Are Press Releases Dead?

Last year, I wrote that news embargoes were dead (If News Embargoes are Dead, What about Press Releases?), but that I didn't think press releases were dead.

I still think they're not dead.

Instead, there's been talk that they have or should evolve.

Most of the press releases I see online are not Web 2.0-type releases. I have not asked BusinessWire, PR Newswire or Marketwire if that fits with what they've been seeing.

Marketwire, which has improved its reporting capabilities (with more improvements due shortly, they tell me), doesn't make it easy to distribute a Web 2.0-type release. I think BusinessWire makes it easier to do so.

There are more channels by which to get out an organizations' news, such as blogs, Twitter, Facebook, etc., but I still think there's a need for press releases.

There's a good article on press release basics, "Anatomy of a Pitch-Perfect Press Release," from the Sept. issue of New York Enterprise Report, a very good service-journalism magazine that's aimed for small businesses in New York. The article even includes a good illustration of a basic press release -- which is actually useful to me right now because we've been asked to write a press release for a client's partner, and that partner has never issued a press release before. This illustration at least will help them understand some key terms like biolerplate. The article also contains the "10 Golden Rules from the Experts." And, unlike the 10 Commandments of Social Media, which changes depending on each organization, these are pretty good commandments.

On the other hand, if you think the press release is dead, let me know. Of course, if you do, I think I know who killed it.

TechCrunch Proclaims "Death to the Embargo"

TechCrunch has been scooped. By PRBackTalk in June. TechCrunch recently announced Death To The Embargo, but we figured embargoes don't easily exist in the Web 2.0 world. Check out my initial post: Can PR Embargoes Survive in a Web 2.0 World?

Now it's true that TechCrunch says death to the embargo from a very different perspective. But the conclusion is the same.

The TechCrunch death-to-embargoes is another example of the growing tension between journalists and publicists (hacks vs. flacks). I've been observing online the growing frustration on both sides (latest installment: PR and the fine art of not being crazy and BadPitch), and while most don't seem to care about it, I think it's fairly obvious what's causing the tension:

• Media companies are going through the worst down cycle since 1987, and perhaps the worst time since the 1930s. The advertising-supported business model no longer works.
  
• Traditional media is also in the midst of seismic changes. We're moving to an online-only model for most newspapers and magazines -- and traditional media doesn't like it. Neither do most PR agencies because clients still want national print coverage, and don't consider online media to be important/worthwhile.
• PR agencies can't agree on metrics for online media so can't merchandise their success the way they could with circulation numbers.
• Online media distinctly works in new ways from traditional media -- and the new rules, which are evolving and not set in stone yet -- are frustrating both hacks and flacks because neither side "gets it" right now. Both sides are operating on assumptions -- like embargoes, for example -- that don't make sense to the other party. (Embargoes, and the penalties for breaking them, used to be something both hacks and flacks understood. That's no longer true.)

As PR executives, we strive to make sense of the changing media environment, and work to educate our clients based on what we see, what we read and what we hear from reporters. But it's important for PR folks to make sure we understand the culture of each channel (like blogs, Facebook or Twitter). Social media isn't a short cut, it's just a new channel. To do it right takes time, patience and understanding.

• 
  

If News Embargoes are Dead, What about Press Releases?

There have been separate discussions about whether the news embargo is dead.

Jeremy Wagstaff, a former Technology Columnist at The Asian Wall Street Journal and Wall Street Journal Online, and Stephen Baker, a senior writer at BusinessWeek who writes the Blogspotting blog, both say the news embargo is dead. (Check out my previous blog on the topic here.)

I think that except for embargoes for peer-reviewed articles at top publications like New England Journal of Medicine or the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), embargoes are dead.

However, that doesn't mean "advanced looks" are dead.

Mark Harrison of Abraham Harrison said that giving bloggers a heads' up to news before it hits can be a good approach. And Stevie Wilson of LA Story has posted a comment to this blog that touches on the value of getting a heads' up so that bloggers are not at a complete disadvantage.

The difference is that when you give reporters and bloggers an "advance look," you don't mind if they immediately post information about the news. With an embargo, you want all coverage to hit after the embargo time: news that hits before 11:10pm, for example -- bad; news that hits after 11:11pm is good.

Is that clear?

Now, back to the topic based on the headline: what's the deal with press releases in a Web 2.0 world?

In a panel discussion turned blog article, "PR in the Face of Web 2.0 and Social Media - Part II," Brian Solis discusses the state of the press release. Is it dead? let me know what you think.

On a related topic, check out "Does Good Tech Need PR?" on the ReadWriteWeb blog, written by Richard MacManus.

Can PR Embargoes Survive in a Web 2.0 World?

In the journalism sense, an embargo means "do not publish a story until such-and-such a date."

New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and other peer-reviewed journals rely on embargoes to give mainstream reporters enough time to study up on a particular topic. If the journals didn't do this, health care reporters wouldn't have enough time to understand the issues around the latest cardiac, cancer, diabetes or autism study. (This is not a knock against reporters; there is a reason doctors specialize -- but you can't run a newsroom with a dozen different reporters who each cover a different health care specialty. Again, embargoes provide reporters time to talk to appropriate experts.)

Beyond health care, lots of businesses, especially in the tech arena, try to have embargoes. In that case, the goal is the same: to give reporters time to write about the story.

Recently, we've been finding that embargoes have become less effective, and other than when supporting a health care client's study that's about to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, we've been advising clients not to embargo an announcement.

Two recent blogs back up that advice.

Jeremy Wagstaff, a former Technology Columnist at The Asian Wall Street Journal and Wall Street Journal Online, wrote an interesting post on his blog, LooseWireBlog, entitled "How to Get Your Pitch Read Part XIV" that says embargoes don't work.

Stephen Baker, a senior writer at BusinessWeek, and writes the Blogspotting blog, commented on Wagstaff's blog, "Embargoed: Oh, forget it." According to Baker, "No doubt it works on occasion. A beat reporter covering Microsoft or Oracle can’t afford to follow the competition on a software release. But for me, an embargoed release screams out from my inbox: 'Erase me.'