Detroit News investigates embargo breaks after DCX minivan leak
by John Neff on Jan 4th 2007 at 7:02AM 
I've decided we're officially tired about talking about embargo breaks, so let me say I recognize that by posting on this Detroit News article about breaking embargoes that I'm being a hypocrite. But it mentions us by name, and we're a sucker for our name in print. Apparently the pair of leaked pics that popped up on a Spanish forum yesterday showing the still-embargoed DCX minivans caused a big enough stir that a "legitimate" news outlet picked up on it. David Shepardson of the Detroit News spent his afternoon yesterday penning a piece on not only the specifics of yesterday's embargo break, but also the details involved in all the premature pixelation that's been going on the past few weeks. All the players in this silly game get quoted, including representatives from the manufacturers, our colleague Ray "former aide to Gov. Granholm" Wert from Jalopnik, and editor/publisher of Car and Driver, Csaba Csere.
In our eyes, the article is somewhat agnostic on the question of who is to blame for these breaks: everyone comes out looking innocent with a finger pointed anywhere but inward. That's all fine and dandy, as we're all just doing our jobs, but when Ford spokeswoman Sara Tatchio says, "We expect them (we think she means us and the like) to hold to our embargos..." even if another outlet breaks them, that just proves some folks at the OEMs stlll have a lot to learn about how things work out here on the interwebs.
Where's our quote in the article? We didn't get asked, so let us provide one here: Our readers (that's you) just want information and pictures on new cars and concepts as fast as we can get them, and we'll get them as fast as we legitimately can... end quote.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
ruggels 7:29AM (1/04/2007)
odd it's only the car companies in the red with shitty looking new products (ie the van) that are bitching and moaning.
You nailed it on the head John, it's 2007, if any large corporation (cars, computers, whatever) thinks they can play the exclusive tidbit of news in a PRINT (For gods sake) publication they need to get with the times. All of this embargo crap is making me as fond of DCX et al as I am with the RIAA and any other institution not quite getting the state of the internet in 2000, let alone today.
News to DCX "It's 2007, just like the last decade prior, people have scanners today too, and can read and post on this crazy thing called the 'internets'. last i checked you weren't (allegedly) providing anything to car magazines and they weren't taking anything from you so it would appear that people, from age 7 on up, using the internet as it is used today, would only be harming whatever old-school gentleman's agreement you have with these paper publications. Get with the program. Exclusive first drives are where it's at. Not pics. And you certainly cannot expect a print publication to be the first to break a story. We know the moment someone decides to slice an enzo in half in cali, we sure as hell are going to be able to figure out what's going on prior to a publication's printed month."
Give me a break.
Reply
cream 7:54AM (1/04/2007)
that just proves that /they/ have a lot to learn about how things work? really? the big picture here is that they are trusting you to keep your word even if someone else breaks theirs. You're using the internet as an excuse to break your word.
Sara Tatchio has it right. You shouldn't be breaking your word even if someone else has. If someone breaks an embargo then you could put up a post detailing when you will be releasing the information you have and why you are sticking to your journalistic ethics in doing so.
Do the right thing. If the OEMs don't punish those who broke the embargo, that's another game all together. But have some d-mned integrity.
Reply
kevin 8:12AM (1/04/2007)
Im not to sure what the big deal is about this New van for DCX. I have seen the same pics like 4 month ago so its nothing new to me.
Reply
J 8:21AM (1/04/2007)
If its that big of a deal just do what the CIA does: hand out slightly different information to everyone, so when its leaked they will know who leaked it. Give each media outlet pictures from a slightly different angle or photoshop an extra tree in the background.
Reply
ruggels 8:31AM (1/04/2007)
"that just proves that /they/ have a lot to learn about how things work? really? the big picture here is that they are trusting you to keep your word even if someone else breaks theirs. You're using the internet as an excuse to break your word."
I'm sorry but do you actually, you know, work in business? Trust? Are you serious? Keeping your Word? where are we, 1950's America. There are pieces of papers called NDAs which are used because we can't trust people to hold little secrets like we could in kindergarten (though that's up to debate). Now once somethings have become public knowledge; what's the use of keeping it secret? well respect as autoblog indicated by removing the story. but the fact is, this is 2007, the internet and information do spread quickly, get with the program.
Reply
Frank 8:39AM (1/04/2007)
There is still a thing called "Ethics"... if I say jump, do you ask how high?
Reply
HotRod 9:13AM (1/04/2007)
I miss the point of an Internet site, such as Autoblog, in agreeing to an embargo to get early pictures. What are you guys doing with the pictures until the embargo breaks? (scary thought) You could actually just wait until they are released and post them, and we would ever know the difference.
If you (Autoblog) DID agree and receive early pictures then you should not have posted them.
If you did NOT agree to the embargo and get the pics then you should be free to post away, you are not obligated to abide by someone else's agreement if they break it.
