Home › Blogs › kerry's blog ›

The Heated Embargo Debate

Tags:
Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:18:46 -0500

For those of you managing PR for technology companies, you’ve likely been following the hub-bub over the past 24 hours related to Walt Mossberg’s apparent “embargo break” and early posting of a TiVo product review.  With nearly all the big tech reviewers chiming in on the debate, accusations flew, fingers were pointed and names were called.  Unfortunately, the PR profession is one of the victims of the Twitter mudslinging:

Philip Berne, Phonescoop.com: “I agree about PR causing these problems”
Brian Lam, Gizmodo: “…probably PR’s fault in hindsight”
 
Regardless of whether Walt published the news before he was supposed to or whether TiVo PR gave him permission to run it early, the debate has become less about who is to blame and more about the relevance of embargoes.  The big issue at hand is whether the traditional embargo still makes sense in today’s communications landscape – where information is reported online in real-time, as fast as it happens.  The race among bloggers and online editors to be first to post has become almost as important as the quality of the review or news being reported.  Lance Ulanoff, PCMag.com, sums it up as: “An NDA lift at 12:01 AM.  That’s when we publish.  3 hours can be worth 1,000s of page views.”
 
Perhaps the industry —both reporters and PR practitioners— is shifting opinions on setting and honoring embargoes.  What do you think?  Are embargoes still relevant in today’s competitive environment of “get it out fast” to “get the most readers”? 
 
Post a comment and let us know what you think.
 
And, to read up on the Twitter back-and-forth regarding the Mossberg situation, check out the following reviewers’ Twitter handles: