Next Question
RSS
If he does upset PR companies to the point that he doesn't receive the news any more, surely that will only damage is own business? If I was one of the companies who he said he'd make exceptions for I would seriously question of that was going to happen.
It does however draw a good amount of attention to himself - perhaps that's what he's after?
Permalink | Report
1 - Companies that are desperate for the attention and don't really care about the news being broken early, will still send the heads up to him.
2 - Companies that really want to keep a veil of secrecy around their announcement just won't send their info to TechCrunch...
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
He sounds very angry at the situation. It also seems like this is many months of frustration bubbling to the surface and such a declaration was necessary.
He's being angry, but not mean. It seems fair what he is saying. It's almost like a Declaration of (embargo) Independence. He's laid out his greviances, laid out how he and the staff have tried to deal with them, and then laid out the declaration.
Also, it's not like it's indiscriminate. It looks like people who have behaved cilvilly, who have followed the rules, will not be lumped in with the rest of the PR groups.
Harsh, but fair. And funny.
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
On the other hand, companies don't need to give him any info at all, so you have to admire the honesty as he takes this calculated risk.
Permalink | Report
I predict the latter. Bad guys here aren't the PR firms, they are simply following their customers demands which have turned desperate in a weak economy.
Permalink | Report
This just means that from now on, the only PR people who will send embargoed information to TechCrunch fall into two groups; the first group is made up of those who *want* their embargoes broken in order to drum up more viral attention, and the second group is just ignorant.
Permalink | Report
PR firms do not enforce embargoes.
The ones who get punished are the ones who heed the embargoes.
Ergo, he is going to break the embargoes.
It makes sense as long as the premises remain true. You can argue that two wrongs don't make a right, but all they are doing is peeling away a fiction.
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
"From this point on we will break every embargo we agree to."
Maybe we can all not do what we agree to do, and existence will cease?
In all seriousness I'd go with a slow news day first, the above second.
Permalink | Report
BS?
Linkbait?
After dealing with PR pitches and embargos as a blogger in a previous life (not to the order of magnitude that Arrington does, but still...) I would add a fourth option to your list: Frustration.
With all eyes on TechCrunch as THE tech blog to get your product mentioned in for maximum exposure online, I believe Arrington is doing this to change the way PR people think and act on behalf of their clients and, more importantly, how they treat the online press (bloggers).
Couple the above with the fact that competing blogs in the same space are out to get the stories up and be first at almost any cost, seemingly without consequence, and you have the cause of Arrington's frustration.
Plus, going toe to toe with the status quo makes great linkbait on any blog.
Permalink | Report
What do I think? It's a crummy practice to agree to something, then break that agreement. BUT, if he makes it widely known that he will "agree to anything, then do whatever he wants" then who is to blame when he breaks an embargo?
This will probably work out well for TechCrunch.
Permalink | Report
If PR firms are doing what he lays out (with the notable exceptions he mentioned), then they are not doing a good job for their client and companies would be well advised to drop those firms. If all your going to do is send a bunch of e-mail, just get a temp who has good writing skills.
He is right to treat people who don't mean what they say as if they don't mean what they say.
Permalink | Report
I guess there is the risk that he and his journalist could get a reputation of not being trust worthy and therefor not sent the information early allow others to get the jump on him
Should we also assume that the random clause was added so they could break MS and Google stories by 1 minute/second and not get thrown off of their PR list? He did promise to break all embargos so you assume that MS and Googles are included.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_(journalism)
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
Some replies here say that PR companies won't send him news anymore. If this were the case with other blogs then he wouldn't be so upset. I don't see why PR firms would now single TC out.Other replies say that he will be in legal breach of contract trouble. Again why single TC out if this doesn't happen to other blogs?
The other biggest complaint is that this move is somehow dishonorable or disrespectful. I think that these have to be weighed with the expected norm. Is it disrespectful to wear your shoes/hat/jacket/girdle in my house? What if me and everyone else there are wearing them? He's just following what he perceives to be the norm.
Now will this help his cause? That's a tough one. It depends on how much pull TC has with the PR firms it deals with and how much flak these PR firms get from others who read this article. If he starts a trend and all bloggers start to do the same, then I think this will get him somewhere.
