When I teach my media writing students about press release writing, we often stop at the line “FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE” and have a discussion.

I’ve heard from some pros that this kind of thing isn’t needed any more, and I’ve heard from other pros that it’s still a standard item, even as its value slides toward the realm of ending a press release with “-30-” or “###”

In keeping it on there, I make the argument that I’d rather show them something that only half of the world is doing  and they can cut it out if they work for the other half. In addition, they may need to replace that line with an embargo statement in some cases.

An embargoed press release is meant to benefit both the PR practitioners and the reporters covering their clients’ activities. In some cases, practitioners want to give reporters a running start at an event or announcement, but don’t want the reporters to make that information public before the practitioners do. To that end, the practitioners provide material that they note has an “embargo” on it until a specific time or date. This article on LinkedIn does a pretty good job of outlining the basics of the embargo process and the rationale for it.

Embargoes of this nature tend to be based in professional courtesy (or what people used to call a “gentlemen’s agreement”) in that the PR professionals have no legal say over what the reporters do with this stuff or when. That said, if you’re the reporter who screws over someone by publishing embargoed material before its time, you will likely be on the outs with the PR folks who offered you this courtesy and you might screw it up for everyone else.

A situation like this came to light in Wisconsin, in which the governor’s press office embargoed some stuff, only to find that some journalists published or shared it in defiance of the embargo. This piece in the Isthmus does a great job of looking at what happened and how expectations related to embargoes aren’t always universal.

Here are some thoughts that might help make this process work the way it should:

SHARE EXPECTATIONS: Professor Sue Robinson of UW-Madison makes a great point about this in the Isthmus article: If both sides aren’t understanding each other, this isn’t going to work.

Like most traditions, people often lose track of how they work or why they start. When there were only a handful of news outlets and everyone kind of came up through the ranks the same way, these traditions were more likely to be shared and understood. Today, everyone can be a publisher and not everyone gets the same level of “education” about how certain things work.

I make a similar argument in my books about the concept of “off the record” and how that works. In most cases, people don’t have a firm grasp of what it means or how it works, so there can be confusion and anger when things go south. When we all know what the rules are, we’re more likely to play by them if the rules make sense. That leads us to point two…

DON’T GET “EMBARGO-HAPPY:” Like any other tool, if you use it for the wrong reasons or rely on it too much, it’s not going to be effective. One of the reporters in the Isthmus story noted that people seem to be embargoing everything lately, which makes it kind of a meaningless element of the press release.

Think of an embargo as a NEED item, based on timing. For example, when the governor is going to give the State of the State address, it makes sense to share the text of the speech early so reporters can work on deadline stories. It also makes sense put an embargo on it, as the governor would probably like to tell people what he thinks about the State of the State before the news media does.

That said, every appearance the governor makes at a local Taco Bell doesn’t require a full press brigade and an embargo. If you want to tell the press something, then announce it. If you don’t, don’t. If you feel like you have to hold something back and let them show up to figure it out, that can work, too. However, a constant stream of embargoes isn’t going to work out well for anyone.

DEAL WITH TRUST ACCORDINGLY: In the media realm, trust and credibility are our only true currency. These things aren’t like boomerangs, in that if you throw them away, they don’t come back. If someone knowingly screws you over, they’ve blown their bank account and you don’t have to extend them any additional line of credit at the Bank of Journalistic Trust.

I’m not a huge fan of playing favorites, as it can lead to lousy journalism based on fealty to the wrong principles (namely, sucking up to people and dodging the tough stuff to get on people’s good side). That said, there is no rule out there that says PR professionals HAVE TO give everyone a cookie.

If a reporter breaks faith and fails to see this as a problem, PR practitioners have no reason to trust them. That’s not bias. That’s common sense. If both sides agree to Point One and Point Two, this shouldn’t be hard to manage. However, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. It’s also a good way to end up in the unemployment line in a situation like this, so treat people the way they have demonstrated they should be treated.