ICP Logo

S2 E20: Powder Court Room


Powder Court Room
ICP Logo

S2 E20: Powder Court Room




Powder Court Room

July is finally here (what happened to May?) and a new initiative that wants Facebook to stop spreading misinformation. Should your law firm be part of this movement, and what options do you have?

In the second part of our conversation, Grace explains what late June’s Johnson and Johnson talcum powder settlement means for this mass tort, and why it changed its course. Also, other products that listed talcum powder as one of their ingredients respond to the thousands of lawsuits filed against Johnson & Johnson.

Furthermore, get the latest with the Zantac Mass Tort and why things could take an unexpected turn in events.

Resources mentioned in this episode:

Send us your questions at ask@incamerapodcast.com

Enjoy the show? Please don’t forget to subscribe, tell your coworkers, and leave us a review!


Liel: [00:00:00] July 2020 is here and with it the stop hate for profit initiative, a boycott on Facebook ads. Should your law firm hit pause on Facebook cuts? I’m Liel Levy, co-founder of Nanato Media. And this is in camera podcast where we always hit pause on hate, never on brand growth.

Liel: [00:00:50] Welcome to our private legal marketing conversations. Grace, How are you today?

Grace: [00:00:55] Good. How are you?

Liel: [00:00:56] I’m great, Grace. And just as we were commenting, very, very busy week. A lot is happening. And it’s July. Right.

Grace: [00:01:04] I know, it’s crazy, every day is crazier.

Liel: [00:01:08] It is crazier and it’s just passing through our eyes in just one blink. It’s so hard to believe. Does it just it’s almost going to be five months now since we were at AAJ, in New Orleans, right the last convention that we’ve attended. And so it’s already July. So I’m actually talking about AAJ. Next week would have been the AAJ in Washington, the annual conference. So, yeah. Very impressive turn of events that this year has had on us, and talking about that, Grace. You know, we’ve mentioned last week that in July many large brands were pulling out of Facebook ads. Right? And so as of today, we are already one day into this boycott. And as you may remember, it’s called the #stop hate for profit and so Grace, here’s the part that is very interesting, right? Because last week when you and I recorded the episode, when we were first talking about it, Facebook, actually that same day after we recorded, I heard make some statements saying that they we’re going to start putting notes and identifying posts that are classified as containing hateful speech and so forth and so on. Right. And so that happened as a result of them having lost up to 60 billion in valuation. Right. And so people started commenting and saying, well, you know what, it is working. But the reality is that up until yesterday, they’ve already recovered that valuation and the fact that up to 500 big-name organizations have joined the Stop Hate for profit doesn’t necessarily harm Facebook ads revenue that terribly. Right. Of course, lost dollars are lost dollars. But the bottom line is that they’re not really losing that much revenue. Why? Because, Deb, a Facebook ad ecosystem is made out by a ton of small businesses. Right. And so while they are still around and they’re still spending, you know, it doesn’t necessarily gonna impact a lot of their revenue stream. Of course, from the PR standpoint is where the damage is. And what people are saying also, Grace, is that this could be the actual beginning to a new trend line, that’s really what these were. These movements can have a lasting impact. It’s kind of setting up a trend where advertising on Facebook is no longer regarded as a good thing. And then over time, it could really have a more lasting effect. Something that can definitely have a bigger damage to Facebook, as an advertising platform and as a business as a whole. Right. So I think it’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out. But as you and I spoke last week. Right, I mean, this could be an opportunity if you have been outspoken about the way that Facebook conducts business, then this is an opportunity to stand up, support the cause and do it openly so that your community knows what are you doing, what are you standing up for. Now, it’s important to mention Grace that the fact that you’re not going to be advertising on Facebook, if that’s what you decide to do, doesn’t mean that you cannot continue using the part of the platform for organic reach within your community. Right. So everyone like Ben and Jerry’s that they are pulling all of their advertising money for the month of July. It doesn’t mean that they’re going to stop posting organically on Facebook as a platform. Right. Just that they don’t want to spend. They don’t want to invest their money to pay to send out this message. So, Grace, I think, you know, it’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out. I think we’re going to be able to see really what impact does this have on CPM for all of those who stayed in the platform. But I can tell you that over the past 36 hours that I’ve been looking at Facebook like I haven’t felt at any point, that there are fewer advertisers in my timeline feed. So it’s just more visibility for other brands, particularly to me as a user. You know, I haven’t seen any of the usual brands that usually target me going away. But honestly, all of those brands targeting me, I’ve never heard in my life. So it’s just interesting. Right. How is this being received and how is this playing out? But definitely something that has already taken the attention of Facebook and it may lead to some more changes from that. So am I good? I think it’s good from the standpoint that, you know, people’s voices are being heard and it’s opening up for a conversation. We all I mean, honestly, as far as somebody who uses Facebook to advertise and to help our clients grow their business through that platform, I do want to see that platform become a better ecosystem where people feel more comfortable to connect, to engage. And they are not so polarized about the idea of using or not Facebook. Right. And so it’s a great opportunity. But here’s the other thing. Grace, we know it’s coming kind of like as a scathing consequence to this. So some companies they just went out and said, we’re pulling out of Facebook. They’ve cut put all of their social media advertising. In light of this, so that also, you know, bulks in Facebook and Twitter, sorry, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Snapchat, even, right?. And so I think really these other media platforms that don’t have the revenues that Facebook generates. I think they’re probably going to be the ones that are going to get harmed the most. Right. I think if I’m not mistaken, that it was Coca-Cola that they’ve just said we’re going to pull out all of our advertising from social media from now until the rest of the year. And so that, you know, maybe for Facebook, it may not cost a dent, but for other platforms like Snapchat or so, yeah, that, you know, they may not welcome that very well and it may actually impact their revenue stream in a more meaningful way. So that sort of a generalization that some brands are making or just, you know, jumping on board these and also just cutting off everything else in social media. That can be an issue for some platforms. But with that said, I also wanted to mention that it’s a good opportunity for those who are taking steps and not advertising on Facebook this month to try new things. Right. I mean, there’s Snapchat, as we’ve said, there is Twitter, which can be interesting. Right.