Permalink | Report
Source(s):
http://www.techcrunch.com/
Permalink | Report
If they leak to everyone then how would they know who leaked? Makes no sense to support this system if it is flawed by design.
Permalink | Report
Save your frustration of working with MA and TC and just publish to other sources. Done!
Permalink | Report
I can't even begin to fathom the amount of emails and calls the writers at a top blog like TC get on a daily basis; I struggle to deal with the couple of hundred I get myself. I can only surmise the situation has long since become untenable and Arrington sees this move as having the best possibility of a solution.
TC will still get news and even break news, however they may get it more like I suspect they used to in the early days, from trusted contacts and sources rather than PR folks. Just take a moment and imagine all of the PR folks out there, and how they reason that a scattered shotgun approach rather than a focused campaign doesn't really hurt their objective. For a while there it may even have helped; yet lately it's become increasingly difficult for the bloggers to find any real meat in their inbox. As the PR crew senses they are getting less and less or a response they decide to start going for the cell phones, perhaps even texting. Now imagine how insane this could get if you are on the receiving end of things...
So, Michael decided to change the rules. I don't see that he had much of an option really, do you? So, things may get a little odd for a bit, surely some folks will get offended or get their feelings hurt if their embargoes are broken. Before long I'd bet most will learn to put away their shotguns, or at the very least choke them down to a reasonable pattern, something other than wide open. The best among them will cultivate relationships once again, and use a few choice well aimed bullets to get the job done.
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
Michael - they might be "desperate to get press" for their clients but who said they were desperate to get it from you specifically?
The last reporter who worked without any help from PR was Lois Lane -and that's only because she was sleeping with Super Man.
Permalink | Report
I don't know if he'll actually go through with breaking an embargo. If they are really a legally binding contract I would think he would be better off honoring them. Even if they aren't a legal contract he should be ethically bound to honor the embargo if he agreed to the terms. I think he should definitely publish a list of writers who do not honor the embargoes. I'd really be interested to see who is on that list.
Permalink | Report
Arrington makes it as clear as mud, he will break all embargo's..
Oh except for his 3 best PR friends and the few big PR's & Corporates he respects.
TIME OUT! We are talking about a niche online publication, about embargo's (restraint, prohibition, government order). The self serving nature of the 4th estate & the PR professional must surely be the reason this anachronistic concept still exists.
"Publish and be dammed" Mr Arrington, you will get less PR mail, phone calls, and schmoozing. We the consumer may even get some old fashioned scoop journalism and well written and researched stories.
Permalink | Report
Source(s):
http://www.contentandmotion.com/blog/dont-pay-good-money-for-bog-standard-p...
Permalink | Report
Another situation that occurs frequently is that a product is officially announced and even released for sale overseas, but in order to stay in the good graces of the company who released it, we have to obey an arbitrary embargo on "writing about it in the U.S."
Anyhow, we continue to obey these and plan to keep that policy, because our word has to be worth something. And we have to agree to them in order to maintain our relationships with vendors. But playing ball absolutely puts us at a disadvantage and PR people need to know that.
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$10
December 17, 2008 08:26 PM
What do you think of Michael Arrington of TechCrunch promising to break every embargo he gets?
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/12/17/death-to-the-embargo/
"From now our new policy is to break every embargo. We’ll happily agree to whatever you ask of us, and then we’ll just do whatever we feel like right after that. We may break an embargo by one minute or three days. We’ll choose at random."
Brilliant?
BS?
Linkbait?
"From now our new policy is to break every embargo. We’ll happily agree to whatever you ask of us, and then we’ll just do whatever we feel like right after that. We may break an embargo by one minute or three days. We’ll choose at random."
Brilliant?
BS?
Linkbait?
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
- In Journalism & Media |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Other Answers (55)
December 17, 2008 08:36 PM
If someone sends it and says "embargoed" and you didn't agree there is no contract. you have to agree.
Report
December 17, 2008 08:56 PM
@jasoncalacanis: But Arrington says that he will break "every embargo he agrees to," not every embargo he is sent.
Report
December 17, 2008 10:57 PM
There absolutely is not any implied break of contract, because there is no contract there at all in English law. Where's the consideration?
Report
December 17, 2008 08:33 PM
I can see where he is coming from, that said I can't see how it will help his cause at all. Two wrongs don't make a right and I can't see lots of other sites following suit and causing PR companies to re-think. If he does upset PR companies to the point that he doesn't receive the news any more, surely that will only damage is own business? If I was one of the companies who he said he'd make exceptions for I would seriously question of that was going to happen.
It does however draw a good amount of attention to himself - perhaps that's what he's after?
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 08:33 PM
It will lead to two things: 1 - Companies that are desperate for the attention and don't really care about the news being broken early, will still send the heads up to him.
2 - Companies that really want to keep a veil of secrecy around their announcement just won't send their info to TechCrunch...
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 08:35 PM
If he really does it, he's going to expose himself to serious risk of litigation. Or, he will just be cutting himself completely out of the loop. Who would give you information they didn't want leaked right away if you promised you would do so? That's like Charlie Brown asking Lucy to hold the football!
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 08:38 PM
To quote the wise sage Worf "They have no honor." I suspect this will be the end of Harrington and TechCrunch getting any advance notice of anything. He is not the only meme creator out there and I believe a lot of companies have very good reasons for embargos. Not all, but if you accept the confidence, you accept the responsibility to keep it till its ok to go public.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 08:38 PM
Arrington's main beef seems to be in this sentence: "Any blog or major media site, no matter how small or new, gets the email." Basically, he's upset that little blogs he's never heard of are getting the same access as TechCruch. He wants exclusives, and is angry that PR folks have discovered that giving TechCrunch exclusives is a great benefit for TechCrunch but not so much for their clients. The only way to get an exclusive now is to break the embargo before everyone else, so that's what he's going to do.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 08:39 PM
Oh, my. He sounds very angry at the situation. It also seems like this is many months of frustration bubbling to the surface and such a declaration was necessary.
He's being angry, but not mean. It seems fair what he is saying. It's almost like a Declaration of (embargo) Independence. He's laid out his greviances, laid out how he and the staff have tried to deal with them, and then laid out the declaration.
Also, it's not like it's indiscriminate. It looks like people who have behaved cilvilly, who have followed the rules, will not be lumped in with the rest of the PR groups.
Harsh, but fair. And funny.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 08:43 PM
Interesting. Techcrunch is a bit enough site that he will most likely keep a healthy number of firms sending information just to get it on the site, whether he breaks the embargo or not. I think what he's trying to do is strong-arm some of the smaller guys out of the loops since granting exclusive rights to TC only means the story doesn't necessarily get to the smaller blogs right away, if at all.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 08:48 PM
I think it is a show pony move, pure and simple. Sure, there's substance in his work, but this reeks of P.T. Barnum-like arrogance and announces a certain disdain for others. On the other hand, companies don't need to give him any info at all, so you have to admire the honesty as he takes this calculated risk.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 08:50 PM
It's either a brilliant bold move which will influence the tech media to stand up and unite against PR firms, or, a fatal stab in TechCruch's already weak heart. I predict the latter. Bad guys here aren't the PR firms, they are simply following their customers demands which have turned desperate in a weak economy.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 18, 2008 02:44 PM
Actually I just figured this out!!! Jason, you're giving TechCrunch a plug for all the traffic it has been sending to MAHALO.com. See proof here http://tinyurl.com/mahaloinbedwithtechcrunch and http://tinyurl.com/mahalo-loves-techcrunch
Ahhh, 10 Mahalo dlls, you're mine!!!!
Report
Ahhh, 10 Mahalo dlls, you're mine!!!!
December 17, 2008 08:53 PM
If Arrington *agrees* to keep information secret, it is extremely dishonorable for him to release that information, and doing so is fine grounds for a lawsuit. If the company just sends him an email marked "secret," he has no obligation to keep it that way. In this situation, it's his website and he can do what he wants. This just means that from now on, the only PR people who will send embargoed information to TechCrunch fall into two groups; the first group is made up of those who *want* their embargoes broken in order to drum up more viral attention, and the second group is just ignorant.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 08:59 PM
The argument is simply: PR firms do not enforce embargoes.
The ones who get punished are the ones who heed the embargoes.
Ergo, he is going to break the embargoes.
