Crafting Content to Meet Our Readers' Needs
When creating our editorial calendar, we try to anticipate which topics will be timely and valuable to our readers.
July 31, 2010 at 08:00 PM
5 minute read
Every year around mid-summer, the InsideCounsel editorial team sits down to discuss the editorial calendar for the following year. First we ask ourselves what we think our readers will need to know in the coming year. To answer this, we refer to previous issues, do research and talk to in-house as well as law firm lawyers to gain insight on what's most important to you. Then, individually, we make a list of all the ideas we have, including current events, best practices and how-to stories. Finally, we meet to discuss them and decide which ones will make the cut.
The most important questions we must ask about each article that goes into InsideCounsel are: “Why do in-house counsel need to know?” and “Is this timely for our readers?” The first question is fairly easy to answer, but as we map out the major stories we will be reporting on in the coming year, it's always hard to know what will be relevant by the time we actually go to press.
During one of these editorial meetings in 2008, we launched into a discussion about our annual General Counsel Survey. We had been running the survey for nearly 20 years, and we had noticed that in the previous five years, the results were basically the same: There were a few complaints from both sides, but generally both in-house lawyers and outside counsel were content in their relationships. So we decided to scrap it–reading the same story year after year wasn't providing any value to our readers.
Then the economy took a nosedive, and over the course of the next year we watched several high-profile law firms close their doors, legal departments suffer cutbacks in both budgets and staffs, and in-house counsel place more demands on outside counsel. So in summer 2009, when we had our 2010 editorial calendar meeting, we decided to put the General Counsel Survey back on the agenda–and check back in with our readers on this topic. We expected this “new economy” would have quite an impact on what GCs think of their outside firms. We reported the story a bit differently–focusing primarily on the GC response and the state of the legal department.
We were surprised that the economy didn't have the impact we expected–GCs overall are still satisfied with their firms. However, the survey did glean some valuable insights on the changing dynamics of the in-house-outside counsel relationship. Read “Reality Check” and see if you can relate.
Every year around mid-summer, the InsideCounsel editorial team sits down to discuss the editorial calendar for the following year. First we ask ourselves what we think our readers will need to know in the coming year. To answer this, we refer to previous issues, do research and talk to in-house as well as law firm lawyers to gain insight on what's most important to you. Then, individually, we make
The most important questions we must ask about each article that goes into InsideCounsel are: “Why do in-house counsel need to know?” and “Is this timely for our readers?” The first question is fairly easy to answer, but as we map out the major stories we will be reporting on in the coming year, it's always hard to know what will be relevant by the time we actually go to press.
During one of these editorial meetings in 2008, we launched into a discussion about our annual General Counsel Survey. We had been running the survey for nearly 20 years, and we had noticed that in the previous five years, the results were basically the same: There were a few complaints from both sides, but generally both in-house lawyers and outside counsel were content in their relationships. So we decided to scrap it–reading the same story year after year wasn't providing any value to our readers.
Then the economy took a nosedive, and over the course of the next year we watched several high-profile law firms close their doors, legal departments suffer cutbacks in both budgets and staffs, and in-house counsel place more demands on outside counsel. So in summer 2009, when we had our 2010 editorial calendar meeting, we decided to put the General Counsel Survey back on the agenda–and check back in with our readers on this topic. We expected this “new economy” would have quite an impact on what GCs think of their outside firms. We reported the story a bit differently–focusing primarily on the GC response and the state of the legal department.
We were surprised that the economy didn't have the impact we expected–GCs overall are still satisfied with their firms. However, the survey did glean some valuable insights on the changing dynamics of the in-house-outside counsel relationship. Read “Reality Check” and see if you can relate.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Court Holds Accident with Post Driver Was 'Bizarre Occurrence,' Dismisses Action Brought Under Labor Law §240
- 2Judge Recommends Disbarment for Attorney Who Plotted to Hack Judge's Email, Phone
- 3Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 4Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
- 5Jackson Lewis Leaders Discuss Firm's Innovation Efforts, From Prompt-a-Thons to Gen AI Pilots
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250