When Flames Erupt in the Twitter-enabled Conference Backchannel

I attended the Avvo “Advanced Social Media Training for Lawyers” conference in Seattle last week. It was excellent. There were many topic-relevant highpoints. What I’m about to share was not one of them.

Like many well-organized conferences our broadband-enabled conference room included an active Twitter community of attendees. Non-attendees were also chiming in at #avvo. As a best practice, the Twitter stream was also displayed in a Twitterfall on the podium. That is, the Twitter-enabled backchannel of commentary and opinion was brought forward to complement each presentation. I find this kind of total immersion Presenter – Twitter environment works well to stimulate my active engagement with others based on the presenter’s material. Except this time I experienced a new twist.

In the midst of the topic-relevant Tweets, non-attendee @ScottGreenfield scolds, “This #avvo used car salesman conference is deeply disturbing.” @btannenbaum @btannebaum added, “Remember something you avvocating maniacs, if you’re not a good lawyer, people will find out, despite your blogs and online garbage #avvo.” @ScottGreenfield continues, “We’re twitting about the #avvo conf in Seattle. We are living it via twitter. It’s very ugly.”

Ironically, the essence of what these two harassers were saying was not incorrect. In fact, they had some great points about abuse of social media, thoughtless blogging and even the alleged “social media gurus” (SMG) who industrialize the process of building real human networks. However, as one who was present, what was clear was there was a mis-match between their sterotype of the interests of the attendees and the reality of what people were focused on learning and being taught. The flamers were flinging mud but they had the wrong target.

In the end, the rogue Tweeters were not effective but simply annoying, prompting @kaitlinjanusz to respond, “no one wants to hire attorneys who are malicious to other attorneys via social media. The avvocating conference is wonderful.” I, too, elected to offer my two cents, observing with some tongue in cheek, “Most diminished brand of the day: @ScottGreenfield. Forget it. I’m not referring any of my criminal friends for you to defend. #avvo.” After a few more insults directed at the conference organizers, the attendees and me, the squabblers went away – hopefully to do some legal business and not editorialize by remote.

Without being too doting, I credit the Avvo conference organizers to unflinchingly maintain their commitment to the public Twitter feed and stoically ignore the Twitter flames. Reality is an adventure and Avvo seemed to be up for the experience in this, their first social media conference. Howsoever it was structured, an engaging conversation emerged among attendees as well as several not present. In the end, the conference was a richer experience for everyone. And the flamers were simply noted for being jackass.

Posted At 7:35 pm on January 30th, 2010 by Sonny Cohen
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Permanent link back to this post.
Filed Under: Legal Marketing, Social Media
Tags: backchannel, conference, social networking, twitter

12 Responses to “When Flames Erupt in the Twitter-enabled Conference Backchannel”

Social Media Training Conference for Lawyers Delivers says:

February 1, 2010 at 1:52 pm

[...] Midway through the first day, event organizers were confronted with some non-attending jackass Twitter flame throwers. Although there may have been a message in their sarcastic comments, it was obscured by their rude [...]
brian tannebaum says:

February 5, 2010 at 11:25 am

it’s tannebaum, not tannenbaum.
Mark Bennett says:

February 5, 2010 at 2:46 pm

“Harassers”? Seriously, Sonny?

Credibility fail.
Sonny Cohen says:

February 5, 2010 at 3:22 pm

Brian, sweetheart, thank you. Correction made.
Social Media Tyro » Blog Archive » Social Media Narcissism Etc. says:

February 5, 2010 at 7:15 pm

[...] of the attendees, Sonny Cohen, wrote a blog post, When Flames Erupt in the Twitter-enabled Conference Backchannel (no, seriously, that’s the title). Conceding that Scott and Brian “had some great [...]
Turk says:

February 5, 2010 at 9:53 pm

Ironically, the essence of what these two harassers were saying was not incorrect.

Let me see if I have this right. You concede they were right about the points they were making and your’re upset?
Sonny Cohen says:

February 8, 2010 at 11:45 am

Thanks for the response Turk. I have two comments.

First, I’m certainly not upset. I’m disappointed. I think the perspectives offered by Brian and Scott are insightful and right-minded. Regrettably, their mostly valid points were entirely lost in their sarcastic rhetoric. My sense was they were playing to those who already agree with them but failed to appeal to others who might become similarly enlightened. Wise guys can be a lot of fun. I enjoyed their humor. I just felt they were ineffective. It was a missed opportunity and I believe they failed to demonstrate leadership.

Second, if one doesn’t agree with the message, don’t shoot the messenger. Uncivil attacks on people because you don’t agree with what they say does nothing to advance the dialog. Rather it is more like spitting into the wind; the mess lands on the originator.
brian tannebaum says:

February 12, 2010 at 11:42 am

Doesn’t seem like a lot of people really give a crap what you think. That’s the point I got from all of this, sweetheart.
Mark Merenda says:

February 25, 2010 at 2:34 pm

Greenfield, Tannebaum, and Bennett have appointed themselves as some sort of morality police, and in their eyes, all law firm marketing is immoral. Their criticisms are usually not reasoned arguments but ad hominem attacks. Greenfield called me a “whore” and a “sleaze” because I disagree with him about what kind of marketing, if any, is appropriate for attorneys. This is typical of their thunderous and often highly personal condemnations of others. Given that their arguments are ludicrous, it is perhaps not surprising that they resort to such tactics.
brian tannebaum says:

February 25, 2010 at 3:17 pm

Mark,

You really need to deal with your anger issues. Seriously. acting like a ranting child is unbecoming of whoever you think you are.
Mark Merenda says:

February 25, 2010 at 6:29 pm

Brian, your buddy Scott was the one to call names and demonstrate child-like behavior. A tradition you continue. Calling me “a ranting child” is not an argument. It’s just name calling, something you guys are great at.
btian tannebaum says:

February 27, 2010 at 7:22 am

And “morality police” isn’t name calling? Merenda, I no longer think you are just a ranting child, I just think you’re a complete moron. There’s a name.