As a football enthusiast, I often watch Argentinian football journalism on YouTube.

One memorable comment from a journalist, in a rare moment of philosophizing about journalism instead of reporting on the latest Superliga lineups, was “Sometimes it’s the audiences that change, not the stories.”

He was explaining why sometimes they would make similar remarks or interview the same players and ask similar questions.

Sometimes you see articles that touch on the same ideas and tackle the same specific topics as articles from many years ago. Stories that are eternal, because they are always relevant. You can also see this in today’s podcasts. For example, Huberman says something on his podcast today. Tomorrow he will then also say it, perhaps worded slightly differently, and with new info added, when visiting Lex Fridman or Joe Rogan on their podcasts.

Long-winded way of saying that after seeing enough journalist pet peeves on Twitter about PR fails with embargoes and exclusives, I decided it was time put my thoughts on the subject on (digital) paper.

I didn’t want to write an “afterthought blog post” or something lacking detail and ambiguous. No, this is going to be a full-on long read that leaves no doubts. Oh, and please note that it’s mainly tailored for my brothers and sisters in the startup world.

In the world of PR, we often wonder whether the relationship with journalists could become more cordial and collaborative. Can more information, education, advice improve things? Will we ever find a system that makes these “issues” go away?

Yes and no. We can probably make spam and the worst aspects of PR go away, but there will still be challenges. After all, journalists need to do journalism. They have a mandate to bring value to their audiences, not to companies doing PR. And PR pros work for their companies and need to advance their own interests.

The best PR pros make it as much of an overlap in interests as possible. But sometimes, an unmovable object meets an unstoppable force. Sometimes, ceding control also means exposing unexpected vulnerabilities. Sometimes, shit happens. At the end of the day, we’re talking about human relationships.

Conflict and misunderstanding are always in the cards.

But — back to startups. Despite everything going on in the world, startups are always popping up. There are lots of new companies emerging every year. These new startups often lack in-house PR expertise or understanding of PR tactics in the tech and startup media context.

This is not a criticism. Early stage startups should be lean, mean machines focused on things other than PR. They don’t need PR from the very beginning. But the lack of PR knowledge can pose challenges when the first PR needs do arise.

One of those first needs is the funding announcement. Now, this is not going to be about “how to make the most of your funding announcement”. We want to talk about exclusives and embargoes. But, for startups, the funding round is where exclusives and embargoes are relevant in most cases.

As well as my personal experience and opinion, I’ve also studied various articles, PR agency blogs and gathered journalist pet peeves about PR professionals from Twitter to inform what follows.

Funding News, Exclusives, and Embargoes

When to Consider Exclusives and Embargoes

Let’s start with what’s really black and white. First, WTF are we even talking about when we talk about exclusives and embargoes? Why do these “terms” need to exist?

Exclusives and embargoes exist to manage newsworthy stories that the media will potentially be interested in covering in detail. When it comes to company news or announcements, that would mean a story that is deserving of more than simply putting out a press release.

We’re talking about something that journalists will want to do better, bigger, and more attractive than other media. Something they’ll want to put their mark on. And for that, they need time and access to information. So there needs to be some kind of early access for the journalist.

This includes access to company representatives, sufficient time for the journalist to do their own research, interviews, briefs you name it. Whatever it takes to make sure the resulting article is as good as it can get. In theory, that’s what you and the journalist both want--time allowing, but we’ll talk about that a bit more later.

Most blogs by PR agencies out there write about exclusives versus embargos in a general way. They are not talking specifically about startups. When it comes to startups, we’re mostly talking about funding announcements, but there are other ‘exclusives’.

For example, a TV channel scoring an exclusive interview with a global leader, or contributed content by your spokespeople.

Bylined pieces pitched to media outlets are typically done so exclusively. So much so, it goes without saying, almost nobody mentions it or requests it explicitly. You don’t go pitching a bylined piece everywhere.

We’ll focus on startup funding news because this is where most misunderstanding and mistakes seem to stem from in our network.

The Funding Announcement

One of the most important first needs in terms of PR is the funding announcement. Why? It’s a business opportunity for startups, and it’s a newsworthy item for journalists. Startups get one of their first big social validations in the media. Journalists get to see what bets investors in the market are taking and what interesting future innovations could await us.

Having previously been validated by investors helps journalists understand, “Aha, venture capital allocators are betting on this horse; let’s take a look at it more closely.”

The article can be useful for future investors. How the journalist describes the ‘horse’ can inform these new investors on whether the horse could be a fit to bet on in the future once it wins a few races. Journalists will be able to tell whether it has the right jockey to go with it, what the horse’s strengths are and more. You know what horse experts are like, they look at everything.

There are other stakeholders who also benefit from this information. Global talent, for instance, who might want to know what it’s like to be a part of the team behind this horse. Partner companies and potential clients will also want to know if they can benefit from riding together. Perhaps doing so will mean their own horses will win more!

Of course, there is more than one funding round. With each round, the horse changes, evolves. It could get stronger, more muscular, or leaner and lighter. At some point, it might even undergo metamorphosis into a different creature with a horn.