Grace: [00:07:54]  Yeah, twitter can be different for sure.

Liel: [00:07:58] It definitely can be interesting. And then again, if you’re in the business of wanting to be relevant for zoomers, I mean, Tik Tok is such a powerful place to be. Right. I think for law firms, it’s kind of like a stretch right now to figure out a way to be relevant in Tik Tok as an advertiser. But it doesn’t mean that there’s not an opportunity for that right 16, 17 year olds are like, they drive beer or close enough to become adults, and you know, there’s all kinds of legal representation that can be relevant to them within the next two, three, four years in their lives. And so it’s about generating awareness, letting them know who you are, that you’re there. And so the day that they’ll need you. They’ll call you. So Grace. That’s one thing. We talked about that last week. Now, another thing you and I talked last week about was the big settlement for round up ten billion dollars. Right. So that was announced on Wednesday. And I was actually very interested about you opinion on it. Saying ten billion dollars. Yes, it is a lot. But then again, how many people got affected by it and how many people lost their lives to these? And so it kind of put into perspective whether the settlement really meets and covers the damage. And the reality Grace is that often times, like, you know, you cannot really put a price on a person’s life. But I think it’s always encouraging to see that big and powerful results like these ones are being achieved. And so that definitely brings hope that, you know, justice is possible. Now, Grace, with that said, I think, you know, just this massive news kind of casted a shadow on another big development that took place last week. And actually right a day, I think it was just the day before the round up settlement thing came up. There was another announcement and I was just looking at it.