It makes sense as long as the premises remain true. You can argue that two wrongs don't make a right, but all they are doing is peeling away a fiction.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 09:07 PM
As dishonest as it sounds on the surface, given the circumstances that Arrington outlines, I think he's in fact doing the most honest thing possible. While most outlets might be content to just go on breaking embargoes surreptitiously, taking their little slap on the wrist on their way to another embargo breaking post, Arrington is at least owning up to the fact in plain sight. From there, the onus is on the PR firms to decide themselves what is more important: Controlling the release of their information or the exposure from Arrington's crew.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 09:08 PM
Sounds like he has been brushing up on his quantum mechanics and devised a new version of the schrodinger's cat paradox. "From this point on we will break every embargo we agree to."
Maybe we can all not do what we agree to do, and existence will cease?
In all seriousness I'd go with a slow news day first, the above second.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 09:09 PM
Brilliant? BS?
Linkbait?
After dealing with PR pitches and embargos as a blogger in a previous life (not to the order of magnitude that Arrington does, but still...) I would add a fourth option to your list: Frustration.
With all eyes on TechCrunch as THE tech blog to get your product mentioned in for maximum exposure online, I believe Arrington is doing this to change the way PR people think and act on behalf of their clients and, more importantly, how they treat the online press (bloggers).
Couple the above with the fact that competing blogs in the same space are out to get the stories up and be first at almost any cost, seemingly without consequence, and you have the cause of Arrington's frustration.
Plus, going toe to toe with the status quo makes great linkbait on any blog.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 09:13 PM
Here is a classic example of the "prisoner's dilemma." What do I think? It's a crummy practice to agree to something, then break that agreement. BUT, if he makes it widely known that he will "agree to anything, then do whatever he wants" then who is to blame when he breaks an embargo?
This will probably work out well for TechCrunch.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 09:29 PM
The main point seems to be questioning the professionalism of the PR firms. His points seem to indicate they basically are acting like spammers who have a lot of addresses, but no idea who or what is at the other end of that address. If PR firms are doing what he lays out (with the notable exceptions he mentioned), then they are not doing a good job for their client and companies would be well advised to drop those firms. If all your going to do is send a bunch of e-mail, just get a temp who has good writing skills.
He is right to treat people who don't mean what they say as if they don't mean what they say.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 09:50 PM
If he agreed to the embargo ahead of time it would be an a-hole move. If he has, people have been warned and should have done their research and good luck to him. I guess there is the risk that he and his journalist could get a reputation of not being trust worthy and therefor not sent the information early allow others to get the jump on him
Should we also assume that the random clause was added so they could break MS and Google stories by 1 minute/second and not get thrown off of their PR list? He did promise to break all embargos so you assume that MS and Googles are included.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_(journalism)
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 09:56 PM
Arrogant, yet understandable. I hate embargoes too, yet I would never even consider breaking them just to break a story first. It's dishonest and disrespectful. There are bigger things to worry about than being first in everything - like watching your moral compass get gradually more and more skewered as you try to grab a bigger piece of the pie.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 10:17 PM
I can't believe so many people this this is a terrible idea. Some replies here say that PR companies won't send him news anymore. If this were the case with other blogs then he wouldn't be so upset. I don't see why PR firms would now single TC out.Other replies say that he will be in legal breach of contract trouble. Again why single TC out if this doesn't happen to other blogs?
The other biggest complaint is that this move is somehow dishonorable or disrespectful. I think that these have to be weighed with the expected norm. Is it disrespectful to wear your shoes/hat/jacket/girdle in my house? What if me and everyone else there are wearing them? He's just following what he perceives to be the norm.
Now will this help his cause? That's a tough one. It depends on how much pull TC has with the PR firms it deals with and how much flak these PR firms get from others who read this article. If he starts a trend and all bloggers start to do the same, then I think this will get him somewhere.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 11:38 PM
Danny Sullivan added good commentary on the situation; he makes some very valid points: http://daggle.com/081217-142830.html As a media consumer, I'd personally prefer to read a good, in-depth story rather then one simply thrown together in efforts to 'break the news.' However, Arrington does make some valid points in his rant against PR people and embargos; true that the embargo issue does need to be reevaluated, and hopefully smart PR firms will take note and update their plans accordingly. In my opinion, ultimately it's the reader who benefits from embargos and pre-briefs.
