Okay, I'll bite on the subject of PR Embargoes, since it seems all my peers have also weighed in: if you don't want the news out there, keep your trap shut.
I've never seen a journalist actually keep an embargo to themselves, and besides, the only reason to stick it out there is to play the field and see if you'll get a bite. And there's always that little trick of giving it to one journalist and keeping from the rest, because you're working out a special story or "scoop."
Embargoes are stupid and I never have used them very effectively as a public relations practitioner and I disliked them as a journalist. They mean nothing. As a PR writer you want the news out there; your job is to promote events and news. As a journalist, you want to scoop the competition. Embargoes are contrary to the agenda's of both professions.
I've purposefully not read any of the comments or the other posts, because I tend to bend to the masses. So there it is, my opinion. Embargoes stink and are not very effective.
If you want to keep a secret, then don't say anything to anyone. If you want to share the news, expect that someone will go out there and share it. The purpose of public relations is to shape public opinion, share news, publicize events, and generate buzz for programs or agendas. Then what's the problem? Go out there and shout about it, and leave the embargoes to the Navy.
Last updated by at .
Spread the Word - Like and/or share this page, your friends will also love it and thanks for it.
I agree. The only way to keep a secret is not to tell anyone. I suppose it’s a power relation: who need’s who more?
You may not want to p*ss off Madonna, but a wanna-be? Hmmm….