Liel: [00:10:10] And it’s actually from Johnson and Johnson. Right. So The New York Times published on Tuesday. That women with cancer was awarded billions in baby powder suit. I’ll just read here to headline An appellate court in Missouri upheld more than two billion in damages against Johnson and Johnson, saying the company knew there was asbestos in its powder. Now, Grace, let me just go on a little bit further. And here it says, A Missouri court on Tuesday, ordered, and so this is Tuesday, June Twenty third ordered Johnson and Johnson in a subsidiary to pay two point one billion in damages to women who blamed their ovarian cancer on the company’s Talcum products, including its iconic baby powder. The decision slashed by more than half a record award of four point sixty nine billion in compensation and punitive damage to the women, which was made in July 2018. So, Grace, I mean, if you continue reading these, you know, you probably read it. It says that there are still thousands of lawsuits that are still open on these Johnson and Johnson still claims that their talcum powder is safe, right. And on the other hand, we have Mark Lanier here, the lawyer, right, representing this lawsuit. Saying, just discard it, right it’s dangerous. Nobody should be using it.

Liel: [00:11:44] So I know you’re very passionate about this particular tort. And what does this mean, Grace? So in July 2018, a settlement of four point sixty nine million dollars was awarded. Now we have a two point one billion is that a good trend? It Doesn’t really mean much? And what can we expect to happen with the still open law suits?

Grace: [00:12:13] Ok. So for this, there’s actually two things that need to be looked at when it comes to that specific article in particular. And that is the fact that they’re mentioning asbestos. That is actually a separate issue that they have found when they. OK. So they did a test lot, apparently on talcum products that came out and in the test lot that they did.

Grace: [00:12:36] It was found that they had asbestos in a couple of probably two lots, I believe, of the test. And asbestos, obviously, we know asbestos causes cancer. Right. I mean, that’s where the mesothelioma cancer and all of those cancers, that cancer in particular came from was because of asbestos and inhalation of asbestos. So if these women are using talcum products that have asbestos in them, as was seen in the test lots that’s immediate, essentially an almost immediate link to cancer. Correct. Because we already have precedents stating asbestos causes cancer. So that is something separate and distinct from the fact that they’re claiming that talc causes, it’s potentially OK. So that’s the thing, it is potentially separate and distinct from the fact that talc causes ovarian cancer because of talc in and of itself, maybe not necessarily because of the asbestos that’s in it.

Grace: [00:13:36] So there’s a couple of things that have to be looked at. Again, we’re back to that scientific thing right now. The thing with Johnson and Johnson is they are so large, they are so big that they’ve already decided where they’re going to do they’re going to settle on the ones that they want to settle on. They’re going to stop selling talcum products in the United States. And they are going to continue selling it outside of the United States. Their claims are obviously that it has nothing to do with their talcum powder causing ovarian cancer, that they will say that they did not do that. And that it will not do that at all. And it will never continue to do that to anybody. But in the interest of sales, they are leaving. OK. So I don’t think Johnson and Johnson will ever agree, no matter what comes out, then that’s why they settle.

Liel: [00:14:31] So Grace, I mean, I do have a question and I guess, you know, isn’t, and I go back to my hotel management days, right. And so here was kind of like a rule we always have to live by whenever somebody, I guess, would call and complain. Right. We had to be very, very careful about how were we gonna respond to that claim, because if somebody, for instance, was alleging that they’ve got food poisoning after consuming food or beverage from one of our outlets, and we were to respond in a way saying, well, let me compliment your stay or your meal or something. Right. At that point, we would be admitting guilt by taking that action. Right. And so isn’t Johnson and Johnson kind of already admitting guilt by paying two billion dollars for something that they say we did not do? Like otherwise, why would they pay a settlement that is so high? Right. Well, it seems to us very, very high for Johnson and Johnson, maybe not that terrible, but still, doesn’t that send a different message like, yes, I’ll pay you for your damages that you’re saying were caused because of the use of my product. But it was not my fault. How you know, how does that contradiction play out?

Grace: [00:15:55] So it’s more like the Florida no-fault car insurance. You know, if you get an accident, whether it’s your fault or not doesn’t matter. It’s no fault in it in Florida. So you’ll have to go to court to figure out whose fault it is. Well, even in court, you can settle. There’s no admission of guilt. So that’s exactly what this is. This is not an admission of guilt. It’s saying we believe you believe that. And in the interest of getting rid of this problem and taking care of your pain and suffering, we are going to settle. That’s what that is. It’s never going to be. I did this because the admission of guilt obviously would require them to remove everything, period. And Johnson and Johnson is too big of a company with too many products to admit guilt, particularly in this instance.

