Comments on: Why Embargoes Will Survive

By: ParisLemon » On Embargoes Revisited

ParisLemon » On Embargoes Revisited — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:30:24 +0000

[...] I understand that embargoed stories are an important part of the way news currently works. Jeremy Toeman has some good points about this in response to Arrington. But as Arrington alludes to, as more and more blogs get added [...]

By: Mielle Sullivan

Mielle Sullivan — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:48:53 +0000

Very interesting discussion. I agree that Arrington’s anger is, again, more than is justified. I know the situation is frustrating to everyone involved, but I also doubt TechCrunch has never, ever broken an embargo.

Sometimes journalists break embargoes because they develop a relationship with the company and the company tells them they can break the embargo. Still not a completely kosher activity, but that’s hard opportunity for a journalist to pass up. Also, I think, most of the time journalists do honor embargoes.

I agree with D. Aristophanes. I’m not sure being the absolute first to break news is the trend. Of course bloggers try to do it. It is great to get on TechMeme. But the bloggers I know (of big and small sites alike), treat breaking news like icing on the cake: nice, but not necessary. They will usually be happy, if not compelled, to write any decent story that is in their beat. They do assume loyal readership and they do think their readers will want to know their take on the subject regardless if they break the news. Though I am sure it varies by site and subject.

By: D. Aristophanes

D. Aristophanes — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:58:37 +0000

I’m confused. Perhaps it’s because I report for a top tech site and cover the really huge companies. But your contention that, ‘These days, the momentum shift of newsmaking is being the absolute first to break a story’ … just isn’t true from where I’m sitting.

In fact, for me, coming in later on a big story is almost always the best strategy for getting more traffic, because Google News likes us a lot and will usually stick our headlines at the top of news clusters. The reason it’s better to come in later is that the story cluster has probably advanced higher on their rankings, so more exposure and more traffic. Getting a story into the top right-hand corner of the Google News page is the crown jewel and good for triple to quadruple the traffic of even the top headline on the top story in the Sci/Tech section (which is often in the top right-hand corner too, so …)

In fact, I regularly sit on embargoed stories for several hours after the embargo lifts to play for this more optimal scenario.

But this may just be because I’m covering big companies with guaranteed big news (e.g. HP, Apple, Microsoft). Smaller companies and blogs that live in the TechMeme or Slashdot world may have a completely different set of best practices for getting traffic, and I take it from the post and comments here that they do.

I would also like to suggest a clarification on one thing — the distinction between an ‘exclusive’ and enterprise reporting. The first being a vendor/PR driven ’scoop’ and the second being a story a reporter or news org. developed and broke on their own. Being first on an ‘exclusive’ is no great accomplishment, whereas being first on the second is something to be proud of.

Finally, I have to take exception to your saying it’s a new thing in the media for there to be an emphasis on being the first to break a story, partly because as I say, it’s actually moving in the opposite direction for the larger online news orgs, but also because, dude, ‘getting the scoop’ has been the absolute prime goal of reporters since guys in loincloths were stamping clay tablets with breaking news about Gilgamesh.

By: ANW11

ANW11 — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:31:53 +0000

One of the biggest problems is that there are still too many lazy PR practitioners who don’t do their homework before pitching a publication or a reporter. And regardless of how many times someone like Chris Anderson or other reporters chastise our industry, PR people will continue to guilelessly send out their blind (blanket) pitches. In addition, there are quite a few who don’t understand the difference between embargo and exclusive, and that’s a serious problem. PR agencies need to educate their staff and make sure that they do their job properly with respect to the writers, and in turn getting the best coverage possible for their clients. Sloppy PR work reflects badly on everyone and seriously damages a client’s standing and reputation with the press.

By: Dave Zatz

Dave Zatz — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:34:24 +0000

The question becomes how to use the (non)system to your advantage. If I were StageTwo, I’d pretend I didn’t get Arrington’s embargo notice. Then I’d send TC, and only TC, an “embargoed” news release from one of my clients. Which ever embargo is “broken” first is going to get a ton of blogosphere coverage… ;) You don’t even have to admit it was a set-up. Just bask in the glow of being atop Techmeme.

By: Death of the embargo has been greatly exaggerated « Message, Man

Death of the embargo has been greatly exaggerated « Message, Man — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:12:13 +0000

[...] this end, check out what Jeremy Toeman has to say about the survival of [...]

By: Ontario Emperor

Ontario Emperor — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:55:57 +0000

The bigger problem is when a bad PR firm targets an organization without taking the time to understand an organization’s policies. (Let’s face it, anyone who sends embargoed information to TechCrunch can only blame themselves for the consequences.) Sure there are financial pressures on PR firms, and sure blanket “spam” solicitations by PR firms have some rate of success, but one would hope that businesses would eventually gravitate to those PR firms that take the time to understand their targets.

By: Davis Freeberg

Davis Freeberg — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:34:15 +0000

I’ll second Veronica in pointing out that S2 does a good job of targeting the right bloggers with the right stories and think that your approach is better then 99% of the PR firms out there, but I also feel like the whole PR system is a disaster. A few months ago, I put a notice on my contact page asking PR people not to contact me unless they actually worked for the company they were shelling for. It just got really annoying to get a bunch of random pitches on stories, when I didn’t feel like my site was a “news” publication. I guess, I felt like if a company wanted to talk to me, I still wanted to be open to them, but I also felt like firms who get paid to drum up coverage weren’t very selective about the stories that would be of interest. Instead of sending me unique/exclusive stuff they’d try to repackage their client’s “news” simply because it was their job to get as many people to publish as possible. In the past, I’ve taken advantage of a few embargoes, but since I tend to prefer writing posts that you won’t find anywhere else, I’ve pretty much decided that I’m just not interested in getting early access. if it means that my post is going to be a me too story. I’m not sure the best solution for PR firms, but can sympathize with Arrington’s position. Nontheless, when push comes to shove, I do think it’s the wrong approach. If he doesn’t want to fight with other bloggers for the same story, then he should just refuse to accept embargoes. If he wants early access to give him time to process his thoughts, then he should honor his agreement and live with the fact that every post he writes won’t be breaking news.

By: veronica

veronica — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:36:26 +0000

you guys do a great job of not only targeting the right people, but building relationships with the journalists and bloggers you work with. it also helps that your products don’t suck ;)