Entrepreneurs: We Will Happily Respect Your Embargoes
Michael Arrington at TechCrunch said today that his site will no longer respect press embargoes, the informal system where press outfits agree to hold back publishing until an agreed upon time so that multiple sources can cover a story well. Arrington says that embargoes are broken too often, that PR people are too pushy and that the whole system is a wreck.
We disagree. We think embargoes can be very useful for all parties. This Fall we published a post about how and why embargoes work in tech blogging and we thought we'd share those thoughts now that the controversy has flared up again.
We wish that more press outlets, both blogs and traditional media, were better at respecting them. Well run embargoes don't include briefings of sites that have a history of breaking embargoes and that's a big part of the problem. No one is perfect and every site that receives embargoed briefings has broken at least one, usually on accident, at some point. They are easier said than done on all sides.
Why Embargoes Are Good
We argued in our previous post that embargoes are good for the following reasons:
- They give multiple blogs a chance to review a technology in depth, instead of making it a race.
- This means readers get to read multiple perspectives on an interesting topic. Different bloggers have different strengths and ways of looking at things.
- Embargoes lead to more total coverage than exclusives. If you're someone for whom the only thing that mattered in high school was to win the approval of the most popular kid in school and you want to extend that philosophy into your work life as an adult - then the richness and breadth of your work and life experience will suffer accordingly. Exclusives are the tactic of people with weak products and of reporters who compete better in bullying than in writing.
How should embargoes be run well? We discussed our perspective on it in depth in our post Why and How Embargoes Work in Tech Blogging.
We hope you'll join us in the conversation on that post and that you'll continue to email us your embargoed announcements at tips@readwriteweb.com.
1 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/9486
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Ho, well there is no embargo and what Notifixious is announcing tonite, besides the easiest way ever to subscribe to a website that you like, but you can still talk about it!
Posted by: Julien | December 17, 2008 2:40 PM
Julien, you need to read another post we put up this summer: How to Comment About Your Company on Blog Posts Without Being Spammy
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_to_comment_about_your_comp.php
THANK you, RWW, for agreeing that embargoes can be very useful for all parties. As always, appreciate your viewpoint on the age old industry flareup. You're a respected site for many a reason- this is just another.
Posted by: Frani Lieberman | December 17, 2008 2:44 PM
Interesting times indeed. I almost feel like Techcrunch is too big now. They are so big and get so much information that they can't sift through it effectively. They have a huge case of Infoenza. The end result is that they miss some great companies doing some great things. I think Scoble is there a bit as well...he just doesn't know it yet.
I for one will stick with blogs and news sources that are willing to deal with the people that do it wrong to find the few people that are doing it right.
Fight on RWW!!!
Troy Malone
Posted by: Troy Malone | December 17, 2008 2:44 PM
Having gone through the embargo process ...
I understand TechCrunch's argument, but Marshall is right here, news can't be turned into a race. Mistakes will be mad, journalists without scruples may make up information or go "Page Six" to stand out from the crowd, and how do we figure out who gets the information first?
Posted by: Brandon J. Mendelson | December 17, 2008 2:49 PM
I'm going to agree with the 7th comment on that linked post. I want you to cover the interested stuff and could care less if you're a day or two late. The 'have to be first' mentality is annoying as a reader and completely artificial. I don't read Mashable and I don't read TC because I don't care about knowing every single launch of every single company that has great PR. I want you guys to know that stuff, filter it and tell me about the really cool stuff out there. If I find out a couple of days later, but it has your good work covering it, I'm fine. I won't die because I didn't know 2 days earlier.
In other words... stop playing the scoop game.
Posted by: rick | December 17, 2008 2:51 PM
thanks
if there are some thieves it doesn't mean everyone allowed to steal from now on..
and good to have a balance of a more intellectual resource.. too bad you not organising conferences too )
Posted by: xim | December 17, 2008 2:55 PM
Making this out to be some kind of principled stance and then making gaping exceptions for Microsoft and Google makes this seem extra-scummy.
Posted by: Jeffrey | December 17, 2008 2:59 PM
How dare you apply logic to this issue!
As usual RWW is offering a well-thought out logical reason for their actions. Thank you.
This harkens back to the meme in August about whether good technology still needs PR and one of the voices of sanity was Marshall from RWW - http://tinyurl.com/4ggcjs
Posted by: Josh Morgan | December 17, 2008 3:06 PM
Breaking: Mike is right, Marshall is wrong. (and that doesn't happen very often, lol).