Grace: [00:16:52] And I wouldn’t be surprised if after they settle everything, that there’s a gag order of some sort. People can’t speak about it or, you know, as part of the settlement. You know, you can’t say anything negative about talcum powder products from Johnson and Johnson.

Liel: [00:17:07] So Grace, what does this now mean for their remaining lawsuits that are open for this? Is it, you know, as a mass tort, is Talc something that you still feel has momentum. Are we reaching out a point where the opportunity is getting way too narrow for more positive resolutions to come out of these? Where are we in this cycle? Right. I mean, I think when we when we talk about roundup and when we talked about it last week as well, we kind of like if it feels like these are all coming up as final resolutions like that’s it like we’re reaching the end. Is that the same? What’s happening with talcum powder right now?

Grace: [00:17:51] Yes. Yes. The short answer is yes. That’s exactly what’s happening. When you start seeing things settle it, that means it’s coming to an end for the most part. And that’s the same thing that happened ground up. Right. As soon as you saw that message go out that they, you know, they started settling. That means it’s time to have closed. Or if you weren’t in, you’re done. So it’s getting the same with Talc. We’re at the getting towards the end of this type of thing. So hopefully you’re already in it. If you’re not in it, you need to be already have started it like a month ago or longer. Obviously, the later you are in the game, the more expensive it is. And you may not even be able to get a hold of clients anymore because all those clients have been taken up. So it’s a very, it’s not risky, per se, but it can be obviously it can be a risky business. Right. Because you don’t know how these torts are going to pan out exactly. I mean, you can have a very good idea. And if you’ve been in the industry for a long time, you have an even better idea than most.

Grace: [00:18:53] But it still has to do with the science, what they will admit or not admit, and then what they’re willing, how big they are because they can be too big. Right. Like in the case of Johnson and Johnson, if they’re too big, they can fight you forever in court and you may never win. But if they’re too small, they don’t have the money to actually pay out on the injuries. So there’s kind of a what I’d say a sweet spot in the middle, right. Where they will say, OK, yes, we see that this is what’s happened the science has proven it. And we pulled the stuff from the shelves and we’ll pay out and we have enough to pay out, but also still continue operations. That’s kind of the sweet spot. I’d say a company that’s big enough to actually pay out on the injuries that are negligence that they’ve done to hurt people. And they pay it out. They take care of their injuries. They admit to it and they move on. But you have a giant company like Johnson and Johnson, they never have to.

Liel: [00:19:51] Yeah. So that’s Talc.

Grace: [00:19:53] Well, there’s one thing I do want to mention that kind of I’d take becomes a side or bi-product of when things like this happen. Right. So just like you said with Facebook and certain people jumping on the bandwagon. Right. And certain people like that’s their messaging and that’s what they do. Well, now we have to think about these cosmetic companies. They have Talc in other products. What are they going to do?

Grace: [00:20:21] Are they going to yank it because of all the negative publicity behind what’s in Talc? Same with the deodorant companies. But I’d say the facial ones in particular, it’s cosmetics. It goes. It could potentially go into your eyes. It’s absorbed by your skin. Right.

Grace: [00:20:36] So our social media manager, actually, her name’s Lindsay. And she came up with, she showed me an article today that came out of Thomson Reuters very, very recently. And it was about Revlon, Chanel, L’Oreal, pivoting away from Talc in some of their products. And there’s an actual quote she pulled out because she was, it’s very interesting in what they say. And this is a Revlon spokesman told Reuters the company removed Talc from its body products, body products. He declined to say when or why. He also declined to comment on litigation. The fact that you’re declining to. Comment on litigation. But you’ve removed the talc products. It’s just like you said, you are part of, you’re representing the company and you have certain things that you are allowed to say and you’re not allowed to say, and that’s part of it.