Source(s):
http://www.techcrunch.com/
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 17, 2008 11:39 PM
I am surprised there aren't any sock puppet blogs to break these embargoes already. All you need is to get on these spam lists and publish the stories somewhere else. If they leak to everyone then how would they know who leaked? Makes no sense to support this system if it is flawed by design.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 18, 2008 12:22 AM
Why would TC want to be re-created into what Digg is today. The new TC model is the same thing, just w/out the user vote up. Whatever comes in, he's pushing out to the world. Save your frustration of working with MA and TC and just publish to other sources. Done!
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 18, 2008 01:52 AM
I'd say it's brilliant, but I believe he's doing it out of frustration more than any thing else. Link bait? Perhaps it is, as it has certainly drawn some attention, however I doubt that's any part of his motivation. I can't even begin to fathom the amount of emails and calls the writers at a top blog like TC get on a daily basis; I struggle to deal with the couple of hundred I get myself. I can only surmise the situation has long since become untenable and Arrington sees this move as having the best possibility of a solution.
TC will still get news and even break news, however they may get it more like I suspect they used to in the early days, from trusted contacts and sources rather than PR folks. Just take a moment and imagine all of the PR folks out there, and how they reason that a scattered shotgun approach rather than a focused campaign doesn't really hurt their objective. For a while there it may even have helped; yet lately it's become increasingly difficult for the bloggers to find any real meat in their inbox. As the PR crew senses they are getting less and less or a response they decide to start going for the cell phones, perhaps even texting. Now imagine how insane this could get if you are on the receiving end of things...
So, Michael decided to change the rules. I don't see that he had much of an option really, do you? So, things may get a little odd for a bit, surely some folks will get offended or get their feelings hurt if their embargoes are broken. Before long I'd bet most will learn to put away their shotguns, or at the very least choke them down to a reasonable pattern, something other than wide open. The best among them will cultivate relationships once again, and use a few choice well aimed bullets to get the job done.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 18, 2008 02:03 AM
I'm a former reporter turned PR professional. Blanket pitches are unacceptable. Bad pitches are unacceptable. So are arrogant media. I completely understand the pressure and desperation both industries are experiencing. I work my ass off to be a good PR person because I know what the reporter needs...and how quickly they need it. There are good PR people, bad PR people--good journalists, bad journalists. And, we ALL make mistakes. Bottom line: As we all know it's about building relationships. Reporters are busy. But, anymore, a majority of them have ungodly demands and restrictions in terms of contacting them. "Send me a pitch via email, but don't follow up with me--EVER." Ok, we get it, you're busy. But, how the hell is someone supposed to build a relationship with a reporter if they demand PR people leave them alone? So, if someone at TechCrunch did agree to do an embargoed story (In its previous life) did that reporter communicate that to the PR person? My guess is NO. That's why PR people are blanketing the entire industry with pitches and exclusives---as wrong as it is . Today, media relations consists of PR people sending pitches to spam filters and reporters they don't know in the least. Both completely wrong, among other things. What PR people are also facing are reporters who aren't practicing Journalism 101. Again, not all journalists, but with newsroom budgets being slashed and reporters having to do even more with less, I have reporters who have admitted to me they "didn't have time to get my client's side of the story," or "they assumed they knew what my client was going to say." This is COMPLETELY unacceptable. You don't have time to get my client's side of the story? Really? Ok, then what story do you have? Oh, yeah, a one-sided story AGAIN because the reporter was on deadline. Well, sorry folks, that doesn't cut it. If journalists can't even practice the fundamental basics of the craft, then they don't have room for the egotistical attitude and elitism many of them posess. So, getting back to the question at hand....what about TechCrunch's new policy regarding embargoes? Great....do what you like. However, keep in mind, even as desperate as the PR industry is, PR professionals, just like reporters, remember those who help them through the newsgathering and reporting process...at least the good PR people do. In fact, I am so passionate about the state of media relations and the end product that I'm launching my own venture after the first of the year that will bring accountability to both industries--not just PR. Bad journalists will be publicly outed just as bad PR people are (and have been for a long time). The media just can't get away with its elitist attitude, and inaccurate stories that continue to follow. The public deserves better...and, unfortunately, citizens have no clue how flawed journalism (I'm including PR here too) is. They have no idea how or why a story ends up even becoming a story, much less the lead story. I appreciate Michael's passion about the issue. I share it, but in a slightly different fashion. It sparks a much needed debate...and some sort of solution. Hopefully we can help find one. Respectfully, Jen Windrum
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 18, 2008 03:28 AM
I think he does have the "power", I also think that someone had to do this and Michael is for better or worse at the bleeding edge of this stuff.
