Building a lawyer brand: Ethical?

I found this entry in this blog to be intriguing.

First of all, Adrian Dayton states the objectives to his blog on the front page as the following:

--Build their brand online
--Develop thought leadership and
--Rise to the top of search results.

So essentially, this blog is a blog that tells lawyers how to blog to build their "brand" as a lawyer.

Doesn't a site like this build a compelling case for the ABA that blogging is advertising? And thus, if it is advertising, that blogs are afforded a lower level of First Amendment speech? This site is putting it out there, for all to see, that the reason attorneys blog (or why they should blog) is to, essentially, make more money as an attorney. (my 2.5 years' of legal studies thus far has read right through the "rise to the top of search results" to mean you will make a whole ton of money if you follow what this site tells you).

Let's think about this logic: Attorneys should blog because it builds their brand. Their brand is the "service" of law that they provide. But aren't the very people that the attorneys are attemping to target going to see right through their marketing tactics? Especially since a site such as this exists? Doesn't this take two steps back from the portrait of professionalism that the ABA has attempted to craft for so many years? And if this is, indeed true, then what is next?

More on this to come.