Fascinating post via Valleywag on the future of the embargo. Using the Google charity stock news as an example, Valleywag posits that we are about to see the end of the embargo. Googlewatch got the scoop and it sort of embarrassed the whole group by showing how they followed the rules.
Having gone through a number of embargoes, good and bad, over the years, part of me says "good riddance!" And, in fact, we are working to reduce the use of the tool, simply because it can add complexity. That said, there are times when an embargo makes sense -- for both the company and the media (and blog) community.
1. Complicated news. If the news announcement is either super technical or very complicated, embargoes make sense because it allows for more in-depth briefings, q/a, etc. Other option is a press conference, which does not really optimize for good questions.
2. Limited spokesperson availability. It often happens that a company will only have one or two people available for interviews. In this case, it makes sense to do an embargo because it lengthens the amount of time to do briefings and levels the playing field a bit -- you don't always want to just optimize for the wire services, for example.
3. Demos. If you want to actually *show* the product, it sometimes means getting on a plane and visiting people, often on both coasts. In this case, you don't want to leave one city, have a story appear and deal with unhappy reporters in the second city who feel they've been penalized by geographic distance.
This is one of those issues that are more gray than black and white. Tools are just tools, not good or bad. An embargo used well can help the communicating process. One used poorly can hinder. But hey, I can use a hammer on both my car and a nail, one sure does work better but the hammer remains the same. ;)