I disagreed with Richard's comments on the TC article, and I disagree with this post here. Embargoes, as abused as they have become lately, are a stupid and self-important practice in the blogosphere... bloggers want to get everything hand delivered to them THEN they turn around and whine and complain about PR companies who contact them in the "wrong" way... you have done so yourself Mr. K. (Do you recall saying something to the effect of: "PR People: Give me an RSS feed and pitch there"?) It's bloggers pissed at PR firms, Bloggers pissed at other bloggers, startups pissed at PR firms... it's a cyclical pattern of angst and blame.
I think Mike's post is more of a targeted attack PR companies and an industry-gone-mad while your post is nearing a blanket attack on startups. I'm behind Mike all the way on this one... And this is not personal, I've shown you nothing but respect and support for a long time, MK, and I hold you in high regards as one of my favorite personalities in the "Web sector" ... but on this topic Mike is firing on all cylinders, no doubt. Mike is doing the right thing! (Not the easy thing, but the RIGHT thing... for that, he get's my respect and my vote in this "debate". )
Posted by: Matt | December 17, 2008 3:12 PM
Great post (as was your former one). Some PR people definitely need to be trained on the hows/whens/whos of an embargo, but TC's newly stated approach isn't going to fix that problem, just make it worse.
And NDAs really do serve readers, writers, and companies by raising the level of research and product testing that go into a story.
I'm curious to see: A) what the PR industry's operational response will be; B) how long TC actually sticks to the new policy across all its properties. I'm guessing three days. CrunchGear has too many CES secrets to keep.
Posted by: Kyle Monson | December 17, 2008 3:15 PM
Well said.
Posted by: Ben Kuo | December 17, 2008 3:17 PM
I totally agree with you: articles that look like an AP note are not interesting.
Arrington is totally wrong! We are almost all using RSS readers which sorts articles by date DESC! This means that we first read the last article (First In, Last Out).
I changed my behavior: now I empty my "Not read" list in Google Reader every 1/2 days. This means that I skip TC's quickly written articles and read the deeper.... which are at the top of my list.
Techmeme??? I have a job and no time to see the information flow evoluate.
Posted by: hehe | December 17, 2008 3:19 PM
A well timed response and an admirable stance. Great analysis of why embargoes are valuable. Who really wants to see a rat race of who can post news on a blog first? Thoughtful analysis levels the playing field for more insightful writing. Keep up the great work RWW
Posted by: Chris Andrew | December 17, 2008 3:31 PM
Matt #10 said: "I think Mike's post is more of a targeted attack PR companies and an industry-gone-mad while your post is nearing a blanket attack on startups."
Firstly, I see where Mike is coming from and I agree with him that when others break embargoes consistently, then those people should be banned by PR companies.
But Matt, I can't understand the logic of your statement that our position is a "blanket attack on startups". Where did that come from? What we are saying is that exclusives isn't the answer, because inevitably the biggest blog will get the most. Put it this way, if MySpace decided they didn't want to risk not being covered by the biggest tech blog out there (TC), then they might decide the only way around that is to make sure TC gets all their exclusives. Apply that same logic to many other startups. Now you could argue that exclusives is how big media works - e.g. New York Times gets exclusives all the time. I understand that argument and indeed exclusives work great for us too. But still
marshall, i agree with the premise of the value of embargoes. some pr people use the embargo to compel/manipulate journalists -- but most of us have figured out the game. i'm sticking with embargoes.
andy
beet.tv
Posted by: andy plesser | December 17, 2008 4:17 PM
Embargoes has its important use for me. At times, the details that gets disclosed ahead of time but then it never really pushed through.
I encountered that once in a PR briefing where I got asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement document that takes effect all the way to particular date. Then that date came, more than half of what I was told did not materialize (postponed).
Posted by: Busby SEO Test Gary Viray | December 17, 2008 5:36 PM
I am honoring all embargoes. In fact I just was shown something mind blowing that won't be out until March because I do.
As to missing new companies. You couldn't be more wrong. Watch http://friendfeed.com/scobleizer/likes to see how many of the new stuff I catch. Also, anything really good gets on TechMeme within minutes and I read that too.
Posted by: Robert Scoble | December 17, 2008 5:45 PM
I cannot think of one reason someone wouldn't accept embargoes, except that you're an arrogant blogger who thinks the world owes you. I think the argument that traditional PR is dead is untrue. IMHO, traditional PR lives alongside the new rules of PR.
Posted by: Jon Silvers | December 17, 2008 5:46 PM
So decades of collusion are now crumbling, forcing old lazy methods of spoon feeding information out to the world to cease to exist? This cronyism is done so PR firms can justify their $30,000.00 a month retainers fees?
I just love watching corrupt, outmoded institutions self destruct.Good riddance, seriously.
