Well, Arrington has once again voiced his disapproval for embargoes.
For the uninitiated, embargoes and exclusives are deals that PR firms strike with media regarding advanced notice about news and timing of publication for related stories.
In his post on TechCrunch he refers to similar WSJ policy and states that he will no longer entertain any type of embargo proposal.
It occurred to me that in all fairness to my readers (and their PR firms) I really need to come out with a firm statement on the policy for exclusives and embargoes for Flack's Revenge.
And here it is – I just won't do it. In fact, I'll go one better than Arrington – I won't just eschew embargos and exclude exclusives, I will evade any PR tactic starting with "e".
So, meet with your clients at events? Forget it. Respond to email pitches? No way. Write about early stage companies? Not a chance. Cover product entroductions? Hah! You know the answer.
What's this you say? You are a large and important vendor? Your news is just too big to ignore?
Did you read my policy? I am serious about this.
OK, I'll do it, just this once.
In all seriousness, Arrington's post is just the latest salvo in an ongoing debate on news embargoes and exclusives. If you are a PR professional, you may well be wondering what this means – what are the implications of these policies for your clients and campaigns? How should this effect the advice you give them?
I go into more detail today on the topic and attempt to answer these questions in my post on the Fusion Forum blog.
