Newsletters

Select newsletters below and click the button to sign up!

Boston News NY News
DC News Internet Daily
SiliconValley News
InternetNews Business Report




Become a Marketplace Partner



Partner With Us














 

Internetnews Bloggers

Recent Entries

Archives

November 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

Monthly Archives

Search The Blog

Eye of the Needle by David Needle (bio)

Insights from Silicon Valley and beyond



This tech news is not embargoed

Embargoes — can’t live with them, can’t live without them. That was one of several themes running through a spirited discussion among tech journalists and PR people last night.

For the uninitiated, embargoes are the controversial process where a tech company, usually its PR firm, offers to give advance details on a news story in exchange for the reporter agreeing not to publish the story until the exact release date and time dictated by the vendor.

The event, titled: “Embargo 2010: An Industry Discussion on Future Rules of Media Engagement,” was held in downtown San Francisco at the Varnish gallery and wine bar and hosted by Waggener Edstrom, one of the longtime biggies in tech PR that counts Microsoft among its key clients.

techjournalistsEmbargoed.jpg

(Photo: from left to right: Mark Glaser, Damon Darlin, Tom Foremski and Dylan Tweney. Photo by Marie Domingo).

The kickoff was a panel smoothly moderated by former tech reporter Sam Whitmore that included editors from the New York Times (Damon Darlin), Wired.com (Dylan Tweney), Mark Glaser, MediaShift (PBS) and the tech blog Silicon Valley Watcher (Tom Foremski).

The reason embargoes are controversial is they require reporters give up a level of control in how and when a story is reported. Publications and Web sites also often break embargo agreements, deliberately or by accident, leaving the competition fuming as they scramble to catch up in this increasingly real-time news cycle.

“Embargo is Latin for ‘(expletive) you’!” cracked Tweney. “For the reader embargoes let us do more timely, thorough coverage, but we’ve also been screwed by them.”

While Tweney continues to selectively agree to embargoes (as does InternetNews.com), he said he recently “punished” a PR firm by refusing to communicate with them for six weeks after a competitor was allowed to publish an embargoed story ahead of everyone else. He said the PR firm’s excuse was that the vendor, a handset manufacturer, had leaked the news to a blog directly without the PR firm knowing.

The New York Times Darlin said embargoes are generally used as a tool by PR firms to co-opt the media. That said, Darlin said the Times often accept embargoes because they ensure reporters don’t miss a story and they have more time to do a thorough job.

That thoroughness is limited. Once you’ve agreed to an embargo, you can’t share that news ahead of time with the analysts and competitors you might otherwise call for comment. Vendors will sometimes provide a list of analysts that have been pre-briefed on their news.

While many took shots at the embargo process and the games PR folk sometimes play, Chris Preimesberger, an editor at eWeek, said embargoes help him get his job done.

“They give me the background information and the time to do the piece right,” said Preimesberger, during a follow up Q&A session. He estimates 75 to 80 percent of the stories eWeek does are facilitated by the embargo process, the rest are breaking news.

“I have no problem with the process and don’t feel like I’m being manipulated,” said Preimesberger.

In search of alternatives

The discussion rolled on with a few stabs at a solution or alternative ideas. None seemed to resonate well except for Foremski’s idea that vendors hold a virtual press conference so everyone can get the information at the same time and go from there.

Rafe Needleman of CNET said he hates embargoes, but the advance time helps give stories more “thoughtfulness.”

That said, he notes other sites that do skimpy stories based on rumors and half-truths benefit by being first out with the news. “Readers often reward velocity,” he said.

Tweney probably summed up the feelings of many by noting that no good journalist is going to pass up an exclusive. While most embargoes aren’t exclusive, he said the embargo process puts a story on the same continuum. “Even if you’re one of 25 others getting the story” that’s worth something, he said.

| Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0) | Share

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: This tech news is not embargoed.

TrackBack URL for this entry: https://swarm.jupitermedia.com/mt-tb.cgi/9184

3 Comments

Tom Foremski said:

Nice reporting Dave.

Kurt S. said:

As a tech. writer, I understand the need for embargoes from a PR point of view, and I don't think they're a huge deal. Journalists are stubborn and difficult almost by definition, however, and nobody likes feeling put upon, so I of course understand the dislike for them.

I think the key is that an embargo needs to be a two-sided, honest agreement. It's fine if someone approaches me with a lead and makes an embargo conditional upon getting it. I'll either take it or I won't. And if someone accepts a lead and then breaks an accompanying agreement, I don't think they have any right to complain about being cut off in the future. Them's the breaks.

Nine times out of ten there's no reason to even consider breaking embargo, in any case. We all love the romantic ideal of the no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners, speaking-truth-to-power writer, but sticking it to someone over a usually-trivial piece of news just because you can is both rude and unprofessional. And deceiving a source and breaking your word for personal gain is far more unethical than an embargo could ever be.

That said, I do take exception to mass-mailed press releases that already contain embargoes. You can't just send someone something in its entirety and then add "And by the way, you can't use this until Jan. X." That's just absurd.

Anyway, the bottom line: if you don't want to be subject to an embargo, don't rely on PR folks for lead generation. If you figure stuff out on your own, nobody's got any grounds to complain.

David Needle Author Profile Page said:


Good points Kurt. Many of these issues came up in the discussion but i didn't get to them all in my piece. Specifically, the point you raise about pitch emails that have the key details and then ask that it be embargoed -- the consensus seemed to be that it's a very bad PR move and the content should be considered fair game for publication sans embargo.

In my own experience, there are people i work regularly with who can get away with this, but the blind mass mail pre-embargoed" pitches are unacceptable.

Yes, honesty is key. Also, great point -- great reporting trumps all, we still live for legitimate scoops.

Leave a comment