Should I Charge Legalmatch for Advertising on my Blog?

In my agreement with Law.com, I’m not supposed to sell any other advertising on my blog.  It seems a reasonable demand since they are paying me millions of dollars each month to be part of their Blog Network.  You see, I think I may be violating my contract because Randy Wells, who became LegalMatch CEO when his predecessor was indicted, left two comments to posts (here and here) on my blog today.  It seems to me that when you read the comments — and I encourage you to do so — you are getting a thinly-veiled advertisement for the LegalMatch service.  Now, as David at Ethical Esq. tireless points out, I’m all about making money, but I really don’t want to ruin a good relationship with my friends at Law.com.   It would be far better, in my opinion, for Randy to pony up the big bucks, call the American Lawyer Media advertising department, and buy the huge honkin’ ad on the right side of my blog instead of posting comments to two posts from several weeks ago that very few people read in the first place.

As for the breach of contract issue, I think I’ll leave Wells’ comments for now, but if you do go to LegalMatch, be sure to tell them I sent you.  Maybe they’ll think of me as one of their affilliates and I can get a referral fee.  Oh, and if you are wondering, I did try to leave an "ad" for the [non]billable hour on the LegalMatch Blog, but they don’t have comments enabled.

4 Responses to Should I Charge Legalmatch for Advertising on my Blog?
  1. JSLogan
    January 5, 2005 | 10:50 pm

    Great post! My twisted sense of humor was encouraging me to post a comment with a shameless advertisement for my site and business. Restraining my warped instinct, I’ll just leave you a comment that this is the funniest post I’ve read in a long time.

  2. Lip-Sticking
    January 8, 2005 | 9:52 am

    Jane Reports on Women of Account

    Jane is not sure how it got to be January 8th already, but we will accept that the calendar, and the newspaper, and the computer know what day of the year it is, far better than we do. We are so immersed in several fascinating projects that the passing…

  3. Randy Wells
    January 9, 2005 | 10:27 pm

    The comments were not “thinly veiled attempts” but informational. I did not see the extensive research establishing our position. I would applaud your efforts. In addition, ALM is one of our stockholders.
    rw

  4. scott
    February 1, 2005 | 10:44 am

    Just to give you an idea of how poorly this company is run and how the bottom line there trumps ethical business practices:

    The following is the rationale behind why they pay their Allocation Managers ZERO salary and having them work on Full Commission ONLY.

    Keep in mind, as LM adverties this position is the front line of defense for the company and consumer, as Allocation Managers are responsible for ‘interviewing’ and determining which new attorneys who can join service. (in a nutshell anyone who can pay the fee and hasn’t been dis-barred)

    Again, this position is paid NO SALARY, which so they can either sign up a new lawyer or get zero dollars for their work. Sounds like they really want to properly screen new attorney’s right?

    This policy was formed by the former VP of Sales who grew the company to its current size before the NY CITY office CLOSED due to large amount of IC’s who quit over not getting paid and the unethical and shady practices of the company:

    Quoting Paul Mush (former VP of Sales) on how to grow a sales team:

    There are significant advantages with IC (independent contractor) status teams:

    * Little or no risk since there are no salaries
    * Huge savings on payroll taxes and benefits (ICs never qualify for employer group health plans)
    * Exemptions from onerous regulations at every level of government, and
    * Freedom from wrongful termination lawsuits which are routinely filed whenever an employee is let go.

    Most companies are unwilling to try using ICs (Independent Contractors) fearing this is disallowed by the IRS. It is not disallowed. The IRS publishes guidelines that must substantially be followed. Unfortunately these guidelines are ambiguous and contradictory so the lawyers and accountants take the easy safe way out and advise you not to risk it.

    Even if you do risk it, the guidelines inevitably cause a complete loss of control of the sales force. Legally, ICs can do anything they want – come in late or not at all, work other jobs, refuse to turn in call reports or attend training classes and meetings, and so on – and they know it.

    Sounds like a quality place to be associated with!

Leave a Reply

Wanting to leave an <em>phasis on your comment?

Trackback URL http://www.nonbillablehour.com/2005/01/should_i_charge.html/trackback