Report
December 18, 2008 05:08 AM
For whatever reason, Arrington doesn't seem to realize that if he breaks embargoes, PR people will simply move on to the next journalist. Michael - they might be "desperate to get press" for their clients but who said they were desperate to get it from you specifically?
The last reporter who worked without any help from PR was Lois Lane -and that's only because she was sleeping with Super Man.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 18, 2008 06:00 AM
Mike Arrington is just trying to draw attention to the fact that other bloggers are breaking the embargoes that he honors and it ends up with him losing clicks. As a reader who finds about 90% of the stories I read via RSS feeds and 8% via Twitter, I can understand why he is not happy with the situation. If another writer is breaking an embargo, their story is going to hit my reader first and when Tech Crunch finally runs it I am going to skip it. I don't know if he'll actually go through with breaking an embargo. If they are really a legally binding contract I would think he would be better off honoring them. Even if they aren't a legal contract he should be ethically bound to honor the embargo if he agreed to the terms. I think he should definitely publish a list of writers who do not honor the embargoes. I'd really be interested to see who is on that list.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 18, 2008 06:09 AM
What are you people drinkin'.......implied break of contract? Arrington makes it as clear as mud, he will break all embargo's..
Oh except for his 3 best PR friends and the few big PR's & Corporates he respects.
TIME OUT! We are talking about a niche online publication, about embargo's (restraint, prohibition, government order). The self serving nature of the 4th estate & the PR professional must surely be the reason this anachronistic concept still exists.
"Publish and be dammed" Mr Arrington, you will get less PR mail, phone calls, and schmoozing. We the consumer may even get some old fashioned scoop journalism and well written and researched stories.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 18, 2008 10:25 AM
it's a good call. it points to the broken mechanics of trad PR. its about time PR departments started thinking more deeply about how they do their work. expecting embargos to work effectively in a web-world is stupid. the machine behind an embargo also totally ignores many of the rich distribution possibilities of a post-web 2 world.... like, distribution of 'news' should be FREE, easy and encouraged.... not managed tightly via a PR guy.
Source(s):
http://www.contentandmotion.com/blog/dont-pay-good-money-for-bog-standard-p...
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 18, 2008 04:42 PM
I write for a tech magazine and we have the same problem with NDAs. We are extremely conscientious about keeping our word on everything and we're repeatedly punished for following the rules, because other outlets break the NDA with impunity. We've had several times where we've seen someone else break an NDA and then we've written to the company that held the embargo and they've told us "you still can't publish. Just because blog A broke the embargo, doesn't mean that you can." That makes us look even worse. Another situation that occurs frequently is that a product is officially announced and even released for sale overseas, but in order to stay in the good graces of the company who released it, we have to obey an arbitrary embargo on "writing about it in the U.S."
Anyhow, we continue to obey these and plan to keep that policy, because our word has to be worth something. And we have to agree to them in order to maintain our relationships with vendors. But playing ball absolutely puts us at a disadvantage and PR people need to know that.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 18, 2008 05:17 PM
Fantastic idea. Embargoes are a silly thing to honor. It's like whispering a secret to someone, asking them not to tell, but then tell everyone yourself the same story. Once it breaks, the one who honored the secret is left thinking, "uh, wtf!" Do it Michael.
Permalink | Report
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- fares, November 08, 2009 07:38 AM
- masterda12345, November 08, 2009 07:20 AM
- bensheri, November 08, 2009 07:17 AM
- theseoguy, November 08, 2009 07:13 AM
- witchwebhost, November 08, 2009 07:12 AM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_in_fact_contract
*edit* (better link)
http://chestofbooks.com/business/law/American-Commercial-Law-Series/E-Oral-And-Implied-Contracts.html
We’ve never believed in embargos. As an alternative to the embargo, best to offer news to one (or a few) reporter at a media outlet, knowing their deadline and editorial calendar. That way the reporter or editor decides what fits - and you can release at the time and date the client wants.