Comments on: The absurdity of embargoes

By: The Guhmshoo Gallery

The Guhmshoo Gallery — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:37:38 +0000

[...] Insanity – Lose the embargo and it will save [...]

By: Bob Geller

Bob Geller — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:42:55 +0000

You raise some excellent points. One reason the embargo continues to exist is that there is a market for it. Despite its controversial reputation, many in the media still don’t object to them; if you want to present your story to the media and have it heard through them (with the validation that earned coverage continues to provide) then embargoes should not be dismissed entirely – see this Internet News story: http://bit.ly/ymM3a

By: Ted Shelton

Ted Shelton — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:23:44 +0000

As long as journalists who have power want exclusives there will be embargoed releases. That is the dirty secret — it isn’t fairness, it is unfairness that drives the practice. And some jounalists love it. That said, you are absolutely correct that agreements should be made on the embargo before the news is shared!!

By: Doug Haslam

Doug Haslam — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:28:17 +0000

I agree that embargoes are generally poorly executed, and roundly ignored where they are. I wouldn’t count them completely out. They still have their place, but they must be applied judiciously.

I have been in the position (as a PR person) of having client news that, to be relayed properly, necessitated pre-briefs of press– but also a strict embargo, as many employees did not know this very material news yet.

The tactics? Steer very clear of any news outlet we did not trust with an embargo (CNET has been at the top of that list for a decade for the reasons you state above). Some people will be very surprised that we still had a very good list of trustworthy embargo-holders, all of whom stood poised to go if any one broke the embargo.

Want to know what happened? the embargo held. The news was worthy (it was the Christian Science Monitor’s announcement that they would be cutting print from daily to weekly), and the stories were well-done, with significant and necessary input from the Monitor’s spokespeople.

Embargoes still work, sorry. Bad embargoes and poorly-executed ones? No.

By: Ike

Ike — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:22:39 +0000

“Embargo” is the slightly-more-refined relative of its bastard cousin, “Off the Record.”

As in, “I killed him! But that’s off the record…”

Public Relations (and its subset, Media Relations) is about relationships. That means discussion, that means sharing, that means conversation and context. And yes, that means reaching agreements that are explicit and enunciated.

Such agreements are achieved in advance, not unilaterally announced and adhered to.

Oh… and everything Bill said above.

By: Bill Sledzik

Bill Sledzik — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:48:02 +0000

This line from your post sums it up: “An embargo can be considered violated only if the recipient agrees to it in the first place.”

In a digital age, there is simply NO need for embargoes. When you’re ready to release the news, do so — and let the media know where to find it.

A courtesy phone call to key outlets might be nice to maintain relationships.Quaint little device, the telephone, but effective.