Draft proposal — internal preview. Dates assume campaign sign-off; the programme is a framework, not a rigid schedule.

The Science of Performance · Publication timetable

Proposed content timetable

Six months from 1 September 2026 · three chapters · 24 publishing weeks · Draft v0.1 — 28 July 2026

One primary piece publishes each week, led by a rotating voice — Rosehill, Josh, Clare, or a customer partner — with choreographed amplification within 48 hours of each key post (repost with commentary → director comments → customer comments). Articles and guides publish to this hub; every piece carries one call to action.

Chapter 1 · The hidden cost of getting wetpour wrong

1 September – 25 October 2026 · weeks 1–8

WeekLead voiceContentFormats & assetsPlatformsCTA
W1 · w/c 1 SepRosehillCampaign launch — “The hidden cost of getting wetpour wrong”: why Day One tells you almost nothingLaunch post · Day 1 → Year 10 fade animation · Josh 30-sec videoLinkedIn (company) · Josh repost + commentary · director commentsRequest the technical presentation
W2 · w/c 7 SepSurface Design“What installers wish specifications included” — contractor perspectiveInterview-style post · carouselCustomer LinkedIn + Rosehill share · Clare commentSpecification discussion
W3 · w/c 14 SepClareArticle: Five Things Architects Should Demand Before Approving a Wetpour SpecificationHub article · saveable checklist carousel · Clare 30-sec videoHub + LinkedIn (Clare, company share) · director commentBook a CPD
W4 · w/c 21 SepFull Urbano“What overseas customers actually ask for” — climate, UV and the Chilean evidencePost · Iquique before/after assetCustomer LinkedIn + Rosehill share · Josh repost with materials commentaryRequest the technical presentation
W5 · w/c 28 SepRosehill“Why playground failures happen” — appearance isn’t performanceMyth/fact cards · six-hour colour-shift visualLinkedIn (company) · Josh repost · customer commentsSpecification review
W6 · w/c 5 OctJoshArticle: Why Your Wetpour Specification Should Describe Longevity, Not Day OneHub article · Day 1 / Day 365 carouselHub + LinkedIn (Josh, company share) · Clare + director commentsBook a CPD
W7 · w/c 12 OctRosehill“One long life, or three short ones?” — replacement costs dwarf material savingsTotal-cost-of-ownership infographicLinkedIn (company) · email to specifier list · director commercial commentarySpecification discussion
W8 · w/c 19 OctClareChapter close — “How to specify properly” + Longevity Specification Checklist launch + CPD invitationConversion post · downloadable guide (hub)LinkedIn (Clare + company) · email · BDMs share with named specifiers · CPD webinar: “Specifying for the decade”Book a CPD

Chapter 2 · TPV isn’t a product

26 October – 20 December 2026 · weeks 9–16, then Christmas pause

WeekLead voiceContentFormats & assetsPlatformsCTA
W9 · w/c 26 OctRosehillChapter launch — “TPV isn’t a product”: steel isn’t a manufacturer…“Steel / concrete / TPV” graphic seriesLinkedIn (company) · Josh repost · director commentsRequest the technical presentation
W10 · w/c 2 NovJoshArticle: Whose TPV? Why a Material Category Is Not a Product SpecificationHub article · “Whose TPV?” question-card carousel · Josh 30-sec videoHub + LinkedIn (Josh, company share) · director commentBook a CPD
W11 · w/c 9 NovFull UrbanoSubstitution and equivalence as distributors see it — what arrives when the label decidesInterview-style postCustomer LinkedIn + Rosehill share · Clare commentSubstitution review
W12 · w/c 16 NovRosehill“What does ‘or equivalent’ actually mean?”Myth/fact cardsLinkedIn (company) · Josh repostSpecification review
W13 · w/c 23 NovClareArticle: What “Or Equivalent” Should Mean — and How to Assess ItHub article · Clare 30-sec videoHub + LinkedIn (Clare, company share) · director commentSubstitution review
W14 · w/c 30 NovSurface DesignSubstitution at site level — what installers are handed vs what was specified (Abacus if participating)Post · carouselCustomer LinkedIn + Rosehill shareSpecification discussion
W15 · w/c 7 DecRosehill“There is only one Rosehill TPV®” — category vs controlled productProduct-identity post + graphicLinkedIn (company) · full choreographyRequest the technical presentation
W16 · w/c 14 DecClareChapter close + Equivalence Assessment Checklist launch + CPD invitationConversion post · downloadable guide (hub)LinkedIn (Clare + company) · email · CPD webinar: “Categories, products and the ‘or equivalent’ trap”Book a CPD
w/c 21 & 28 DecChristmas pause — no scheduled publishing. BDM one-to-one activity only.

Chapter 3 · A great granule can still produce a poor surface

4 January – 28 February 2027 · weeks 17–24

WeekLead voiceContentFormats & assetsPlatformsCTA
W17 · w/c 4 JanRosehillChapter launch — “A great granule can still produce a poor surface”System decision-tree graphicLinkedIn (company) · Josh repost · director commentsProject discussion
W18 · w/c 11 JanJoshArticle: Why Wetpour Should Be Specified as a Complete Surface SystemHub article · Josh 30-sec videoHub + LinkedIn (Josh, company share) · Clare commentProject discussion
W19 · w/c 18 JanSurface DesignInstallation and workmanship from the installer’s side — what a good system needs from siteInterview-style post · installer-mistakes series (with Surface Design)Customer LinkedIn + Rosehill shareSpecification discussion
W20 · w/c 25 JanRosehill“Why loose-granule data is not enough” — the client walks on the compositeComposite explainer carouselLinkedIn (company) · Josh repostRequest test evidence
W21 · w/c 1 FebClareArticle: Matching the Specification to the ApplicationHub article · Clare 30-sec videoHub + LinkedIn (Clare, company share) · director commentProject-specific specification support
W22 · w/c 8 FebARCSpecifying a demanding North American project as a system (bonus slot — falls back to a Rosehill-told project story)Project story postCustomer LinkedIn + Rosehill share · Josh commentProject discussion
W23 · w/c 15 FebRosehill“Cut 25% of the binder. Cut 25% of the carbon.” — efficient systemsBinder & carbon stat graphicLinkedIn (company) · director commercial commentarySpecification discussion
W24 · w/c 22 FebRosehillCampaign close + Application & System Specification Guide launch + invitation to the full presentationConversion post · downloadable guide (hub)LinkedIn (full choreography) · email · CPD: the complete “Science of Performance” sessionBook a CPD

Working assumptions behind this draft:

  • Flexibility: commercial priorities, new installations, product launches and industry events take precedence where appropriate; weeks shuffle rather than disappear.
  • Customer slots: built around Surface Design and Full Urbano as core contributors; ARC and Abacus are bonus slots with Rosehill-told fallbacks. No week depends on an unconfirmed contributor.
  • Lead times: articles enter the review pipeline (Marketing draft → Josh/Clare refinement → technical sign-off) at least three weeks before their slot; customer pieces need contributor approval two weeks before.
  • Assets: each chapter’s visuals (animations, carousels, guides) are produced in the month before the chapter opens — Chapter 1 assets need commissioning in August.
  • Measurement: reviewed monthly against the commercial hierarchy — specifications naming Rosehill TPV®, CPD bookings, specification reviews, projects won.
← Back to The Science of Performance