Time to hit pause on increasingly absurd embargoes

As a journalist, I value a well-handled embargoed story. Lately, though, it feels as though many embargoes are verging on the absurd.

Certain recent instances have been so arbitrary that they often seem little more than a tool for controlling the narrative, something that is harmful to both the communications industry and the brands it claims to serve.

Take last month’s public commotion, when Startup Daily editor Simon Thomsen took a local PR to task after an overnight embargo for Stone & Chalk CEO’s departure inevitably leaked. The embargo had been for a full 17 hours.

Writing on Linkedin, he said: “Yesterday I was sent an announcement by a PR with news under embargo until 9am tomorrow.

“My inbox and SMS are now lighting up with messages about an email said person involved in the announcement has sent to them.

“So, do I respect the ’embargo’ on news that’s now public?

“Or simply write the story from the email sent to an untold number of people?”

As some of my ex-PR friends noted, this imbroglio is a textbook example of a trend that sees embargoes increasingly abused across the communications landscape.

When a CEO departure is announced, the goal should be a coordinated, clear message for key stakeholders, clients, and the media. Two hours is more than enough. Seventeen is simply farcical.

Consequently, what should be a straightforward announcement becomes a meta-story about the announcement itself, creating confused messaging, frustrated journalists and needless noise in what should be a smooth leadership transition.

Not everything needs an embargo

It’s not that embargoes are inherently bad. As Paul Wallbank, who has worked on both sides of the fence as head of communications for the Australian Computer Society and as a journalist, noted: “An embargo has a legitimate reason for its existence, such as managing key stakeholders or releasing news at a specific time, especially if regulatory issues are at stake.”

A good example of this, Wallbank says, is the federal budget, where journalists are “locked in” with the budget documents and expected to release their coverage at the same time, each with their own takes and depths.

However, over recent years, Wallbank said they have become increasingly “overused in ways that are irritating and unnecessary. Most stories do not actually need an embargo.”

At times, embargoes can even seem “presumptuous” if shared with a journalist without prior clearance.

“Journalists certainly don’t have to respect an embargo if it’s unreasonable,” he said.

For Ashleigh Roberts, a freelance public relations consultant, an embargo’s effectiveness goes beyond simply managing timing: it can also be a potent tool from a branding and campaign standpoint.

“When used correctly, embargoes are surprisingly effective for generating lots of media coverage,” she said.

“They create that ‘big bang’ effect of a story going live at the same time across multiple publications. It’s a good strategic play for controlling an announcement’s timing, so that the message goes to all the right people at the right time.

“They also give journalists the time to explore more depth, whether that’s setting up interviews, providing research, or exploring different angles.”

However, like Wallbank, she also cautioned: “Not all news is worth an embargo.”

So what does make a good embargoed story?

For me, it comes down to one simple rule: the story has to be genuinely “new.” If it isn’t, no amount of timing control or PR choreography will make the embargo meaningful or credible.

While that might seem like a rather obvious point, a textbook example came last week: “JCDecaux Secures Exclusive Yarra Trams Advertising Contract for 14 Years.”

It would have been a great story for Mumbrella were it not for the fact that JCDecaux’s global PR team had beaten us to it by a full seven days.

We could have written this off as an accidental misalignment between time zones and global PR teams. But from any editor’s point of view, a week-old announcement, even if not publicised locally, is still “old news.”

In this case, JCDecaux insisted we respect the embargo for news it had already broken as an organisation. Bizarrely, several other trade press titles apparently obeyed the embargo.

In the grand scheme of a global marketing push, irritating a journalist might seem inconsequential. But I would argue that in an industry as small and tight-knit as trade press and B2B communications, relationships with media matter — a lot. The cumulative impact of these kinds of incidents can set a relationship back significantly.

Meanwhile, a costly example of an embargo gone wrong comes from the recent release of the Melania documentary, where a global miscommunication of Amazon MGM Studios’ strict US embargo resulted in multiple screenings of the film being postponed or cancelled.

Naturally, in this kind of climate, the situation became fodder for anti-censorship conspiracy theorists, but was undoubtedly a branding and comms trainwreck for anyone else.

Ultimately, the lesson is simple: embargoes work when they serve a clear purpose, whether that’s managing timing, coordinating stakeholders, or giving journalists the chance to gather information for a story of real news value.

As Roberts notes, the most successful embargoes are built on trust and respect between PR professionals, journalists, and the audiences they serve. When genuinely necessary, an embargo can create a coordinated, impactful story that benefits everyone.

Without a legitimate reason, however, embargoes become little more than a default tool for control, often verging on the absurd.

For this reason, Wallbank has a clear message for the PR industry:

“Communications professionals should be pushing back against management that demands them, and ask whether an embargo is truly necessary at all.

“A general release for a significant story will work just as effectively, as long as you are consistent with your communications and relationships across both brands and media.”

Related Content

Analysis The Malinauskas comms lesson: Start with values

Opinion A controversy about rocks hits Mumbrella