> we've worked on hundreds of campaigns under embargo, and a journalist has never broken one
My point is that they are not breaking the embargo by publishing the contents of your initial email.
Whatever you send in the initial email is decidedly not embargoed. Totally get that the risk can be worth it, but you're implying in this post that the information is actually under embargo when sent before explicit agreement.
I can see that point, although I would argue that if you include the language "We’re asking for an embargo on any stories" in the email, the vast majority of journalists will treat the contents of the email as under embargo. It's an unenforceable honor code, and most people don't want to get into semantic debates about what exactly is under embargo. But yes, the embargo does not go into effect until the journalists explicitly agrees to it, and that includes the contents of the email. Again, we believe this is the right advice for early-stage startups in order to garner journalist attention.
My point is that they are not breaking the embargo by publishing the contents of your initial email.
Whatever you send in the initial email is decidedly not embargoed. Totally get that the risk can be worth it, but you're implying in this post that the information is actually under embargo when sent before explicit agreement.
Journalists take you more seriously when they see you know how works: https://twitter.com/ceodonovan/status/773966062974926848