Apple’s Tight Lips Affected Engadget’s Choice to Publish
May 18, 2007 by Eric Eggertson
Filed under Marketing
Proving he’s no blockhead, Ryan Block did a good job of explaining how he came to post news about a bogus e-mail to Apple employees telling them two major products were months behind schedule.
He explains that Engadget made several attempts to track down an Apple PR person who could confirm that the e-mail was sent, that it was official, and that the news was true.
Interestingly, Apple’s past stonewalling of journalists and bloggers was a key factor in the decision to publish news of the e-mail before getting the official response:
"And it stood to reason that Apple, which normally holds its cards very close to the chest with this kind of news, would more than likely not comment on these matters. (How many times have you read a news story with "Apple was not available for / declined to comment"?) Even when Leopard was facing multiple accusations of delay from across the media, Apple denied it up and down for weeks right up until the very day it announced the delay."
And if you check out the Apple Pressroom, as PR blogger Kami Huyse did, you’ll find no official recognition of the rumour that moved the company’s value by $4 billion.
Tags: apple, investing, share value, engadget, rumors, public relations, business, communications, blogs, journalists, media
Apple’s mistake in not responding to the report doesn’t excuse Engadget, in my view. Mainstream media outlets, such as the NY Times, have a policy of not publishing anything controversial that isn’t backed by at least two independent sources. They may not always follow that policy, but it’s a good one. Engadget was burned on this, and it’s partly their own fault. Sometimes it’s better to be right than it is to be first.
I think that calling it stonewalling is a little harsh. Actually, it was more like sleeping (literally). They did call, just not as quickly as the thing blew up. Being available enough is one of the most difficult parts of being in PR – oh, and also still be able to have a family, a life, etc. Still, it gives me some pause to how we can be available. Taking turns to make sure someone is on “call” is always a good solution.
Terry: Yup. They did sort of blow it.
Kami: I was being polite when I called it “stonewalling”.
Based on second- and third-hand information I’ve read and heard about how Apple talks about future plans, they either use Jedi mind tricks, or they’re not particularly forthcoming and honest when discussing rumours.
I’d have to do a bit of digging before I said anything more critical of their tactics.
They are legendary for being tight lipped, or at least Steve Jobs is legendary for it. Still, given the timing of this thing, the benefit of the doubt has to be there. It strikes me that they would have at least denied it had they been reachable. If they do have a reputation, which Ryan hinted at in his post, it might have still not been enough to kill the story, but it would have been helpful. I think the real story is how PR is EXPECTED to be available 24/7, and with the advent of the much faster pace of information, a lunch break won’t sound too good an excuse if the company loses millions while you eat that Turkey on Rye – talk about reverse ROI.