I didn’t like embargoes when I was a reporter, but as a PR person, I became a big fan. They were a good way to get a little more excitement into a story, a little more exclusivity, without giving one and only one media outlet an “exclusive.” They allowed you to line up interviews in an orderly fashion, and they allowed reporters to have a little extra time to prepare their story.
That was largely pre-Internet. Now, with so many blogs covering news, and with every media outlet having an online component, I’m wondering whether we need to rethink the use of this tactic.
I’ve heard numerous stories from PR people who tried to issue news under an embargo, only to have one or more journalists agree to the embargo and then break it, in an attempt to be the first with the story. This was always a risk, but when media published on a fixed schedule, it was largely manageable.
On the other hand, I’ve also heard recently of journalists (both traditional and bloggers) continuing to agree to and abide by embargoes.
Should we deep-six embargoes? Or is there still some life left? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
In the meantime, here’s a checklist of things to consider when you’re thinking about issuing news under an embargo:
- Who is on the embargo list, and who’s being left off?
- Do you trust those who will get the news under embargo to keep their word?
- Are you risking alienating others who didn’t get the news under embargo?
- Does the embargo significantly improve your odds of getting media coverage, or is it just a tactic you’re using out of habit?
- What will you do if someone breaks the embargo?
******
Update: Here’s a story on PRWeek about the subject of embargoes as well.
