Jennifer Houston, Senior Vice President, WE Studio D
In the midst of the communications cataclysm that we’re in, it is as important to bring forward those practices that will always be imperative, and then adapt and evolve the areas where the practice of communications dictates change.
Today’s topic: embargoes — strategic tool or purveyor of doom and gloom?
The debate and discussion about embargoes continued relevance has been a hot topic of late but has been called into question for years. In fact, my friend Frank X. Shaw has been in that lion’s den since at least 2008, see his blog post then and again more recently. Frank’s point — he’s embargo neutral — if you follow the usage rules.
We know the rules have gotten more complex in this post-digital age: more info, less time, hotter competition for eyeballs, more outlets, etc. It is easy to understand why branded media (traditional and emerging outlets alike) struggle with embargoes. On one hand, they’re given the magic of time to assess and analyze the news and the story they plan to tell. But is that fair to expect in the natural tension between who-can-get-it-out-the-fastest and journalistic rigor?
Do we expect analysis and context, or should we expect speed and information before the next guy has it? First to market with a story tends to get the lion’s share of the traffic. When an embargo breaks down, it means not only real money, but reputations.
We felt the topic so important, that last week we brought a group of industry influencers together in the Valley to discuss and debate. The result — an incredible demonstration of passion for the art of news in the web 2.0 world.
This is why we’re taking a recent MSN re-design embargo break down so seriously. We goofed. And we understand the impact — on the influencers brands, time, and even work/life balance (is there such a thing?). So we thought we’d share our learning’s with you — taking the discussion from debate to practical application.
Here’s the case study:
- The visual nature of the new MSN design called for a communications strategy that enabled us to show and tell influencers what was new not only with the product but with the business overall. Given the breadth of influencers we were working to reach we did employ an embargo approach in advance of the product rolling out.
- Embargo broke due to technical complications of an automatic posting.
- We learned of the post and began reaching out to those who were holding to the embargo. Here’s where we’re kicking ourselves: in our effort to be speedy, a few misfires occurred in email and we didn’t connect with some individuals. Because of this, there were some who heard the embargo was broken up to 45 minutes later, which lead to understandably angry influencers.
What did we learn?
First, I think we’re less neutral about embargoes. If we were middle of the road earlier in the week, we’re likely even more conservative and rigorous moving forward. Will we abandon embargoes all together: nope. Will we have an even higher bar for use of the tool: you bet.
Second, there is a difference between news and context. Here’s where we get to lament the shrinking of long-form journalism. And we must all much better match content delivery to the needs of our influencers.
Third (and most importantly), at the end of the day, it’s still always about trust. We’ve gotten in the negative column this week. We’re determined to earn it back.
Let us know your thoughts…