I also enjoyed this little nugget of WIN:
“Quite a few company CEOs tell me that Twitter and FriendFeed are bringing more traffic than any other blog than TechCrunch anyway…” - Robert Scoble
Posted by: Todd | December 17, 2008 6:20 PM
Thanks Read Write Web! You guys are the best... Mike Arrington continues to dig a deeper hole with each blog post he writes. He sounds like a little baby. I respect your agreement to respect embargoes. Good for you!
Posted by: Anonymouse | December 17, 2008 6:36 PM
As a blogger, I definitely value embargoes for all the reasons you listed Marshall. The embargo system however, like any other system, has plenty of room for improvement. While I believe Arrington's post and premise to be ridiculous, antagonistic and simply unnecessary, I do hope it causes firms to analyze the way they disperse information. In that respect it seems to be working thus far, though only time will tell whether or not the commotion causes reform or just a brief stir. At the end of the day, I imagine most firms simply won't care if TechCrunch breaks an embargo as the echo chamber will still get plenty of coverage for their clients...
The bottom line is that I have integrity as well as respect for fellow writers. I also have respect for responsible PR flacks who are just trying to do their jobs. As such, I'll continue to honor embargoes.
Posted by: Zach | December 17, 2008 6:36 PM
Marshall - I would agree with you. In the 6 or so mos I've been writing for bub.blicio.us, I've honored every embargo. In fact, I love them. It's one of those nice opportunities to really think through the product and write an in-depth post without a "publish-it-now" mentality. In fact, I usually publish in advance and schedule it to post after the embargo ends.
That said, I do believe PR needs to change in how it approaches bloggers. I run a niche wine blog as well, and I get an amazing number of press releases from PR folk who have obviously never read anything except my ranking. I'm in Cincinnati - I don't care if a wine bar in Seattle is having a grand opening, and neither do my readers. I've set up an amazing number of filters to just pop that sort of thing straight into the trash. There are some PR people who read my blog and submit stories about which my readers might care, though, and I appreciate their effort and research. I think a lot of PR folks need a crash course in how to approach bloggers.
Cheers!
Posted by: Michelle Lentz | December 17, 2008 6:55 PM
The problem is that too many bloggers are more concerned with getting the headline out first, instead of actually getting the story accurate and providing some real analysis on what it means to the industry. These days too many folks are just re-hashing a press release.
Who cares if you break the news early, the moment it crosses the wire or the day after? If you are a good writer, your article will still be read for what you are writing about and not whether or not you put the news out first. I don't expect Tech Crunch to understand that because they are more concerned about getting a headline and adding drama.
It's the same principal when a writer puts in their headline "exclusive". It's not exclusive. Someone else besides the author knows about the announcement as well, the only difference is that they aren't writing about it. But it's not "exclusive" to the blogger and I think it shows an ego on the part of the writer.
Bloggers who don't agree to embargos don't understand about building relationships. Over time, companies will give you news they will allow you to publish early if you have honored embargos in the past. It's about building trust and creating a relationship with the folks who are giving you information.
Posted by: Dan Rayburn | December 17, 2008 7:17 PM
Entrepreneurs: A mention on a blitz site like TC will do nothing material for your business, or impress the women; why knock yourself out wasting precious time and money trying? Look at the 100s before you... 9-5 enterprise lurkers with no affinity to your business spike your site for a day. Um...what then? Spend your time and money with your network of colleagues, CUSTOMERS, brethren and family. Stop stressing and have some fun too. Tenacious != Verocious
The most interesting posts educate or provoke i.e. having RWW spread some of its hacker magic on something that you "just don't get". The ah moments.
@TC Why not reward the best instead of averaging down?
Posted by: Steve Ireland | December 17, 2008 8:25 PM
hahahaha ..
this is great. TechCrunch loss is your gain .... I was a regular reader of TechCrunch, now i will start reading RWW as well.
Good Move.
Posted by: Rashmi Ranjan Padhy | December 17, 2008 8:31 PM
Thank you for your thoughtful response to what was truly an ill-considered, disrespectful way to deal with an issue that affects all of us who write about technology. As always, RWW shows itself to be the standout!
Posted by: Wendy | December 17, 2008 8:53 PM
Arrington is playing this like a pro. He goes "no embargo" and everyone trips over themselves giving TechCrunch extra attention.
His "we're ignoring all embargoes" position isn't really as big a deal as it first appears. If you read past the first paragraph, you'll see that he's not going to shaft Google, Microsoft or his short list of "good guys".
His post also indicated that there was room for exceptions for other reputable companies.
In other words, TechCrunch actually announced that they'll ignore some embargoes in an effort to get PR firms to straighten up and fly right while respecting the embargoes of those who matter most.
I'm not saying it's a meaningless gesture, but it isn't quite as big and devil-may-care as some seem to think.
Meanwhile, it's doing its job. TechCrunch is getting attention. Some in the PR world might wake up a little bit. The bread butterers know that they're not at risk.
Posted by: Carson | December 17, 2008 9:29 PM
Marshall,
kudos to you for balancing the perspective here on the rage against embargoes. Frankly, it's a shame that a few bad apples, on both sides of the fence, have made the situation intolerable for some like TC. However, IMHO, while the process isn't perfect, it's worked well enough for decades now, and I doubt it will change anytime soon. Why? Well, I think in spite of the occasional flagrant abuses, overall both parties (PR firms & reporters/bloggers) do handle the embargo process just fine.
I think PR folks will now have to present to their clients the pros & cons of giving TC an exclusive or not. Frankly, working with an influential news site or blog on an exclusive basis can be a smart move for some companies in certain situations. However, all things considered, my bet is that most companies will choose to cast a collectively wider net and will want to work with blogs and news outlets that do honor embargoes. We'll certainly factor in new and existing policies that TC & RWW have and will present those to our clients so they can decide what path they'd like to take for making their news announcements to the market.
Posted by: Carmen Hughes | December 17, 2008 9:40 PM
Thank you...I've worked at public companies and at PR firms and the power of the embargo is key. But, it is about respect on both ends. While there has always been the "dance" between PR and journalists - at the end of the day we are all in the news business. And, the business of telling compelling stories tied to daily trends. We are not and should not be enemies...
Posted by: Kathleen Shanahan | December 17, 2008 10:53 PM
The issue is who truly benefits from embargo's?
Publisher? PR Company? Marketing? Consumer? (I think not)
Tech Crunch's other point is this is an old school tie gentleman's agreement where no body wears ties and gentleman is the name on the door that ladies don't use.
http://tinyurl.com/3mqrju
Posted by: Brendan McNally | December 17, 2008 11:04 PM
Being the first to report is not always the best.
Quality counts in the end.
However social media is just the opposite: anyone anywhere anytime can report (almost incognito) on an event or a pre-release of a product or solution.
There will be three kinds of sources:
- The fast ones with hardly any content quality (social media or TC)
- The slower ones: having quality content (blogs - R&W)
- The laggards: printed press trying to get an even deeper insight
Posted by: LEADSExplorer | December 18, 2008 1:25 AM
This is perfect intention to nurture Startup, entreprenuers and help the PR industry to grow with new media. TC for me is a simple blog site with an intention to create controversy. Enough of them in old ages, new age people don't need that any more. Social media is the future of PR. One minus reader for Techcrunch
Posted by: Tosh Gary | December 18, 2008 4:46 AM
It's simple, just listen to your audience. Whether you support embargo's or not, you must think that decision ultimately benefits the reader (otherwise you've missed the whole point of reporting).
Some readers do want the content through means of embargo's and the benefits that go along with that. In the past, this was accepted as a best practice. However, many readers today, want content instantly. They want the first day quick review of a new tech product, they can get the details later, for example.
The pace of media has changed and embargo's support the old media. New media supports the modern audience. So it is up to the writer to decide which audience he has, and stick to it. Micheal Arrington thinks his audience would prefer no embargo's and I can't disagree.
Posted by: Erik Florida | December 18, 2008 5:33 AM
NDAs, which amount to news embargoes, prohibits a reporter from publishing information about a particular product before the manufacturers make their announcements. Reporters argue that such types of agreements are a waste of time because they would be hard to implement.
Posted by: Create Custom Dayparts in Google TV Ads Campaigns | December 18, 2008 5:52 AM
This post is pointless and written purely so people who read Techmeme click on over to see what dumbass Marshall has to say. He clearly has some beef with Mike at TC, probably cause when he left, TC blew up.
TC doesn't have to respect embargoes. PR firms will take whatever they can get from TC, they are the ultimate place to break a story, early or not.
RWW has to respect embargoes b/c if they don't they will no longer be contacted by PR firms with good stories and they will tank as a blog.
Next time, compare apples to apples, Marshall!
Posted by: joefromtexas41 | December 18, 2008 8:19 AM
While I agree with your post Marshall - there's one piece I dont:
"No one is perfect and every site that receives embargoed briefings has broken at least one, usually on accident, at some point."
Not true - I'd bet that the majority of sites actually haven't broken one embargo. "every site" can't be true because I know I haven't and plenty of others who haven't either. I do agree on the accident point.
