July 24, 2025
The Trade-Offs of Trade Journalism
Chasing truth, dodging spin, and sometimes hitting pause on breaking news
There’s a familiar tension in this line of work. You catch wind of the next market shakeup, the big acquisition, the internal info that wasn’t supposed to leak — and every so often, you land a real scoop. The kind that shakes up markets, reshuffles territories, or lights up text chains within minutes.
And then, after emailing the news subjects for comments and giving them a heads' up, someone asks you not to publish it.
This week, Inside Lighting had two such stories. One: the acquisition of a fairly well-known brand. The other: a significant shakeup involving one of the industry's largest markets. Neither was earth-shattering, but both were ready to go.
And in both cases, the ask came in. One was a formal embargo request. The other was more casual, just the usual: “Hey, can I ask a favor?”
One request came from a PR team. The other, from a longtime industry contact we know well. Ordinarily, we say no to these kinds of asks. But this week, as we’ve occasionally done before, we agreed to hold. Not out of obligation, but because, in these cases, the reasons felt worth hearing.
What Courtesy Can Cost You
Trade journalism runs on access. But access, unbalanced, starts to look like silence. And we’ve been here before.
In late 2022, we were set to publish a piece indicating that many signs were pointing towards Ashley Williams as the likely new principal of a startup Cooper Lighting agency in Chicago. The story checked out — new business registration, recently acquired domain, website under construction, local reports verified, multiple ignored requests for comment. It was ready.
Then, hours before going live, came the ask: could we hold it until Friday?
And on Friday, other news outlets hit publish on the same story — publishing the news they’d been spoon-fed without doing the independent legwork. No digging. No discovery. Just repackaged info from the same coordinated message, delivered to everyone at once.
We’re definitely not bitter. Honestly, we’d probably make the same call again for the same reasons. But we remember.
What We Should Be Asking For
Lately, we’ve been reassessing how we handle these moments.
Not with threats. Not with strings. We’re not angling for ad dollars. We’re not trading coverage for clicks. But when we’re asked to wait — especially on a story we sourced ourselves — it’s fair to expect something in return. A unique quote. A one-day head start. A piece of the story we can own.
Because when these situations arise, we often ask ourselves, "Would Adam Schefter hit pause for four days after confirming a deal?"
Probably not.
Not because it’s about being first — but because scoops carry weight. And sitting on them without leverage? That’s a luxury most news media usually can’t afford.
Too often, companies share the news internally, with distributors or partners, long before the public release. By the time the email blast goes out, it’s common knowledge. The moment of impact — the “news” — is diluted. Everyone publishes at once. No one stands out.
If we’re going to wait, there should be a reason.
We Don’t Just Publish What We’re Handed
That said, we still wait. When it’s warranted. When it leads to a better story. When the ask comes from someone who’s earned a little patience.
We don’t wait because we’re told to. We wait because we choose to.
And whether we’re breaking news or simply covering it, we try to do something different. Offer context. Ask better questions. Write past the press release.
Because too often, what passes for “breaking news” in this space is really just a marketing message in disguise. The subject line says news, but the content reads like it came straight from a corporate deck. No analysis. No context. No scrutiny. Just a string of adjectives — “innovative,” “best-in-class,” “industry-leading” — force-fed to you and passed off as journalism.
That’s not reporting. That’s marketing propaganda. And we don’t recycle marketing messages and feed it to you as impartial news.
In a week where we didn’t publish those two scoops, Inside Lighting still had its busiest day of the year yesterday — 8,707 visits. Why? Two original, very popular, uniquely researched stories that weren’t about being first. They were about being useful.
See You Monday Morning
So yes, we had the acquisition story lined up, quotes confirmed, and our cursor 17 minutes away from “publish” at 12 noon. But we held it.
Come next week, we’ll bring you the details. The deal. The players. This one won’t move markets, but certain lighting people will be intrigued.
See you Monday morning.
