodine misspelled the name of the account he was telling people to report as spam. By adding an extra "n" he seems to have turned his #lmatech mob on a museum curator in Akron.

  13. Joe Pullen says:

    @LauraWallace. Do you work for Larry or for Lawyers.com?

  14. ageorgialawyer says:

    @laurawallace. Creditability?

    So being a lawyer I took the time to read what "spam" really is, and here is what twitter has to say about it:

    https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules#

    There are 20 factors that would be deemed spam
    (hey twitter, # them as opposed to using that pesky dot thing)

    Larry and others, point me to what might be spam from Brian TannENbaum … I don't see "being mean" or "hitting you between the hashtags" as spam.

    Better yet, let's see what results from you running to the Twitter principal. Has BT's account been suspended? Others?

    I did find a hashtag that might be a better fit for those complaining about #LMATech being hijacked:

    #CryBaby

  15. Grandy says:

    The guy at the legal marketing conference called out someone for not having anything better to do?

    Ya'll who is without sin. . .

  16. MikeK says:

    OK, but whoever turned the hashtag into "LMAOTech" (see WAlbenzi's tweet) is a genius

  17. Joe Pullen says:

    Every once in a while someone says something exactly the way you wish you had. Today that was ageorgialawyer • Oct 12, 2012 @10:55 am

  18. ElSuerte says:

    Welcome to the Twitter Gulag! I was hoping that twitter had made improvements to their reporting system to prevent this kind of abuse.

    It's refreshing to see somebody stand up for free speech as a civil value, not just a law.

  19. Bill says:

    I created a few TwitterBots for a client of mine (before anyone goes gangsta on me, they are either read-only or only tweet to specific subscribers that explicitly as for the communication – I know it may sound spammy but these are all legit) and this sort of stuff tempts me to go to the dark side. Extract a few of this real tweets, grab some common terms or phrases he uses, search on a few terms like SEO, Law, Lawyer, Marketing and just bang away as Mr Bodine. I'm a big boy so I'll resist the temptation, not to mention that he'll do more damage to himself shooting himself in the foot than any internet justice would, but damn it's tempting.

  20. darius404 says:

    By the Geek Law Blog's logic, isn't it's own article guilty of some of the same thing it accuses others of? For instance, aren't they trying to "discredit the message" of Greenfeld and Tannenbaum by saying things like "However, it is heckling, and not just dissent that is being voiced by those calling BS on the LMA" ? Not to mention that "discrediting the message" is pretty much how good argumentation works, period.

  21. Caleb says:

    @ Laura Wallace

    I went through the three most recent pages of his material from the link you posted. Care to point out which post, if any, shows that the video Ken linked to is not a fair (if not overly generous) representation of his product in general?

  22. Joe Pullen says:

    @caleb – methinks Laura Wallace may be one of those creatures commonly known as a sock puppet. But who knows I can always be surprised.

  23. Matthew Cline says:

    Streisand Effect, meet Larry Bodine. Larry Bodine, meet the Streisand Effect. I think you guys are going to have a lot to talk about.

    It boggles my mind that people still haven't learned about the Streisand Effect.

  24. G Thompson says:

    Dunno about anyone else, but when I first read the tag #lmatech in the article I immediately thought #LAMEtech..

    But seriously stating that there is some sort of ownership over hashtags FOR ANY REASON on twitter and you only want non-critical uses, or uses that you somehow think you can control, or can only be used by a nominated group, is not only stupidity in the extreme it's guaranteed to have people making fun of you and doing the absolute opposite of what you want.

    Happily in Australia law firms have very strict marketing and advertising requirements placed on them so we have basically none of this law marketing crap (and crap it is.. also LAME)

  25. darius404 says:

    It boggles my mind that people still haven't learned about the Streisand Effect.

    I only learned about it from Popehat, and my mom learned it from me. People who don't go to certain places on the internet just won't hear about it. It's usually not relevant in the places they're at.

  26. Roscoe says:

    G Thompson:

    We used to have them here as well. These restrictions were struck down by the Courts as violating the First Amendment. One of those cases where I agree with the principle while having some regret over the consequences of the principle.

  27. Jenny says:

    THIS JUST IN: TWITTER TROLLS TERRORIZE SMALL TEXAS TOWN! TEXAS RANGERS (the cops, not the baseball team that routinely breaks your heart) INVESTIGATE.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/texas-rangers-hunt-twitter-trolls-taxpayers-are-not-amused-1C6448578

    [facepalm] I don't even know where to begin.

  28. McBob says:

    If this guy doesn't want people "invading" his conference, then don't expose it to Twitter! What an idiot! If he wants to keep comments private then forget Twitter and use instant messengers.

    Seriously, this Larry Bodine guy doesn't have a freaking clue how the internet works. He should stop pretending that he does, because he's just making himself look foolish, and inviting ridicule.

  29. AlphaCentauri says:

    Jenny wrote

    THIS JUST IN: TWITTER TROLLS TERRORIZE SMALL TEXAS TOWN! TEXAS RANGERS (the cops, not the baseball team that routinely breaks your heart) INVESTIGATE.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/texas-rangers-hunt-twitter-trolls-taxpayers-are-not-amused-1C6448578
    I'm betting this person wishes she'd chosen her words more carefully:
    "When I think of the Texas Rangers, I think of people who are committing felonies"

  30. AlphaCentauri says:

    pretend there's a blockquote in my last comment

  31. Mike says:

    I've followed Brian Tannenbaum at Above the Law for a while and he has (IMO) some very smart things to say about legal marketing. His approach to marketing is delightfully old-school. A lot of young lawyers and marketing "professionals" don't want to hear that practices are built with relationships and hard work, not with tweets and SEO.

  1. October 13, 2012

    […] is scarier than lawyers, here's a funny (unless this somehow winds up in a courtroom) tale about what happens when someone thinks a hashtag on Twitter is somehow legally immune from satirical…. […]

  2. October 15, 2012

    […] excellent legal blog Popehat has an interesting lesson about Twitter hashtags – remember you don't own them and therefore can't control what other people […]