Liel: [00:21:27] So do we know anything about FDA’s announcements or anything along those lines, is there second guesses going around about what products may be causing injuries or harming out people, using them?

Grace: [00:21:41] Unfortunately, yes. It seems to be if they’re taking these types of actions, there seems to be more than just a simple reason. Right. If that means that they are making that correlation as well and or they’re taking away the negative connotation to talc with their product. Right. Because they may not be on. Obviously, they’re not necessarily owned by Johnson and Johnson, but Talc is a big component to most of these cosmetic products. So they, I’m sure, have been noticing and PR wise, you know, public relations. This is something that they should have noticed as soon as this started happening. And I would have looked for an alternative back then. You know, obviously they did. And I think going forward, that’s what they’re going to continue to do.

Grace: [00:22:25] They’re going to keep taking the talc out of their products because they don’t want to be in the same boat as Johnson and Johnson is right now, even though it wasn’t necessarily proven that this caused that per se. The fact that they settled and they gave money out for talcum products is a big deal. And so Revlon, L’Oreal and all these companies that are mentioned in the Reuters article have yanked Talc out of their products for a reason. And now you can, of course, extrapolate the information as to why. I mean, it just doesn’t look good for them. If Talc settling on all these cases, why are they settling? Like you said, can’t you assume with law you’re not supposed to assume this has to equal that and it needs to be proven. That’s the way it works. So they’re seeing that public relations wise this is not a good move. So they need to move away from talcum, which now has a bad taste in its mouth in the public eye.

Liel: [00:23:27] Right. So from one standpoint, it can just be, as you’ve said, a PR move. Right. They want to not be associated with it. But on the other hand, they may be a bigger and more meaningful underlying cost, which could be potential harm to users of these products, these cosmetic products, which we don’t know yet.

Grace: [00:23:51] Right. And it could be both. I mean, if I were a company that made cosmetic products and I’ve been making cosmetic products for 100 years then and Talc was the main component of it. I see all these things coming down the pipeline. I would have been aware of that as a company that has this product that has a problem with all these women. Women for the most part, especially in cosmetics. Not always, but a large part of the target demographic is women. So women now knowing that talc causes ovarian cancer or it’s being alleged to well, I’m going to yank talc out of my products because I know you might be putting it on your face or you might be putting it on your body, whatever your usage is. I don’t want to be associated with that. It’s negative. Yeah.

Liel: [00:24:36] So, yeah, absolutely. I mean, it makes all the sense in the world. Grace, so are we about to scrap talc and roundup? Those are no longer in our list of mass torts for 2020. Well, they were, right. But it seems like we are no longer going to have to focus that much on them moving forward. You anticipate more settlements coming up just before these completely dies off, or was this most likely the last that we heard?

Grace: [00:25:05] No, I think there’ll be more.

Liel: [00:25:07] Yeah, because the way I mean, the way this whole thing read with thousands of lawsuits hoping you kind of wonder, like, is this really the end of it?

Liel: [00:25:18] But it seems like you’ve kind of reached the peak. But it’s now kind of like just gonna go on a downward journey.

Grace: [00:25:24] Exactly. It’s at the bottom of the bell, I’d say, you know.

Liel: [00:25:28] All right, Grace. So we’ll talk about what’s on its way out now. Let’s talk about the ones that are right now having its momentum. And I hear you over and over again put a lot of focus and emphases on Zantac. What’s happening there Grace? Is it really worth its momentum?

Grace: [00:25:48] I don’t know. So, I don’t think any of us really 100 percent know the criteria keeps shifting slightly in terms of what cancers are accepted and how they can link it. So that one is kind of an emerging tort, you know, well, not really emerging. It’s out there already. People are already starting to take in cases. But I’d say this is kind of a good time to get in if it’s. One thing, if it’s something that is of interest to you; if you feel that the science and everything seemed to pan out in terms of your own internal research as a lawyer and you’ve spoken to other lawyers who have dealt with this particular tort or you’ve spoken to, you know, perhaps some of the people on the you know, the different MDLs that are going on, there is not one yet. But once they’ll start coming together. So, you know, those are when it comes to a drug in particular, obviously, Michigan is one of those states that you don’t necessarily want because of the favorable issues or favorable for the, not for the plaintiff, rather for the actual companies. Other than that, I’d say Zantac, maybe a good emerging tort for people to kind of look into it. Again, for those who don’t remember or don’t know, it has to do with the elevated levels of NDMA.

Grace: [00:27:14] Zantac was recalled from the shelves not that long ago. Yeah, I think it was like a month ago. May have been a little longer than that, but it was about a month ago that it was basically completely taken off the shelves. And it had to do with the fact that if it got heated up or it wasn’t temperature controlled, the levels of NDMA would elevate. And it was apparently a known or is a known carcinogen. And this was a recall by the FDA for certain lots, at least initially after the lots, then maybe a month later, they were like, OK. No, because it gets heated up. That increases the levels of that carcinogen. That’s in the product. We have to take them all off the shelves. So there’s sort of a proof of issue in a way that I think might be something that people need to look at. Obviously, you want a group of different types of cases within your docket. But what people are looking for, essentially, if it’s brand prescription or over-the-counter. In my mind, in from seeing what happened with Roundup and all these other ones, I feel like prescription usage where it’s obviously easier to prove because you have your rewards card or something like that that can prove that, you know, obviously, or you keep buying it.

Grace: [00:28:35] So even if it’s generic, let’s say, and you buy on your rewards card and it shows up a Zantac on the receipts and your rewards some way of proving the use for at least a year is the biggest thing and it’s continued usage. So if you’re able to prove that and then you have a decent case and then it’s a whole list of cancers that they’re kind of looking at. But I’d say they primarily have to do with prostate cancer and testicular cancer and some cancers thereof. Unfortunately, they’re a little iffy on the breast cancer. And then, of course, lung cancer, because if you were a smoker, it may obviously that’s kind of a disqualifying thing because they can’t necessarily correlate Zantac to your lung cancer if you were smoker. Right. So those are sort of the things that people need to look at or think about when they’re talking about or looking into getting to Zantac as the tort of choice for them. And as I’ve always said before, though, Liel, is separate, diversify, diversify. Right. Don’t just put all your eggs in any one basket. And that includes one practice area or one tort.

Liel: [00:29:42] Yeah, I just wanted to get back to you. Right. You were asking about how is the demand and search on Zantac been over the last few months? And it’s actually been on a trend pretty much since it came out. Right. And particularly since the beginning of this year, like, I’m looking here from February all the way through May, and you had a month to month increase of 15 percent in February. Then on March, it had another 15 percent increase over the previous month. And in April, it has a 32 percent increase in search volume over the previous month. And in May, 15 percent over that. So right now the search volume is very close to 30000 search queries that are specific, specifically related to Zantac lawsuit. And so that definitely speaks for quite a significant awareness level here. And I can also see that the cost per click has been increasing. Right. I remember the first time when we started looking at the average cost per click on Zantac, it was around $20 and it’s not on $30.

Liel: [00:30:52] So there doesn’t seem to be any indication for it to become less expensive in the next coming months. And this is, you know, one of the things that we’ve noticed with torts is that they kind of have been, you know, where another immune to COVID, like the pandemic has not had an impact on the search volume and cost per click on these particular torts, so most of people who are advertising and after these torts, they have kept marketing, they have kept being competitive for them. And for that reason, the price has continued to be driven up. And again, like as you very well said, Grace, we, you know, while there may still be some uncertainty there, we can only talk about the fact that the interest in the market for this particular lawsuit has been on an increase.

Liel: [00:31:52] So more people trying to get on board.

Grace: [00:31:55] Yes. It’s and like I said, that’s why when I saw the recall, I figured it was a, you know, a month ago. But it’s been longer than that. I guess it must have been in April. And that makes sense because I think that was the first recall. And then about a month after that, there was another sort of push on the recall or full recall and all of it, not just that specific lots. So that makes sense.

Liel: [00:32:16] So while we have this happening with roundup and talc and Zantac, kind of like still living its momentum, but kind of starting to raise quite a bit of question marks. What’s another tort Grace that may be showing or surprising us in an unexpected way? Is there anything else, Grace, that you’ve noticed over the past month or so?

Grace: [00:32:42] Well, actually, that’s what happened with talc, the Daubert standard passed. So those of you that don’t remember, Daubert standard has to do with the science. So a judge will decide at that point that this did happen or this could potentially have caused that meaning talc could have caused ovarian cancer when that standard passes. That’s when everything goes crazy in terms of they’re going to start settling or something’s going to happen. Right. And so that’s what happened with talc, where as soon as that Daubert standard passed, everything started happening. And it became a really fantastic tort that if you weren’t in, it’s going to be almost impossible in terms of cost to get in now unless you have people.

Liel: [00:33:28] So as of now, we haven’t seen that. We haven’t reached that momentum with any other of the possible torts, kind of like under development stage.

Grace: [00:33:37] Not really. I’d say the reverse. So just like what happened, you know, with Zantac people getting a little I don’t know, but it’s still OK. Maybe that happened with fire foam and that happened with the 3M earplugs. That’s how people are. I haven’t talked about the earplugs.

Liel: [00:33:54] Yeah. And, so fire foam is also falling into that category because last time we talked about it, it felt, again, very solid.

Grace: [00:34:04] Because it was fire. Right. These are fire departments. These are government workers, et cetera, et cetera. But there’s too much question when it comes to science. So they’re needing to figure out when people absorbed it in their bloodstream or coat themselves in it. What kind of cancers is it causing? You know, because is it testicular cancer? Is this kind of cancer, that kind of cancer? So and that same thing happened was Zantac. How can they prove that Zantac, people take it 20 years, you know, so how can that be proven? And that’s where it kind of lies. So it kind of flipped a little bit. Who knows, though? It could be another memo that’s found internally that somebody wrote something. Right, and said, oh, we know that this does this or we think it might do this. You need to check if they find that that’s obvious potential. OK, now this is going to be a really great tort. So you don’t really know unless you’re in it and you have to really pay attention to everything that comes out, like you’re doing search volumes and, you know, the laws and the, you know, steering committees. You have to pay attention to all of that. This is your business, right? It’s the business of making sure clients are being taken care of and they’re safe. And that includes being on top of the tort that you’re dealing with.

Liel: [00:35:23] That’s right, Grace. Well, then I guess we are ready for takeaways. Let’s start number one and be patient. Right. Don’t get discouraged, Grace. I think it’s a good point. Right.

Liel: [00:35:37] I mean, not just for the marketing side of things, not only be patient for your marketing efforts to take off and pay off. Right. Especially, you know, because lately we’ve been talking a lot about, hey, test this or while you are out of this platform, why don’t you go and try this other one. Well, yes, great. It’s great. But then again, a month of running ads in one platform may not necessarily be enough for you to be able to jump into conclusions. Right. Definitely. You want to use your month in a productive way. So, run tests, do differently. Have similar ads running at the same time, if you can. And see which ones were having better response with your audience and dig deeper into those and see whether you can improve things. But then again, right, you still need to let things go and run for enough time for you to be able to understand its potential and real impact. Right. You cannot not be patient with marketing. And I guess you can also not be patient with Mass Torts, right. It’s a slow and elaborate process. And you need to let it play its course. Am I right. Grace, when I say that or am I trying to look at things positively when they sometimes are nothing to be looked at?

Grace: [00:36:56] Well, no. I mean, you should always look at things from the positive light as well as the negative. So, you know, in terms of what you’re saying, I do agree. You know, I mean, and that’s why the takeaways. Right. I mean, when we separate these things as takeaways and why we talk about it as a takeaway, you need to be patient. And that’s part of being patient is also diversifying.

Grace: [00:37:19] And I know that it should be technically a second take away, but…

Liel: [00:37:21] It is takeaway number two, diversifying.

