Timing is everything . . .

. . . especially in communication and public relations.

Getting the timing right is essential in the launch of a new product, or in a public information campaign.

Direct communication to customers and suppliers, briefings and presentations for important audiences, announcements in industry media, and development of new angles for general and specialist media should precede paid advertising.

Quite apart from the logic and courtesy of communicating directly with the most important audiences, such an approach actually makes advertising more effective.

Many of those who see and hear the advertising will recall receiving the earlier direct communication. The effect is akin to increasing the frequency and extent of an ad schedule.

It doesn't seem to work anything like as well the other way around (advertising first and communicating later). The theory is that exposure to large amounts of advertising on the same topic generates a "turn off" effect, reducing the reception of any subsequent non-advertising messages.

If marketing communication includes a media relations component, this will be more effective if it is timed so that exposure is concentrated over a short period.

It may be tempting to pursue big circulation daily papers and high-rating television programmes first, and deal with magazines and sector media later — but lead times dictate planning is other way around.

Editors of monthly publications work with deadlines several weeks ahead of distribution and need time to prepare. Understandably, they tend to lose interest when they find stories being pitched to them at the same time as their weekly and daily colleagues.

Even worse, the same material sent at the same time to all media guarantees only a slight pause between fax machine and waste basket.

Each medium serves a different audience and is striving to differentiate itself in a highly competitive environment.

Why would a journalist be interested in the same story likely to appear first elsewhere? A different angle would help. So would some discussion on the timing.

Timing has the potential to make or break public information campaigns, especially when it is bad news that has to be communicated.

Communication of the Auckland Regional Council's rate increase is a case in point.

Protests are mounting as rates mailings reach each part of the region because the extent of the impact on individual households has not been communicated earlier.

For the benefit of non-Auckland readers, here's a brief summary of the current political situation:

The ARC is a second-tier of local government, operating in addition to local city and district councils. This year it is rating property owners directly for the first time (rates were previously collected on the ARC's behalf by city and district councils).

That's not the only change. Auckland's daily gridlock has reached L.A. proportions and the ARC needs more funds for roading and public transport improvements.

It has also opted to rate property owners by capital value, a big change from the previous land value system which city and district councils still use.

Right now, home owners across the region are receiving ARC bills up to six times (yes 600 per cent) larger than last year. That's in addition to the usual city and district council rates.

To say they're a little upset is putting it mildly.

There have been stories in the media almost every day since the first rates notices were mailed, public meetings, talk of refusal to pay, several petitions being organised . . . you get the picture.

To its partial credit, the ARC rolled out a general communication campaign talking about the need for additional spending to solve the region's transport chaos and did provide spread payment arrangements to ease the impact on those hit hardest.

But there was no advance communication to signal the extent of the rates increase.

Perhaps our regional politicians thought it would be a bad idea to spell out in advance that ratepayers faced three and four-fold increases.

Perhaps they thought there was a major political risk in providing property-specific year-to-year rate comparisons.

Yet that was exactly the detail which homeowners deserved, and well ahead of rates bills hitting the kitchen tables of the region.

From the ARC's perspective, more timely and detailed communication may have (at best) achieved only grudging acceptance of the need for a hefty rate rise. But by failing to eliminate the element of surprise, the ARC has discovered how angry, articulate and organised a previously silent section of the community can be.

Perhaps the organisation now recognises that when there is a risk of misinterpretation, anger and opposition — the need is for more communication, not less.

The same applies whether you have good or bad news to communicate, or whether you are a regional council, a corporate, a not-for-profit organisation, or a small business.

Let us know what you think of the ARC's rates communication (click here)