Reply
jeffinToronto 9:26AM (1/04/2007)
The problem is AutoBlog, that you are hypocritical when you remove photos that were leaked because the manufacturer didn't want them leaked. How many times have you posted pics of spyshots, camo covered or just pre-released photos? How can you remove the DCX vans while continuing to publish others? You should take a stand one way or another and state, if it has become public domain via the internet we will show it or just post company approved photos. To try and have it both ways is just hypocritical.
Reply
Dave T. 9:40AM (1/04/2007)
I wrote a rant on this on my personal blog (not on cars.com) which you can get to by clicking my name. But overall yes, if you agree to the embargo to see the early pictures you "should" hold them. But if the competition is kicking your butt by breaking it what are you supposed to do?
I'm of the mind that just follow the embargoes because it gives your readers a better sense of time and space when it comes to the actual event. You know? The show itself which won't start until THIS sunday. Oh well.
Reply
Gardiner Westbound 9:49AM (1/04/2007)
This is baloney. Manufacturers compete to get their upcoming offerings on the covers of enthusiast magazines, offering them exclusive pictures and information. Those omitted from the information sweepstakes should publish material that falls into their hands.
Reply
Sean Flanagan 9:52AM (1/04/2007)
I have to say that I agree with the anti-Autoblog sentiment of other posters. It's one thing to report on a publication (online or otherwise) breaking an embargo and provide a link, but it's an entirely different thing to publish that information (visual or otherwise) and decide that all is well because someone else broke the rules first.
There are literally billions of dollars at stake for new product launches for the upcoming year, and many of them are make or break for the parent companies. When an embargo is broken, the potential buzz surrounding a launch is all but killed since there are no secrets or speculation.
I'll grant you that Autoblog is an enthusiast-oriented site so the general public will still probably remain in the dark. But, imagine if local newspapers followed the same procedures and justified their actions in the same way. The repercussions would be severe.
Reply
yeahright 10:03AM (1/04/2007)
Autoblog is, of course, free to operate any way it sees fit. If you want to stay in the manufacturers' good books you will presumably kowtow to their requests - as you did yesterday when you removed those minivan pix.
However, to claim that you did so because you want to be seen as a professional news organization is laughable. News organizations receive leaks all the time, and they don't make a habit of refusing to publish just because some bigwig gets his shorts in a knot.
If you want to be a news organization, act like a news organization. If you want to suck up to manufacturers who can't seem to stop their own employees and/or contractors from leaking information, then don't pretend you are a news organization.
Reply
Thunder 10:09AM (1/04/2007)
Cream and Frank are right. If you agree to something even if it seems insignificant, you should follow through with your promise. Otherwise things just snowball. For those of you that think it's OK to break your agreements based on a whim, others trust and respect in you will reflect that, and that's your choice.
GM, Ford and DMC are perfect examples, they have preached about their high level of quality for years when the results didn't reflect quality at all. Unfortunately they didn't follow through with that commitment and look how much it's hurt them. Yes, they're building average quality cars now, but they're fighting against their own created negative perceptions.
For the public to trust them again they're going to have to offer something better than the competition in either quality, innovation, design, efficiency and/or reliability (hopefully it will be all of those) as we all individually chose what's important to us.
Reply
DCWF 10:15AM (1/04/2007)
Wow! Reading some of the comments to this issue really sheds a bright light on the cause of our more important national problems. As former congressman, now felon, Jim Traficant used to say: "Beam me up!" Autoblog, you did the right thing.
Reply
George 11:02AM (1/04/2007)
This is Funny AB is now taking the moral ground after being SHITFACED... Its seems someone on the staff was trigger happy to upload the DCX pics, I guess you guys just seemed to forget about that embargo...
Now if you didn’t have an embargo then you guys are pussies for pandering to Daimler… There no reason to remove it unless you just want to suck off Daimler...
Reply
Jimjam 12:30PM (1/04/2007)
Autoblog,
You were mindless sheep....TWICE.
Ethics are certainly more important than photos of a Cheeriomobile. Grow some balls!
Reply
Andy 3:49PM (1/04/2007)
We in the general public benefit from leaks because those leaks are for our knowing. I still don't like it. Leaks ruin the fun of the debut, and the principle of breaking the trust bond with your employer is of a low caliber. Automakers, like government agencies, should investigate and discover who the leakers are and take aggressive action.
Reply
Fabulo 5:35PM (1/04/2007)
Ehtics? Give me a break. Journalism is about investigation and reporting. The little game of sending press material in advance to the press and set an embargo date is called collusion. It has nothing to do with journalism. It also tell you a lot on who the magazines are really serving.
Relying on the 'honor system' is retarded in a competitive environment like this one (you know, the Internet, a dog with a hat can run a blog for $0/year, so everyone has an automotive 'blog')
And finally, this was probably the only way DCX could create some buzz about their shitbox minivan. And everyone played the game with heart.
Reply
ruggels 10:57PM (1/04/2007)
"For those of you that think it's OK to break your agreements based on a whim, others trust and respect in you will reflect that, and that's your choice."
Umm ever follow US foreign policy, like say for the past six years? bwahahahah, or the past 150, bwahahahahaha. Breaking agreements based on a whim is what America does best.
Reply