The Byline: PR and Marketing Insights from Eiler Communications

Unless you try to stay uninformed, you are aware of the mania surrounding the release of the latest and last book in the worshipped Harry Potter series. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows will be released to lines of people in wizard costumes at 12:01 am on Saturday (another blog post entirely).

The final fate of Harry and his posse has been speculated ad nauseum by fans and media, and an uber-strict publisher’s embargo on the books has only fueled the frenzy to find out how it all ends. Booksellers and reviewers worldwide have respectfully agreed to follow the rules of the official release date, but those crazy kids the New York Times and Baltimore Sun skipped class to smoke in the bathroom. Reviewers Michiko Kakutani and Mary Carole McCauley, respectively, not only obtained copies but also published reviews days in advance of the release.

The backlash was almost immediate, from media, readers and J.K. Rowling herself, who was quoted via her U.K. publisher, Bloomsbury, as being “. . .staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish purported spoilers in the form of reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children, who wanted to reach Harry’s final destination by themselves, in their own time. I am incredibly grateful to all those newspapers, booksellers and others who have chosen not to attempt to spoil Harry’s last adventure for fans.”

Bloomsbury and U.S. publisher Scholastic, Inc. have both slammed the Times and Sun for running the reviews and revealing so much of the plot. Scholastic has taken legal action against two sources of “leaked” books, reports the Detroit News.

From a journalistic and PR perspective, this is an interesting case study in embargoes. Some background: an embargo is a request by a source that the news it provides not be published until a certain date and/or condition has been met. They most often accompany a product launch or government announcement, the purpose being to allow journalists enough time to draft their stories so they can publish at the same time the announcement happens—not before. The obvious reason anyone would ignore an embargo is to “scoop” competition and be the first to report on a story.

Embargoes rely completely on the honor system, but it is generally understood by students in both Journalism and Public Relations 101 that a broken embargo is bad form and a violation of trust. Some sources respond to broken embargoes by limiting offending journalists’ access to future information.

In this case, the only embargo with legal ramifications is the one between the publisher and the bookseller. While this is hardly a matter of national security, and journalists apparently did not enter into any agreements of their own, the vast majority of them were clearly obeying the spirit of the law by waiting to review the book until publicly available.

Nothing will happen to either newspaper, unless you count the angry outcry from Team Gryffindor and the court of public opinion. Here are some sound bites from the Baltimore Sun letters to the editor:

“I wanted to send a quick note about how terrible it is that The Sun allowed one of its reporters, Mary Carole McCauley, to give a review of a book that is so highly anticipated and whose secrets are so closely guarded just days before the book is released . . . Not only does the reporter not mention how she received an early copy of the book, but she also gives away two major plot points in her review. While the rest of us were breathlessly awaiting the book’s Saturday morning arrival and wondering what “Deathly Hallows” are and whether Harry lives or dies, The Sun’s reporter neatly summed it up for us. It’s despicable that The Sun would allow such a thing.”

“I’m utterly appalled that The Sun published a review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows two days before the book’s release, one that revealed some plot points and spoiled the conclusion of 10 years of wonderful reading experience for children and adults alike . . .This is incredibly irresponsible.”

And my favorite, I think, from Kelly McBride, ethics group leader of journalism’s Poynter Institute, as quoted in the Detroit News article:

“I think this comes down to, ‘who are you loyal to?’ As a journalist, you’re loyal to your audience. You have made no agreement with (book publisher) Scholastic to embargo information, should you get hold of it. So the information is out there, what do you do with it? You have to make decisions based on how you best serve your audience.” For that very reason, McBride doesn’t think revealing details of the plot serves the audience. “Do you ruin the ending? Well, of course not. You don’t do that when the book is released, either, because that is a disservice to your audience.”

There is definitely some gray area, but I’m siding with Gryffindor on this one.

Posted by: Rebecca

Save This Page

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed