You and social media

February 13, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

How much time do you spend on social media promoting yourself professionally or your company?

A blog by Andrea Davis on our sister publication’s website IBJ.com made me look at how much time I spend on social media promoting Indiana Lawyer. Preliminary survey results by Carmel-based company Roundpeg say that more than 30 percent of small business devote an hour or more to social media every day.

You can read more at Andrea’s blog.

As Indiana Lawyer’s social media operator, I don’t, on average, spend an hour every day promoting the paper on Facebook or Twitter. There are some days when I don’t even have a chance to launch our Twitter feed and see what’s of interest to those we follow. I do check our Twitter feed more often than Facebook, though. I think more people pay attention to Twitter and LinkedIn than Facebook these days, unless you’re looking for your friend’s vacation photos.

Do you use social media to market yourself to potential clients or to promote your firm or company? Are you on social media (for professional reasons) more than an hour a day? On average, how much time do you spend on social media every day?

And perhaps the most important question, do you find social media has helped you land new business?
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Time on Social Media
    Hello Jennifer, I try to spend about half an hour 4 days per week. Sometimes it ends up being more because I find some really good content to read and pass along. SM has helped strengthen relationships formed in "real life". It has definitely helped with my business.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT