The legal profession has not been immune to social media phenomena. See, for example, the ABA Practice Management article, “Are You Considering Twittering? Ways to Cut Through the Noise,”
After all, isn’t Twitter supposed to be the next self-promotion manna from heaven for marketers? So if lawyers can Twitter, why can’t dogs?
Toy-maker Mattel just announced its introduction this fall, of a sound and motion detecting toy that attaches to a dog collar and which generates one of 500 canned tweets to publicize a dog’s everyday activities. The product is called “Puppy Tweets.”
Mattel is enterprising enough in developing this new product for dogs. But I can readily envision possible applications for people through a similar device. What a boon for those too tired, too lazy or too unimaginative to come up with something under 140 characters to tweet about.
Why not, instead attach a tag to a wristwatch, shirt pocket or collar and give folks a pre-selected, canned-up menu of 500 tweets that are effortlessly and automatically deployed reflecting our own daily activities? The device could be made suitable for people of all ages and from all walks of life. And boom, you’d have another breakthrough phenomena!
The legal profession can also benefit from a pre-selected database of tweets. From law school, lawyers are particularly good at canning stuff up for class, the words, “canned briefs” comes readily to mind. They also can up arguments using dusty but familiar archaic language and cliche’d jargon. So why not canned tweets for lawyers?
Moreover, it’s apparent lawyers already welcome Twitter. Last year, Brett Ligon, a Texas D.A., made news when he announced his twitters would identify all those caught driving while intoxicated (DWI) in his county during the holiday season. Drunk drivers identified in Twitter postings | FinanceTechNews.com … And a story from the ABA Journal here. tells of a Twitter-tolerant Colorado judge who allowed a local newspaper reporter to cover a capital murder trial on Twitter.
What dogs do.
For canine civil libertarians, I doubt that attaching a tweeting tag to a dog’s collar will violate Rover’s privacy rights, especially since dogs aren’t by nature litigious or vexatious. And besides, the device is a toy, a low-tech gimmick. Furthermore, I daresay the device won’t infallibly capture what a pooch is up to while one is away.
I suspect among the 500 pre-chosen tweets is a lot of wishful thinking on the part of Mattel and their customer focus groups. For example, one of the pre-selected tweets in the toy’s database is supposed to link a round of barking to the tweet, “I bark because I miss you. There, I said it. Now hurry home.” Somehow, I doubt that.
I smile thinking back to a much beloved but spoiled Doberman we had who furiously barked at us not because he missed anyone, but because he wanted a dog biscuit.
And then there’s the other stuff dogs do that people don’t always know about.