Grace: [00:37:25] Yeah, but that’s part of what you’re saying, you know what I mean? Be patient, but to be patient, you have to diversify because otherwise you just throw all your eggs in one basket and you can’t be patient.

Liel: [00:37:35] Yeah, I totally agree. And that’s 100 percent my advice for people who are going towards the rout as. You know what, I could take a break from Facebook for a while. I would say great. But let’s jump into another platform. Right. Let’s not just take a hands off approach. These are not times for a hands-off approach, Grace. If anything, the markets have become way more competitive. And if you want to keep your momentum going, you definitely want and need to be in the game. So don’t feel like Facebook is the right platform for you? Then let’s look and explore opportunities for your practice area, for your market in other platforms. Right. And then again, you know, if you’re doing Facebook ads, you should definitely already be in Google ads, in the display network or potentially you want to try something like YouTube as well. Right. But if you’re doing Facebook ads for your law firm, but you haven’t yet started going to relax, then you know what? It’s a blessing that you have now some time to just reset set priorities. Right, because you should 100 percent be on Google ads ahead of being on Facebook. Right. Hiring ten users is better quality leads, faster results for your law firm. So get your game right. If you haven’t figured it out yet. If you have figured it out that you are in Google ads and you were also heavily relying on Facebook, then stay on Facebook. Right. Don’t stop advertising on Facebook. Don’t pay attention to the noise. You can still show interest and make a donation to these organizations that are standing for stop hate without necessarily having to pull your ads out of Facebook because Facebook is a valuable asset for your marketing. So that’s another important thing, Grace. And I think that could be our third takeaway, Don’t be distracted by the noise around you. Right. You can still stand up for your values. You can still lead a practice and a team with a lot of dignity and contribute to the causes that you care without having to join what seems to be the only way of showing solidarity to causes that you actually believe in. So there is a lot of dignity in still contributing and acknowledging, hey, listen, Facebook is a way in which we enable our business, our law firm, to help others. Right. And so we don’t want to limit our reach and with that limit access to people to find us and know about us and find the help that they need. But at the same time, we also want to stand up for the cause and we want to support it. So what do you think, Grace? Could that be a good approach towards this?

Grace: [00:40:23] I think we need to make sure that we look at everything right. And that’s something that you and I have always said from beginning to end. Look at it all. Look at the big picture. Look at the small picture and do it the way that you want to do it. And what is your message? You’ve said that over and over again. Don’t just change who you are. Don’t change your message. Don’t change. Because that’s what’s going on right now. Do not be on the fad. Don’t be on-trend. And I don’t think most lawyers are really doing that anyway to tell you the truth. So you wouldn’t do that personally. Don’t do that with your marketing. Don’t do that with your business. So, but if you do believe that is something that you do jump on. And you do go and you do that. But as Liel said, if Facebook and pulling from Facebook would make a huge impact on your business. In a way that would be extremely detrimental. And you don’t feel like you want to be a part of that, quote-unquote bandwagon of that type. That specific solidarity. There are many, many other ways on Facebook, too, to be involved. There are many organizations.

Liel: [00:41:32] Absolutely, what I’ve seen a lot is that there are people who are actually posting Facebook posts are encouraging their community to donate to the cause or running out the initiatives where they would say that donate and we will match your donation like there are a lot of things that can be done in order to kind of like stand up for the cause. Right. So every brand has its own way of doing things in its own way of reaching impact. Okay. Just what we’ve said Grace, don’t listen to the noise, do you and you’ll be all right. Grace, have a great weekend. Right. Because we’re recording this right before the Fourth of July weekend. And most important, stay safe.

Grace: [00:42:12] You too as well Liel. Thank you so much. It was a pleasure as usual.

Liel: [00:42:15] My pleasure, Grace.

Liel: [00:42:21] If you like our show. Make sure you subscribe. Tell your co-workers. Leave us a review and send us your questions at ask@incamerapodcast.com. We’ll see you next week.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ICP Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *