Blogging eh? Is there any value in a blog?
Now that the final resting place of Jesus has been found, the big question amongst bloggers is How does one value a blog?
For a community so eager to propound its honesty and transparency, most bloggers are rare to discuss the true material value in their blogs. Corporate Blawg is not one to keep his cards so close, but rather bears his three chest-curlies with great pride and aplomb.
Corporate Blawg's subscription to Typepad costs him $6 per month, and 3-4 hours a week of his user-friendly time. This time could either be spent discussing corporate law in a bar with anyone who will listen, or fee-earning into the night and earning around £600 (+VAT) per week for his firm. So after 6 months (and approximately £18,000 (+VAT)), what has Corporate Blawg obtained in return?
The statistics show that in 6 months, Corporate Blawg has received 6700 hits, currently averaging around 50 per day. Most hits are recieved are for his blog on "Russian Roulette" of 21 August 2006. Corporate Blawg has been hit by some global internationals, the magic circle, a few governments, and from over 1100 different servers situated in most of the countries around the world. 30% of readers are return readers and Corporate Blawg loves them all the more for it. Although these stats. pale into minor significance when compared with some U.S. blogs, Corporate Blawg is pretty chuffed. But what about the real materialistic success, the kudos, the fame, the fantastic new client opportunities?
In the early stages there was an invitation to scribe for the Times law blog, but that fell through as Corporate Blawg found he could not juggle his work, his blog, his playstation and his wife (no comment on juggling the wife please). Neverthless the Times did publish his conveyancing poem which caused a spike in his hits (120 that day).
Several months later, a free novel, arrived which Anonymous Lawyer sent for review. Despite Corporate Blawg's favourable review, Corporate Blawg found it hard to engage in literature about lawyers, and interviewed Anonymous which resulted in a quick and dirty blog.
More recently Corporate Blawg has been asked by an independent company whether he would like to get involved with overseas training of corporate law, to which Corporate Blawg has leapt up the gangplank at the chance. Corporate Blawg also introduced his new contact to a partner at his work (who is in a better position to provide such training, but may need Corporate Blawg to design the hand-outs and carry the slide projector to exotic locations). Corporate Blawg has achieved this networking joy whilst still keeping his law firm unawares of his blog, in accordance with his disclaimer.
So all in all, the value, plus the peace of mind of being "part of something", makes this blog pretty high, to Corporate Blawg at least. To non-lawyers, the value may only be a cursory interest in the poetically-placed non-legal commentary, such as this.
The corporate law relevance to this rambling is the case of Bruce v Carpenter et. al.  All ER (D) 405 (Nov) which was heard on 29 November 2006 last year. In this case an expert valuer was contracted under a compromise agreement to provide a valuation of shares, without any necessity to give reasons behind that valuation. Mr Bruce brought the action on the basis that the expert valuation was not conducted properly, and did not take into account all the facts.
The court was faced with three issues, although the first of these was “the justiciability issue”, (a word not recognised by spellcheck), on which the case rested. The judge referred to Sudbrook Trading Estate Limited v Eggleton  and held that:
- Where a valuer does not carry out his instructions and is in default of his agreement, the court may intervene.
- Where a valuer refuses to fix the price under contract, or is unable to do so through death or disability, the contract is frustrated.
- The true distinction is between those cases where the mode of ascertaining the price is an essential term of the contract and those cases where the mode of ascertainment is subsidiary and non-essential.
Since Bruce had not required any reasons or methodology of the valuer, when he signed up to the agreement, he was left stranded up the creek without a paddle, flares, tent or salt tablets (always leave behind the salt tablets). Clearly, this is something to be wary of whenever valuations are present in contracts, or you find yourself in a creek as twilight sets in.
Coolio, thought Corporate Blawg, before instructing himself to value his blog without reference to any statistics of any relevance, and without giving any reasons. Accordingly, Corporate Blawg values his blog at approximately £2.3 million. Any takers?