

The news embargo is dead. TechCrunch killed it. Let's move on. - waderoush
http://www.xconomy.com/national/2011/05/06/the-news-embargo-is-dead-techcrunch-killed-it-lets-move-on/

======
barkingcat
Embargos (at least the kind used in media / PR) don't make any sense in this
time and age. It has no teeth, and the benefits of the embargo are dubious at
best.

I wholeheartedly agree with the "randomly break embargo" strategy - because
once you give a story to a reporter, you can't say - oh wait - don't publish
it until we say so ... or until we farm out the "embargo breaking" lead
position to the highest bidder (for favours, good reviews, gifts, etc).

Embargoes represent corruption and collusion in the media - and killing them
makes media and news sources / makers more accountable.

~~~
BenSchaechter
While I understand your points, I still think embargos still have value --
especially from an entrepreneur's perspective. As someone who has worked for
TechCrunch and now have since started my own company, I completely get the
power of press and how hard it is to get if you're not a Quora, Facebook,
Twitter, etc.

When you have news as a burgeoning startup, it is like gold. Your startup's
traction may be in large part due to having people just know you exist --
which if you've ever started a website/company, you know how hard that is.

That being said, for the press to break embargos just to have reported the
news first seems sort of unfair to the entrepreneur who worker his/her ass off
to get to the point to even be in a position to have press. Usually the reason
the press breaks embargos is so they can "break the news first". Then, no
other blog/press will cover it because its "dead news" regardless of it may
have value to their readers -- even if they're a few minutes behind.

Obviously, its a bit of a gray area. However, to me, the majority of the time
its competition amongst the press to "break the story" that really ends up
hurting up-and-coming startups.

~~~
wmf
_Then, no other blog/press will cover it because its "dead news" regardless of
it may have value to their readers_

It seems the opposite to me. Since the press doesn't want to link out, even a
trivial press release creates dozens of redundant stories.

------
zacharycohn
I think the punishment for breaking embargoes is that they won't be getting
the news early next time. They'll get an email an hour before the embargo, and
that's all the extra time they get.

If you want to embargo something, someone breaks it, and you send them
embargoed information again... then that's your own fault.

~~~
barkingcat
The problem with that punishment is that it "hurts yourself" - what are you
going to do - stop giving news to the CNN or Wired Magazine for example if
they break an embargo? Techcrunch can break embargoes because there is
literally no point in not giving news to Techcrunch.

And "an email an hour before" is enough to build a great story around a
developing issue - this is no challenge to a real newsroom.

It just doesn't make any sense - the only thing embargoes do is to inflate the
egos of PR firms.

------
vipivip
Do you think folks at TC think they are better than the rest?

~~~
barkingcat
No - I think TC thinks that news makers (PR firms, companies, corporations,
governments) have no right to demand the embargo in the first place.