Posted by: Allen | December 18, 2008 8:31 AM
Thank you, RWW for being the single voice of reason in this argument.
As a PR person, I've been prepped to be reviled by journalists and the general public since I was taking it up in school. I can see why Michael Arrington and the TechCrunch crew are pretty pissed off-- some PR firms are really out of control with spamming and are just out of touch with the proper way to send out and promote news stories. To be honest, I don't understand why Mike doesn't just call out individual PR offenders rather than the whole industry like a total blowhard.
I agree that it's a bit unfair of them to no longer honor embargoes, because I do think that when you do it right, embargoes can be a good thing and offer a closer, in-depth look at news stories for the bloggers/journalists who take the time to examine them.
Posted by: Stephanie | December 18, 2008 10:01 AM
Well after all of this - set up - Embargo Zone. Anyone that is PR or blogs that don't want to write about a particular press release can just drop them off at tips [at] embargozone [dot] com. Look at like a clearing house for stuff that no one writes about and with this one location, you can as a blogger pick and choose if you wish to write further. This isn't a typical blog, where the blogger's opinion will be in there, or from the point of view of the blogger. It will be a place where anyone can send in information - and we post it. Period.
Posted by: Rex
|
December 18, 2008 11:11 AM
Oh, get off your rightous pose! Carson at #28 has it right: Arringrton is not against embargoes - read again, he never said that!
He is protesting ONLY the PR firms that abuse embargoes and don't punish those who repeatedly break them. He's good use of his position in the charts to make a point. A point that is meant to jolt the PRs into keeping their subscribers on a shorter leash.
He's doing it not only for TC but FOR YOU AS WELL, can't you see? But like any hunger strike, this can't last forever, and I bet the PR firms will put up a fight but end up straightening up and start kicking embargo breakers off their lists, at which point I trust TC will reinstate trusting relationships with those firms and calm things down.
For you to blow this out of proportions and present it as if MA is against embargoes on the whole or something, is a low, cheap blow, and I'm disappointed most people in the comments above don't see through it.
Posted by: Ira | December 18, 2008 4:25 PM
Ira - thanks for your comment. I'll take it into consideration.
Marshall and RWW - kudos for this post and its logical analysis. If blogging is about analysis and perspective, then it shouldn't really matter who breaks news. If a blog becomes known for breaking news but doesn't provide interesting perspectives, folks will read their headlines in RSS and go elsewhere to read posts and interact. Here's another bit of logic - If readers really did all migrate to the blogs that are supposedly breaking news first, then why would entrepreneurs care about getting covered broadly? The answer from an entrepreneur's perspective is that it's much more valuable to have 5 other blogs cover your news than just Techcrunch, for example. Also, I don't see another viable approach for launching a new feature. It's not good for anyone if a blogger covers a feature before it's live. Asking people to cover something after it actually launches seems reasonable, not sure how to accomplish that without an embargo. The idea of an exclusive is pretty silly to all except those proposing it. An exclusive might make sense if it was Walt Mossberg or maybe even David Pogue, but I don't think either requires exclusivity. I'm also not sure why bloggers view each other so much as cutthroat competitors. The advantage of the web is that folks can read multiple blogs and get multiple perspectives. Anyway, thanks for the post and you can certainly expect thoughtful pitches of news under embargo from us!
Posted by: Ron | December 18, 2008 6:30 PM
So the web is instantaneous and the race is on... twitter beats everyone to the punch... but then the feed is gone and what is left?
The whole web is left!
It doesn't matter who gets it first - what matters is who gets it RIGHT!
Bloggers: Look at your stats. See how many pages you published a year ago that are still getting hit by search traffic? The pages that GET IT RIGHT always rank higher in search than the ones who just go for the 1st publishing (bragging) rights. Long term results seem more important to me.
Great post, Marshall!
Posted by: Jon | December 18, 2008 10:26 PM
And, BTW, who is this 'Michael Arrington' anyway?
I read TC for about a month and then deleted them from my reader. Too 'rich' for my blood.
Posted by: Jon | December 18, 2008 10:28 PM
Obviously both parties will gain publicity and attention from different kinds of startups/PR firms. But still the way TC handles things is just so damn arrogant and unfriendly that you just want to disagree with them all the more.
For me, RWW is one of the few tech blogs I really respect around there and I'd rather work with you and have slightly less coverage (if at all) than go through the TC mess. Keep up the good work!
Cheers,
Martin
Posted by: Martin B. | December 22, 2008 6:02 AM
nice blog guys and great info
Posted by: Suhendrawan | January 1, 2009 10:45 PM