The bigger the company becomes, the more scrutiny you get. Journalists will inspect it in new ways, reconsider its potential, look at new details and, yes, start looking at potential weaknesses.

The bigger your startup, the more newsworthy it will obviously be, meaning new outlets might be interested, and different PR tactics may be leveraged to spread the word wider. The PR activity involved in your seed round could look completely different to that of your Series A or B, etc., should you keep fundraising.

The Exclusive

Exclusives are, like the name says, news given exclusively to one journalist/outlet.

An adjective that developed into a noun, exclusives are very common in the startup world as they provide security for the startup, for whom an early social validation could be key, and an edge for the journalist, who needs to give only the best to their audience and be seen to provide the most insightful takes.

If your round is not large, it could be unlikely for the news to make it into certain media. But if you’re offering exclusivity, it can can make getting your news in one of your top targets more feasible.

From the journalist’s perspective, there is the understanding that they will have exclusive access to information no others will have. Therefore, a story no one else will have. At least not in the same level of detail and analysis.

The journalist could schedule an interview, send additional questions, or spend extra time on writing one hell of an exclusive. To top it off, if you do things right, it could be the beginning of a great collaboration (and friendship?) with the journalist.

This improved political capital could help in future rounds. Journalists do remember good experiences working with PR professionals.

But remember, PR is not just a relationships business. So these are also business relationships. Don’t assume because ‘you know someone’ that you can send them BS. If you send a journalist BS after they thought they befriended you, well, that’s the ultimate stab in the back.

The Embargo

When something is under embargo, it is not allowed to be moved out of its current location. That applies to ships, goods… but not to information. Not really.

An embargo, when it comes to PR, is quite different. Unlike trade regulations enforced by port authorities and others, media embargoes are not a real rule. They can’t actually be enforced by any physical mechanism. There is no press release ‘escrow’.

Some PR folks tend to believe a small sentence at the top of the release can fulfil this role, but they tend to misunderstand.

An embargo, in media, is a type of handshake agreement that relies on the journalist honoring said embargo. The line at the top of your release means nothing without the actual ‘agreement’, no matter how ‘strict’ the wording. So embargoes aren’t really effective as ‘unilateral’ moves.

Embargoes can be a bit risky. There are two sides to this. For the journalist, for embargoes to be effective, they rely on other media outlets not jumping the gun. And they rely on PR people not doing anything indecent.

Company reps or PR pros need to give early access to material because you do want those journalists to get enough time for a good article. Which means that the risk of a leak is always there.

Ultimately, the success of embargoes will depend on the strength of the relationship and trust. No law is broken if journalists break the embargo.

Mistakes

Offering More Than One Exclusive

There is simply no way around it. The exclusive can only go to one journalist. It’s OK to look for another home for the exclusive if a journalist passes on your offer. Even contacting another journalist in the same publication is OK, although this is not the case for some publications.

But you can’t offer an exclusive to two journalists simultaneously, for instance, to ‘spread your bets’.

You also should not go for ‘multiple exclusives’, for example by creating the notion of exclusives for different outlet types — an exclusive for fintech trade media, an exclusive for startup media, an exclusive for UK media. It doesn’t really work like that.

If your company is truly global and you would like to have your CEO speak to multiple outlets from different countries and potentially in different languages before the news is out, then, of course you can do that, but with the understanding that there is no exclusive! You are actually executing the ‘embargo’ approach and calling it something else.

Offering an Exclusive, but Also Giving Embargoes

This one is cheeky, Machiavellian even. If it backfires and someone leaks before the exclusive, you can get royally screwed. And if it works, also. Because the access other journos had previous to publishing could become evident.

With the exclusive only one journalist/outlet has early access and opportunity to get a full picture and work their angle of the story before it becomes public knowledge, no one else.

By giving ‘embargoes’ to others, you are breaking the rules of the exclusive. That leak you are risking could upend not just your exclusive. But also your reputation with the journalist (and others, if they tell on you). And you don’t want to do that. Not with someone you considered the most crucial journalist/outlet for your startup/client.

Offering Too Much Information Too Soon, Without Knowing Whether the Journalists Are Willing to Agree on the Embargo

Why do so many journalists make fun of the wording for embargoes? If you’re new in PR or have no one with PR experience around you, it might seem weird. Why are journalists making fun of embargoes on Twitter?

Trust me, in reality, they do like embargoes. They want to get their hands on interesting stuff before it happens, even if they don’t have the ‘exclusive’.

However, as we said earlier, the embargo is a ‘gentleman’s handshake’. I don’t know about you, but the last time I checked, a handshake requires two parties to shake hands.

You don’t just agree on something unilaterally. So before sending too much info (like a press release), first approach the journalist as you would for an exclusive, but ask about the embargo. Make it consensual.

If you simply send out emails with strong wording for the embargo (UNDER EXTREMELY STRICT EMBARGO UNTIL…), journalists will just laugh at you.

Remember that even after shaking hands it is still not a legal requirement to adhere to the embargo.

Not Giving Enough Time for the Journalist to Research Further or Absorb the Information

It doesn’t matter if it’s an embargo or an exclusive — if you don’t give the journalist enough time, it won’t help you.

