en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/557275 Comments by jasnwilsn http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/10/14/introducing-prcttnr-bringing-legal-commentary-practice-guides-to-the-masses/#IDComment735725489 Valuable yes, fun, maybe. But like all things, the answer is because money. Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:42:41 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/10/14/introducing-prcttnr-bringing-legal-commentary-practice-guides-to-the-masses/#IDComment735725489 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/06/24/technology-will-not-make-old-content-poor-writing-or-awful-structure-better-or-more-useful/#IDComment699682956 You could hope, but you'd be wrong. Editorial staffs aren't going to retooled to fix what's currently wrong with large treatise sets. They will still update them, but there won't be fundamental restructuring of the works to accommodate modern research practices. Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:06:00 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/06/24/technology-will-not-make-old-content-poor-writing-or-awful-structure-better-or-more-useful/#IDComment699682956 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/08/13/when-should-big-legal-publishing-shift-away-from-big-law/#IDComment699670051 This statement you made in the piece from 2011 is still very much true today: "I just have the impression that for many customers in the middle, perhaps the most important segments, not a great deal of effort is or can be spent, effectively, in reaching them and retaining their business. Perhaps this explains some of the difficulties in growing professional publishing businesses." As you observe, effective marketing perhaps explains some of the reason big publishing focuses so heavily on big law. Thanks for reminding me of the post. Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:39:59 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/08/13/when-should-big-legal-publishing-shift-away-from-big-law/#IDComment699670051 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/06/24/technology-will-not-make-old-content-poor-writing-or-awful-structure-better-or-more-useful/#IDComment668136337 Even though they've become "solutions providers", they still control the largest collection of secondary sources in the country, and the predictions that law blogs and other firm-generated material (open source) would slowly take their place has not come to fruition. So how to combat entropy? One way is as you suggest, stick parts of it into the "workflow", where it seems to make sense. As alluded in the post, that only really works if editors are retooling the content for the task, not the machines. Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:23:37 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/06/24/technology-will-not-make-old-content-poor-writing-or-awful-structure-better-or-more-useful/#IDComment668136337 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/04/07/legal-research-should-be-hard-shouldnt-it/#IDComment614496253 Ha, ha. Something I didn\\\'t really pay attention to, but true. Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:23:16 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/04/07/legal-research-should-be-hard-shouldnt-it/#IDComment614496253 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/02/01/lawyers-if-youre-not-on-vine-now-it-may-already-be-too-late/#IDComment560096540 I don\\\'t actually think any lawyers are really \\\"on\\\" Vine yet. Some have accounts, but haven\\\'t posted. :-) Fri, 1 Feb 2013 16:03:07 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/02/01/lawyers-if-youre-not-on-vine-now-it-may-already-be-too-late/#IDComment560096540 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/01/21/legal-publishing-is-dead-long-live-software-solutions/#IDComment552136422 You haven't missed the details yet, but we're taking a rather interesting direction with it. Details will follow soon. As for the integration of the research tool, the only thing I can think is that you have to have it if you have a practice management platform. That's where the lawyer is, so make access easier. But conceptually, the two are completely different. Now utilizing WestSearch on the practice management side makes sense, but then I start wondering if its too powerful of a system for such a tiny amount of data. I don't know, I need to play around with everything first before I get a good sense one way or the other. Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:50:20 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/01/21/legal-publishing-is-dead-long-live-software-solutions/#IDComment552136422 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/01/21/legal-publishing-is-dead-long-live-software-solutions/#IDComment550911601 What you may consider "news" might not be the same thing. TR's announcement that they were moving to the cloud fell flat even though it clearly felt like a big announcement. And for them it was because it was a big internal shift. The same goes for product alignment across the entire Thomson Reuters family. Getting everyone on board with the idea of blending product streams into digital dashboards, etc. isn't an easy task because everyone values their information and services differently (mine's better than yours). Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:27:30 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/01/21/legal-publishing-is-dead-long-live-software-solutions/#IDComment550911601 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/01/21/legal-publishing-is-dead-long-live-software-solutions/#IDComment550908832 Well, you see those acquisitions, but they still don't tell you the entire product line story. The large law firm segment has a ton of products under their umbrella. Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:23:17 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/01/21/legal-publishing-is-dead-long-live-software-solutions/#IDComment550908832 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/01/17/content-is-no-longer-king-the-slow-death-maybe-of-matthew-bender/#IDComment548639664 Ha, ha. Yes. Thanks. Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:23:18 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/01/17/content-is-no-longer-king-the-slow-death-maybe-of-matthew-bender/#IDComment548639664 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/01/13/citators-compliance-algorithms-some-questions-for-the-future/#IDComment543904852 Don, thanks for the comment. The more we talk about McClurg & Comparato's methodology and findings (particularly the statistical accuracy/inaccuracy of the citators measured against the compliance dimensions), the better understanding we'll have of the current technological limitations to proving a negative. Regarding your last point, Thomson Reuters and Lexis do have the entire corpus with which to experiment, and some pretty smart scientists to boot. Perhaps they will be interested in revisiting citators. Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:22:12 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/01/13/citators-compliance-algorithms-some-questions-for-the-future/#IDComment543904852 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/01/09/the-next-strategy-does-reuters-next-hint-at-changes-for-westlawnext/#IDComment539746538 That's just how I have it set up now. If readers really want to see the full picture, then they can click through on the attribution. It's a way of promoting people (most of the time) for contributing to the Internet of things. Wed, 9 Jan 2013 15:29:31 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2013/01/09/the-next-strategy-does-reuters-next-hint-at-changes-for-westlawnext/#IDComment539746538 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2012/09/13/what-does-bingham-mccutchens-move-mean-to-you/#IDComment441325094 My comment isn't about whether Kentuckians or anyone else in other more fiscally hospitable jurisdictions could provide excellent services. I'm still very much attached to face-to-face conversations when it comes to exchanging information relevant to client-matters, professional development, etc. I understand that many knowledge workers are buried in silos away from practice groups, but there's always the possibility that people will come to you. Centralizing them away from all practice groups essentially cuts that opportunity off. Will that result in a poorer product? I don't know for sure, but I think over time it will. Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:51:13 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2012/09/13/what-does-bingham-mccutchens-move-mean-to-you/#IDComment441325094 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2012/07/09/adopting-an-ebook-model-is-a-terrible-idea-for-legal-publishers/#IDComment400424126 Robert, I do agree we aren't looking at a simple evolution, and my thoughts on the matter are colored by my readers habits, which are decidedly non-linear, and the fact that I have a difficult time anymore of looking at legal commentary in isolation. Every book I pick up now is annotated, not in a literal sense of course, but I know the digital connections are there. I'm going to expand on this idea in my next Slaw post, but for the time being, I will agree that there is room for many types of delivery at this point, each of which has its own strengths and weaknesses and will largely depend on what the user wants to do. And when you have a diverse catalog, it's going to be challenging to find a way to meet all those needs. Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:44:22 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2012/07/09/adopting-an-ebook-model-is-a-terrible-idea-for-legal-publishers/#IDComment400424126 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2012/07/05/should-reed-elsevier-sell-lexis-nexis/#IDComment399847762 Robert, Excellent summation. It does appear that the most prominent announcements to come from large publishing houses tend to be about new platforms or tools, as you said, to access aging or repurposed content. I am, however, fine with the trend towards delivering "answers", but would add the caveat that answers come in the form of expert guidance and analysis and not further text mining of public documents. I suspect that as margins are squeezed, large publishing will continue to draw down on its investment in authors and editors and completely abandon the idea that they were once educators and advisors to the bench and bar. Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:33:18 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2012/07/05/should-reed-elsevier-sell-lexis-nexis/#IDComment399847762 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2012/07/09/adopting-an-ebook-model-is-a-terrible-idea-for-legal-publishers/#IDComment398836586 Don, I was going for alliteration, "access, answers, and annotations," but I did not intend on the last to mean actual annotations. I meant it in a broader sense of commenting on digital products. One of the things I hope to accomplish with O'Connor's Online is the idea that that subscribers are rewarded for finding errors, pointing out issues, etc. in the form of points or some other type of rewards system. If you rely on product for your research and find errors in it, you should be incentivized to point out problems, errors, etc. On the other subject, there is no hope that publishers (and others) will ever harness the power of the legal community to create some kind of publishing value. That's just damn silly if you ask me. Tue, 10 Jul 2012 02:50:03 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2012/07/09/adopting-an-ebook-model-is-a-terrible-idea-for-legal-publishers/#IDComment398836586 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2012/07/05/should-reed-elsevier-sell-lexis-nexis/#IDComment398533262 Joe, I would say that when directory, "free legal advice", and blog services remains one of your largest growth areas, you are no longer a legal publisher and you should have your stripes removed. Mon, 9 Jul 2012 16:20:44 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2012/07/05/should-reed-elsevier-sell-lexis-nexis/#IDComment398533262 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2012/07/05/should-reed-elsevier-sell-lexis-nexis/#IDComment396359792 And this was part of the gist of the Liberum Capital report. More investment is needed at the bottom, but the margins (access to case law, print, etc.) are diminishing. What to do? Any greater investment in content will only make matters worse, so new revenue channels are going to have to be explored, like it or not. One experiment, though, that I don't particularly agree with is the current Thompson Reuters strategy of WestlawNext mobile platforms (web, iOS, Android) as something completely separate from ProView. This seems to be forcing a digital/print dichotomy to the consumer's detriment. But at least it's an experiment. Thu, 5 Jul 2012 22:07:59 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2012/07/05/should-reed-elsevier-sell-lexis-nexis/#IDComment396359792 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2012/07/05/should-reed-elsevier-sell-lexis-nexis/#IDComment396287407 There are two areas I see, one that you mentioned and the other is continued innovation with citators, which West and Lexis currently have the best of. Of course, the equation is much more complicated given the amount and variety of data the majors carry, but I do think these two areas are remarkably important for the majority of practicing attorneys. Thu, 5 Jul 2012 19:39:49 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2012/07/05/should-reed-elsevier-sell-lexis-nexis/#IDComment396287407 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2012/04/09/outside-looking-in-my-observations-about-aba-tech-show-2012/#IDComment340245733 As I couldn't physically attend all of the sessions, some of my information is hearsay and obviously should be discounted. But as much as anyone would like to eliminate vendor bias, I think phrases like "my personal preference is" and the like simply can't be avoided. The format of the sessions is very informal, and as a result you get more casual dialog, which includes statements of opinion. That's not necessarily a bad thing, particularly when people are asking "well what would you choose?" I think some of the problem might arise when a speaker hasn't been exposed to different brands, in which event, perhaps a presession discussion listing all vendors and the speakers knowledge of those vendors is in order (but I suspect that might happen already). And when a vendor is brand new to the scene, it's offering might be overlooked simply because of timing. I'm not sure what coordination, if any, there is between speakers and vendors new to the show, but perhaps there should be some type of channel opened up for the benefit of the attendees. Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:38:52 +0000 http://www.jasnwilsn.com/2012/04/09/outside-looking-in-my-observations-about-aba-tech-show-2012/#IDComment340245733