A 90-day press release distribution approval calendar

This press release distribution ninety-day plan is a buyer-set approval calendar for one authorised announcement in England. It sets review windows, evidence to prepare, and when to record a go, hold or stop decision. It does not mean every announcement needs 90 days or guarantee that a release will be sent, published or acted upon. Adjust dates to actual dependencies, beginning with one announcement job.

Before day one: set the review calendar

Start by recording the announcement fact, its source, the audience need, the contracting entity and the approval owner. Identify the accessible buyer-owned newsroom and any outreach already authorised and documented as the manual baseline.

If the need for the announcement is not supported, put the work on hold rather than using the calendar to create a reason to proceed.

For each review point, record a buyer-set date and an evidence cut-off. Name the owner responsible for preparing evidence and the decision owner who will record the outcome. Also identify the version under review and any dependency that must be resolved before the next window begins. Keep the record concise enough to update as work changes, and make sure it shows:

Dates are checkpoints, not automatic permission to move forward. If a cut-off arrives with missing evidence, record what is missing, who owns it and the next decision date. Do not treat a passed date, a draft or a request marked urgent as a passed gate or as a reason to proceed without the required decision.

Days 1 to 20: establish authority and need

Use the first review window to establish whether there is a supported reason to make the announcement and who can authorise it.

Build the source file around the announcement fact, recording the audience need and the information task it is intended to support. Also record contradictions or protected and confidential material that could affect what may be used.

For each objective claim, attach documentary support and record when that support needs review. Where marketing communications fall within its remit, CAP Code Section 3 addresses substantiation. If the subject is regulated, name a sector reviewer in this window so that the review is a scheduled dependency, rather than an informal request made just before approval.

At the day 20 checkpoint, the decision owner should be able to see the supporting material and unresolved questions. Record proceed only if authority and need are supported; revise if a specific evidence gap can be addressed; or stop if the need or authority cannot be established. Carry forward named tasks, not a general instruction to "finish the copy".

Days 21 to 40: schedule route and rights decisions

Use the next window to settle which distribution function the announcement requires and what must be in place for that function.

The original plan distinguishes a buyer's newsroom, direct outreach, technical transmission, paid placement, monitoring and earned editorial. Identify the intended route or routes, the decision owner and the evidence needed to decide whether each is ready, not to compare suppliers or rank channels.

Record the route using the announcement workflow. Set a review date for recording the route's payer, recipient, deliverable and status definitions. Leave service levels, capacity and commercial fields unfilled unless a current record supports them. The checkpoint should expose missing evidence in time for a decision, not let an assumption silently become an approval condition. Use the planning guide to keep route decisions distinct and reversible.

Schedule an asset-register review in the same window. IPO copyright ownership guidance explains that commissioning does not automatically transfer ownership. Ask the IP reviewer to record the creator, owner, licence, territory, media, term and credit for each asset the announcement depends on. Mark unresolved items against the affected version or route; an unresolved asset need not automatically hold unrelated work.

At the day 40 review, record which route and asset dependencies are cleared and which still need evidence or an owner. If a central asset remains unresolved, mark the affected work as held and set a new review date. Do not let later calendar dates imply that the rights decision has been made or that the affected work is ready to proceed.

Days 41 to 60: make contact readiness a dated decision

Schedule contact preparation as its own review lane. For each contact source, record its purpose, date, recipient type, accuracy check, privacy information, objection and suppression route. ICO B2B marketing guidance says publicly available personal data is not automatic agreement to direct marketing, and that channel and subscriber type matter.

The original guidance page is under DUAA review, so assign the privacy owner to recheck it before any contact route opens. Keep the data protection review on the calendar. Record the press list and why each contact is included, together with the owner of any pitch and follow-up.

If the plan includes an embargo, schedule a decision on its terms and who has agreed to them. Treat these as readiness items for the chosen contacts, not as a reason to assume a contact may be approached.

An unresolved purpose or objection record means that contact route is not ready for approval. Where the distributing entity processes personal data, schedule the privacy owner's confirmation of its entry on the ICO register of fee payers and its data protection fee before the contact route opens, unless a valid exemption applies.

The security owner should also have time in this window to document accounts, privileges, supplier access, logs, recovery and authoritative copies. NCSC SaaS guidance supports these questions but does not approve a distribution service. Schedule this evidence for the separate security status at the day 60 checkpoint.

At the day 60 checkpoint, record a separate status for contact readiness, privacy and security. A pass in one area does not settle another. If an owner cannot provide the required evidence by the cut-off, assign a new review date or keep the affected route on hold; do not carry it forward as implicitly approved.

Days 61 to 75: reserve time for a controlled format test

Set aside the next window for a test of the intended format and its handling. Choose formats from actual audience research.

For government communications, accessible-formats guidance recommends planning responsibility and alternatives early; a qualified reviewer must determine the buyer's own accessibility duties and evidence. Keep this test distinct from the other approval lanes.

Before testing, name the test owner, the version to use and the authorised destination. Use a synthetic fixture or material genuinely authorised for that destination, not test news sent to real journalists. Schedule a record of whether the file version and fields were preserved, how errors were handled, and whether correction, export and access recovery worked as intended.

The review date should leave room to report a failure and assign its resolution before the final decision window. Record the result as evidence for the format test only; it does not replace the authority, rights, contact or other reviews. If a test prompts a change to the version or format, note which earlier review evidence depends on the changed material and schedule those affected reviews again.

Days 76 to 90: close the approval calendar

Before the final decision, set both the decision date and the evidence cut-off. Review factual authority, claims, paid-content identification, sector approval, privacy and PECR, suppression, rights, accessibility, security, contract, cost and exit as separate lanes.

A pass in one lane cannot offset a failure in another. Use the quality checklist as a review aid, but tie the decision to the particular version and destination set assessed.

Record one of three outcomes. A go applies only to the reviewed version and destination set. A hold means that named evidence or an owner is outstanding, with a new buyer-set review date. A stop records that the work will not proceed under the current plan; it is not an unrecorded delay or permission to proceed later without review.

If approved, preserve the exact submission and returned status. These records show what was submitted and what the route reported; they do not establish that the material was read or acted upon. Do not treat a go decision as a commitment to a particular publication or result, and use the UK rules review for the relevant announcement obligations.

If a dependency changes or a review date slips

Revisit the calendar if a key fact, source, destination list, contact arrangement, supplier term, security event or relevant regulator guidance changes.

Identify which review decisions relied on the changed item and reopen those reviews. Keep earlier evidence only where its basis remains unchanged, and record the effects on the current version and route.

When a review date is missed, record the outstanding dependency, its owner and a replacement date based on the work remaining. Tell affected owners which later decision depends on it. Do not compress another review just to preserve the original 90-day shape, and do not move a decision forward because the calendar has reached its final window.

This plan supplies review windows and decision points, not a universal lead time or a forecast of publication. The buyer sets the dates from its own dependencies and records whether each gate is supported, still open or stopped. A changed dependency or missed date therefore calls for an updated decision record, not an assumed approval.