Time to hit pause on increasingly absurd embargoes
Here Mumbrella chief reporter Eleanor Dickinson examines the issue of embargoes on press releases, concluding the venerable practice has become over-used and problematic.
Eleanor Dickinson (Mumbrella)
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.
Most embargoes exist because either corporate comms has a plan to release and everyone has to work with it OR because we want to try to give everyone enough time to write the actual story properly.
So by reducing those two principles you’re either going to get less interesting stories or less well written stories.
I think ignoring embargoes will therefore be net bad for the quality of any publication. Could be wrong: but honestly, I don’t think I am!
I publish a global newsletter in a niche market, and readers expect us to report on product launches in a timely fashion.
If we had to wait for a press release at the time of launch, we would be under pressure to handle it professionally — i.e. not just regurgitating the release.
So I have worked hard to ensure we get advance notice of developments in our industry, and I am happy to sit on a story until the embargo lifts. It is a reasonable price to pay for the ability to publish a considered take rather than a rushed PR rewrite.