Journalists are not, will not be, and were not robots. Yes, ChatGPT exists. But not everyone uses it or wants to use it. Journalists are proud people. And if they are the type that get tend to get exclusives and/or embargos, you bet they are thorough.

Journalists will want to do human research. Validate your claims. Validate their theories. Work up an angle. Devote time to crystallizing their understanding of your startup, its business model, and its industry context. Too little time given is effectively an insult. The bigger the story, the more time they will want to have (if logistically possible).

Misunderstandings

Exclusive or Being First? No Life After the Exclusive?

One of the problems with journalist pet peeves on Twitter as a mechanism for learning is that they might not always be as clear as us paranoid PR peeps on the other side might want them to be.

Some of them can be ambiguous. For instance, highlighting dictionary definitions of the term “exclusive” to point that someone’s got it wrong. But is the dictionary definition the most relevant one in the practice of startup PR? The dictionary is designed to give definitions for the general public.

That works perfectly for general vocabulary. In business, marketing, PR, and other niches, terms evolve their meaning or might mean something different than in other niches or contexts. Like we saw earlier, embargo means one thing when it comes to trade, another when it comes to PR.

It’s clear that only one journalist can have the exclusive. But where does the exclusive end? Once the ‘exclusive article’ is out, then what?

Some blogs out there I inspected did recommend to check with the journalist and make them aware that you are spreading the news further with a press release once their exclusive is out.

While that sounds nice, I believe both the journalist and the startup know it’s not needed. Startups have to reach audiences, and they need to exploit all the newsworthiness they can get. It may be a matter of death or survival (or surthrival). And both the journalist and the PR pro know that likely no other article will be as good as the exclusive article. Once it’s out, it’s fair game to release the release!

A Word of Warning About the Exclusive in the Startup Age: Journalists ‘Face’ Lots of Exclusives!

Let’s face it. Every startup that comes to us wants to be on TechCrunch. But guess what, TechCrunch only has so many journalists, and most of them are based in the US.

While some US journalists do cover European startups from time to time, European startups is mostly the remit of the European journalists.

And there are not many, considering the number of startups in the Old Continent. So unless you are a VERY large startup (scaleup) or big tech company, you are unlikely to get in. Unless it’s through… you guessed it, an exclusive.

But guess what? There is a flood of exclusive offers reaching each European TechCrunch journo each day on their inboxes. Despite what we said before about wanting time to study your startup, in the world of a tech journalist time travels at the speed of light.

So going through the whole process can be an excruciating experience for both sides. Expect delays in answers, dates that move, more radio silence and even last-minute disappointments.

Bonus Track  - Pet Peeves

Let’s Analyze Some Pet Peeves

I wouldn’t be worthy of working at Black Unicorn PR if I didn’t throw in some journalist pet peeves in the mix. And this wouldn’t be as fun.

Non-Exclusive Pitched as Exclusive

Here is a clear case of an exclusive, in this case an op-ed, that was actually not an exclusive. The PR person promised an exclusive, but it was not a promise that they were able to make, because colleagues were pitching the same piece elsewhere.

Whether it was really “unbeknowst” to her, likely we will never know. You should aim for better internal communication and discipline in your PR department or agency to avoid something like this.

Different Embargo Times for Each Publication

Who saw something like this coming? The embargo handshake relies on the knowledge that it’s the same for everyone. Otherwise it’s not much of an embargo, is it? Why would one do that?

We don’t know if what Ingrid saw is the full story, there might have been an exclusive at play in combination with the embargo. Playing these kinds of games with journalists is simply counterproductive in the long run. You’re insulting some, burning bridges, and in the end, PR is all about creating and nurturing relationships.

Strict Embargoes Coming Out of the Blue

Similar thing in both tweets. Embargoes are handshakes. Why would you send something without actually shaking hands? No matter the language you use, without a handshake there is, potentially, no deal.

To quote fellow PR pro Doug Hunter of So Content, “embargo isn’t a ‘I said embargo therefore you can’t’”.

Broken Embargo

Two options — either one outlet secretly was pitched an exclusive with embargos elsewhere at a different time, or the outlet broke the embargo. We have no details on what might actually have happened, but journalists do notice these things.

Pitching Without Embargo or Exclusive

What about the third option? Not even using exclusives or embargoes at all? Well, it’s possible. And sometimes, even, the right option. Sometimes, the only option.

But for funding rounds, as painful as the exclusive / embargo process may be, if you want to have good coverage, they will be the better choice.

(By the way, the above looks like spray & pray, please don’t do that)

The Definition of “Exclusive” in a Startup PR Context

If you secured an exclusive, are you not allowed to ‘distribute your press release’ any further once that article is out? According to some PR agency blogs, you should talk about this with the journalist first.

However, in the world of startups raising funds, it is expected that once the exclusive is out, you should be able to safely message other journalists with your ‘official’ press release.

Don’t overworry! The same journalists that sometimes insist on exclusives and embargos will sometimes reach out proactively to startups to ask for the ‘official press release’… and might end up covering you even without pitching them!

The pet peeve above likely stems from a case of embargo disguised as exclusive, or even worse, a contributed content piece pitched to multiple outlets.