Net Results: Non-disclosure agreements at tech events are often aimed at creating a hype around products
Every time I am asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) before attending a technology event, I wonder why companies bother. The same goes for embargoed press releases.
It's not that these are terribly unusual. Few journalists haven't received an embargoed press release (meaning it cannot be made public through a print story or broadcast before a date and time noted on the release).
And most of us who cover areas in which products are released or where research is done have penned our names on an NDA. An NDA is a more elaborate form of embargo, usually involving a company or researcher discussing a new product, project or findings well in advance of a launch date or publication of findings.
The idea is that the journalists get a briefing on what is coming up so they can write about the topic in a more informed way.
Sometimes it's a way of maintaining journalist interest in a long-term project where updates keep the hacks from thinking the project is having problems or has gone down the tubes. However, having a couple of hundred journalists sign an NDA for a single event seems to be a prime way to get a story leaked in advance, if not through a published story, then though an unguarded comment that ends up on a rumour website.
Either way, expecting a secret to remain a secret after you've told a few hundred hacks, even if they have signed an NDA in their anaemic blood, witnessed by the devil (or the technology company's public relations department, a closely related institution) is, well, dicing with that same devil.
I mean, that's like someone from Microsoft whispering about a Bill Gates faux pas to Larry Ellison and expecting Ellison not to use it in his next keynote speech. It's just not gonna happen.
Given the rivalry between media outlets, the temptation always exists for a publication to publish something on whatever is under embargo or NDA before a rival splashes it across the page.
But I, like many of the other journalists I spoke to at a recent event at which we all signed NDAs, have a feeling that many of the companies assume, or even desire, that information will be leaked in advance of a formal announcement. A leak can create excitement and buzz about what is otherwise just another product announcement.
A bit of rumour circulating on the internet engenders some useful anticipation for the announcement or launch.
On the other hand we are also a clumsy lot at times, and can inadvertently spill the beans as well. I was at one event this year where a couple hundred of us were briefed about a product under NDA.
As part of the overall briefing, the company wished to announce a new line-up of products - not including the NDA product, which was not to be released for several weeks yet - and the event switched over to become a live global webcast to journalists and anyone else who wanted to join in. The announcements were made and the executive opened the floor to questions.
One of the first questions came from a European journalist at the event who asked for further detail about the strategy behind the product under NDA.
He mentioned the price of it as well, revealing both product and pricing details to the world weeks before the secret was supposed to be out. Oops! Next time I'll bet the company will leave the NDA stuff until after the webcasts to the world.
One company that truly does not like having its secrets leaked, however, is Apple. The company has been aggressive in pursuing rumour websites such as ThinkSecret.com and PowerPage.Com which exist for the Mac Faithful to speculate about what Steve Jobs' next move will be. Apple was furious when the two sites published information that was under NDA, even though the source was likely to have been one of its own employees.
In general, Apple has been successful at keeping details on new products and strategies from leaking out in advance - but not always. And even with a policy of pursuing those who leak or publish such details, the company seems to pick and choose what it is and isn't bothered by.
Hence, I haven't heard of any Apple anger so far over recent speculation that the company would move from IBM processors to Intel processors - a "switch", to use the company's own slogan for Windows users, that has resurfaced as a rumour throughout Apple's history.
The Wall Street Journal gave it play last Sunday, and C/Net's News.com technology news website Monday had it pegged as a definite announcement in Jobs' keynote speech later that day at this week's Apple Worldwide Developers Conference in California. Jobs did indeed make the announcement on Monday.
Many speculate Apple itself sanctioned the rumours. Whether Apple tries to expose the source of the rumours will say a lot about how companies sometimes choose to be flexible on leakages and NDAs - as any Apple employees involved in talks with Intel would have signed such documents.
In other words, it's sometimes all a bit of a game with NDAs. Whether they mean anything at all really depends on the company, the circumstances and the PR opportunity.
