E-Media Tidbits

LoudounExtra.com WPNI just launched a new hyperlocal site for affluent Loudoun County, Va.

About a week ago I learned a fair amount about this project, because it was described in the June/July 2007 issue of American Journalism Review. That lengthy feature story, Rolling the Dice (by Washington Post reporter Paul Farhi), included about 900 words on LoudounExtra.com -- lots of details
and context, including the projection that the site would launch in June.

I picked up on this in my post last week, Backfence Shutdown Redux. There I noted: "Today is July 11 and LoudounExtra.com doesn't appear to be live yet. ...So I guess WPNI is still working on it. But this does sound like an intriguing venture worth watching."

Last Friday I got an e-mail press release from Maureen Shaw of Euro RSCG Magnet, the firm handling publicity for WPNI about LoudounExtra.com. It was a pretty conventional and dull release, describing the project in tired superlatives. I'd learned far more about the project -- and was far more intrigued by -- the earlier AJR story.

The top of the release was emblazoned in large red capitals: UNDER EMBARGO UNTIL MONDAY, JULY 16. I wrote back immediately to Shaw, mentioned and linked to the AJR story and my July 11 post, and said: "Seems like the cat's already out of the bag, so your embargo is effectively moot -- especially in the journalism community. Given that, might it be OK for me to mention your announcement today?"

To which she replied, "While LoudounExtra was mentioned in the AJR, and subsequently in E-Media Tidbits, not all of the details were disclosed and the site has not yet gone live. That said, we would appreciate you honoring our embargo until Monday morning, when the site does go live."

Poynter Online's editors made the decision to honor this embargo, which is why I'm posting this on Monday morning, in accordance with the embargo.

Seems to me that this is a classic case of clueless PR and a pointless embargo. I've long had many qualms with embargoed information releases, especially in the online age. I can understand that some news organizations might want time to prepare advance coverage, but in the online age that seems to me to less and less necessary or desirable, and perhaps even patently unfair to readers.

In this case, one of the Post's own reporters was allowed to include significant information about the new project (indeed, far more significant than the information included in the embargoed release) in a well-known media business publication. This not only violated the so-called "embargo," but offered one publication exclusive access and license to publish information supplied by someone employed by a news organization with a vested interest in LoudounExtra.com.

In the grand scheme, this case is definitely not earth-shaking. But it does illustrate how pointless and, especially in this case, counterproductive informational embargoes have become. I think news organizations, PR firms, and everyone else would probably do well to ignore this outdated and ridiculous practice.