Whatever...

Under embargo: break or comply?

By Alexandra Radius

 

I recently read this interesting article, which rails against the use of embargos by PR agencies, providing a friendly reminder that journalists reserve the right to publish information honestly, and won’t put their names to articles that are tantamount to advertising. It is in this context that the author goes on to explain what an embargo actually is. (For those not in the know, an embargo is “a request by a source that the information or news provided by that source not be published until a certain date or certain conditions have been met”.)

 

Generally, PR agencies use embargos with caution to inform key journalists about an upcoming announcement and offer them an interview with a spokesperson in order for them to gain additional information. The offer of an interview (or at least extra details that aren’t included in the press release) is absolutely key, because you’re essentially giving the journalist an opportunity to publish a more in-depth article on the day the actual news breaks. By comparison, simply sending out a press release under embargo with no offer of additional input is just asking for trouble.

 

A radio journalist friend of mine told me that she won’t honour embargos when they relate to important information of public interest, e.g. the number of swine flu infections. However, when the news isn’t quite so major, she’ll comply if it means she gets the chance of a more relevant and interesting interview than rival stations.

 

Nevertheless, according the French Press Agency AFP "embargos breakers" are becoming more and more numerous. Maybe this is because, in an age when information circulates so quickly through the internet and social media, some journalists don’t like to wait.

 

What about you? Do you think journalists should comply with embargoes, or should they have total control over when their news stories drop? 

Promoted tweets – how will Twitter users react?

Twitter announced plans this week to start introducing ‘promoted tweets’ at the top of some of its search results pages, in a style similar to keyword advertising models – a move that’s been branded highly controversial given how vehemently the company has avoided commercialisation until now.  Already, Twitter’s new revenue model has attracted several big name companies, from Red Bull to Starbucks, and has been broadly welcomed by advertising and marketing communities worldwide.

 

However, user reaction to the announcement has been mixed – already one survey suggests that 68 percent of users are unhappy with the prospect of receiving branded tweets. 

 

So what does the future hold for Twitter, in light of this week’s announcement?  We asked one of our social media experts Richard Scarlett to canvas the JK office and gauge reaction to the prospect of promotional tweeting.  Here’s what he uncovered:

Murdoch intensifies the paywall battle

By Laura Mead

 

Is it just me or is anyone else growing a bit tired of Rupert Murdoch’s ‘paywall’ rants?  Maybe I was naive in thinking we’d seen the backend of this now that the Times and Sunday Times has announced it will start charging for content come June.  However, Murdoch is still marching on, with the latest being yet another assault on search engines, appealing newspaper publishers to stand up to the likes of Google and Bing because he thinks it unfair that they continue to provide free access to newspaper articles online. 

 

Is it though?  Or is this just the way the world is moving? 

 

Of course I can understand and sympathise with the position that the newspaper industry now finds itself in (and why a solution is quickly needed) but I’m still on the fence as to just how this paywall war that Murdoch is raging is going to pan out.  As I noted in my previous blog on this back in August of last year, as sites like the BBC, CNN, and MSNBC continue to offer free content online, surely most readers will simply defect to another news site? 

 

Perhaps more importantly, the situation heightens when you look at how people use content today – it’s no longer just about seeking out news and information, it’s about sharing this with friends, family, colleagues, and anyone else willing to listen.  And with paywalls, this takes on a whole new convoluted level when, for example, I want to share that great article on TimesOnline via Twitter or Facebook that no one else can access it without handing over their card details.

 

While I for one don’t have an issue with paying for good newspaper content (and certainly have a vested interest in papers being around in one format or another for the foreseeable future), I’m not exactly sure how or when this story ends...