Sequencing Matters: Why Going Public First Costs You the Regulator

An organisation disagrees with a regulatory position. The commercial stakes are material, internal pressure to respond is high, and someone proposes a media strategy. Within a week there is a placed op-ed and a supportive editorial.

The coverage lands. The regulatory outcome gets worse. This sequence is common enough to be predictable.

Why public-first usually fails

A regulator that reads its position being litigated in the press before receiving a formal submission draws a reasonable conclusion: this organisation is not seeking a technical resolution, it is applying pressure. That reframes the interaction. What could have been an evidentiary discussion between institutions becomes a matter of institutional standing. Regulators do not concede standing under public pressure, because conceding once invites every subsequent counterparty to try the same route.

The second cost is durability. A concession extracted through public pressure is unstable. It can be revisited by the next official, the next government, or the next news cycle. A position established through a documented technical submission tends to hold, because it is on the record for reasons that survive personnel changes.

The sequence that works

Private submission first, and make it genuinely substantive. Evidence, methodology, the specific provision at issue, and a clearly stated proposed remedy. Not a letter expressing concern: a document a technical official can act on and defend internally.

Give it real time. Regulatory bodies move on institutional timelines, not commercial ones. Escalating after ten days signals that the submission was procedural cover for a campaign already scheduled.

Escalate within the institution before escalating outside it. There are usually two or three levels available before the press becomes the only remaining channel. Organisations routinely skip these and then describe themselves as having no alternative.

Go public on the substance, not the grievance. If the private route is genuinely exhausted, the public position should restate the technical argument for a broader audience. It should not characterise the regulator's motives. The moment the argument becomes about the institution rather than the provision, technically sympathetic officials lose the ability to help you.

The exception

There is one: where the regulatory action creates immediate and irreversible harm, and the timeline for private process exceeds the timeline for that harm. That exception is real, and it is invoked far more often than it applies.

Before invoking it, answer one question honestly: is the timeline genuinely irreversible, or is it simply inconvenient for the quarter? The answer determines whether you are running a public affairs strategy or a pressure campaign, and regulators can tell the difference well before your board can.