We were told that Adweek has a “no link out policy” that stems from a previous row with Media Bistro. Meaning that Adweek’s policy is not to link out to other news sources, and to just “rewrite” other people’s stories.
From our understanding of the story, some time ago there was a big issue with linking out to Media Bistro / Agency Spy .. and then Adweek put in place a draconian policy that disallows linking out to sources… even if that source is what initiated the story.
Now we like some of the people there, Brian Morrissey for example is one of the best reporters / authors that I know in the industry.. and he works for Adweek… and generally speaking I do like reading Adweek… as they tend to get the official story from the agency … rather than the leak and slams from the blogs when only 80% of the story is out…. with half of it coming from posts on twitter and direct e-mails from people that are still exiting the building after being fired… in other words seriously slanted.
Aug 1, 3:05pm: Adscam / Parker = X fires 30 people under disguise of a company lunch
Aug 1, 3:15pm: Media Bistro / agency spy = X cans 30 during lunch time (links to adscam)
Aug 1, 3:25pm Tribble Agency = 30 X staffers find pink slips in lunch-box (links to adscam)
Aug 2, 8:01am Adweek = X loses account Y , fires 30, plans more layoffs (links to no one)
Clearly they are all reporting the same story, but Adweek tends to take the time to research the full article and goes more in depth than the blogging community does, but at the expense of being a day late for the article.
However this is our beef with it, Adweek most likely read Adscam, AgencySpy and Tribble, but yet didn’t mention it as the initial source… or in this case George Parker would have been the first to report whereas the others citied adscam …
The question is that did Adweek learn of the layoffs and was working on the story before the bloggers discovered it… or did they read it like everyone else did on adscam.. then started making calls / e-mails..