3 ms·

The news embargo is dead. TechCrunch killed it. Let's move on.

15 points by waderoush 15y ago

vipivip 15y ago
Do you think folks at TC think they are better than the rest?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- barkingcat 15y ago
  No - I think TC thinks that news makers (PR firms, companies, corporations, governments) have no right to demand the embargo in the first place.
- dchest 15y ago
  http://techcrunch.com/2008/12/17/death-to-the-embargo/ http://techcrunch.com/2008/12/17/death-to-the-embargo/
barkingcat 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
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.
- BrandonM 15y ago
  The author says on page 2 that TechCrunch randomly breaks embargoes with impunity. He blames this on the "newsmakers" for not carrying through with punishment.
- barkingcat 15y ago
  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.

15 points by waderoush 15y ago

vipivip 15y ago

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

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
barkingcat 15y ago
No - I think TC thinks that news makers (PR firms, companies, corporations, governments) have no right to demand the embargo in the first place.
dchest 15y ago
http://techcrunch.com/2008/12/17/death-to-the-embargo/ http://techcrunch.com/2008/12/17/death-to-the-embargo/

barkingcat 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago

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.

BrandonM 15y ago
The author says on page 2 that TechCrunch randomly breaks embargoes with impunity. He blames this on the "newsmakers" for not carrying through with punishment.
barkingcat 15y ago
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.