Posted by Jon on 16 May, 2008 under Musings, Word play & writing | 
Listening to the radio on a long drive recently, I heard a spectacular example of the misuse of pre-written content. Not proposal material, thankfully – rather a news story from last year about application forms submitted by students wishing to study medicine at UK universities.Apparently, candidates now have to submit a ‘personal statement’ describing why they are applying for the course in question.
Amazingly, it seems that pre-written ‘personal’ statements can be downloaded from the web.
And astonishingly, as a result, no fewer than 234 prospective students wished to follow a career in medicine as the result of
‘a dramatic incident’ involving ‘burning a hole in pyjamas at age eight’.
This is also about as bad as it gets in terms of failing the “me too” test. When I’m working with proposal teams, I sometimes swap out their organisation’s name for that of their closest competitor throughout their text. This simple trick often proves to be a very powerful means of getting contributors to realise that they need to dig deeper to look for real competitive differentiators.
Posted by BJ on 14 May, 2008 under Word play & writing |
As the saying goes folks, you just can’t make this stuff up.In a recent article a woman was relating how she and her husband used to talk all the time but don’t anymore. She went on to say,
“I’ve even considered having an affair because I need someone in my life to fill that gab.”
(And yes, I DO know how much grief I’m going to take for this.)
Posted by Jon on 12 May, 2008 under Musings |
The other weekend, I took my son to visit HMS Victory, Nelson’s flagship. The tour was quite amazing – up and down decks, as we explored every nook and cranny of the legendary ship.Now, I wonder: what if we thought of the reader of a proposal as a ‘visitor’, on a ‘guided tour’ of the solution?
They’d have to be welcomed professionally. They’d want to assimilate the basics quickly (where are we going to go, what will we get to see, how long will it last?). They’d expect their host to be well-informed: to present clearly, to use language and concepts appropriate for the whole in the party – not too advanced for the younger kids on the tour, not too simple to patronise or bore the adults.
They’d have questions of their own, of course, although they would be amazed at quite how well the guide covered all of the information that they wanted to hear. There’d be high-quality supporting materials – a booklet here, a fact sheet there – for those who wanted to learn more.
They’d end the trip feeling as though they had been made welcome, valued, respected. They’d have taken away some fascinating new knowledge. They’d recommend the experience to their friends.
I could have fun with this. At the highest level, getting a team working on an opportunity to think about the experience that they wanted the visitors to enjoy might unlock some cool, shared thoughts on the characteristics of the successful proposal. And I could see this adding an interesting, unusual perspective to the content design process. I like the idea of drawing a plan on the wall of the proposal war room – the layout of an old house, for example. The team could label each room with different sections of the proposal; they could debate where the tourists would go first, and think about how to make the experience work best for all who approach the front door.
Posted by BJ on 8 May, 2008 under Musings |
I came across these two tidbits in my local paper -
“Time Out Of The House Significantly Contributes To Children’s Health.” This article stressed the need for children to get away from the TV and computer and spend time outside. The article then has, “You and your children can find a list of outdoor activities online at www.outdoorfun.com.
Decidedly mixed message there. And you just know most of us (Ok, those of us that have been in the game awhile) have submitted a document that contained some similarly contradictory/conflicting statements. Thus the need for careful and critical reviews, ideally by a person or persons with some objectivity (and who aren’t afraid to be critical.)
In the second piece the author spoke of being behind a truck for ABC (name changed) Corporate Coffee Services. The author pointed out that he was behind the truck in a drive-through line at a Dunkin Donuts. Hmm. Now doesn’t that deliver the right message?
Here too, I suspect how the company operates and appears to the customer may differ, either slightly or significantly, to how it is presented within a proposal.
Posted by Jon on 6 May, 2008 under Processes & best practice |
One of those frustrating bids recently. We forewarned the team; warmed them up with some background briefing information; gathered a core team to think through our likely strategy and story; pulled together as much relevant raw material as we could; built a plan (mindful that timescales were still not 100% clear).
The contributors were… well, if not raring to go, at least aware that the proposal was coming up, clear on their likely roles, and starting to juggle their other commitments accordingly.
And then the customer’s RFP was delayed. And delayed. And delayed again.
Even with well-qualified deals, sometimes pre-proposal planning efforts can turn into something a “cry wolf” scenario. It’s an interesting dilemma; as I wrote to this particular team, informing them of the latest delay:
As always, there’s a fine line with bids between:
(a) giving the team as much notice as possible – with the risk that timescales may slip, and
(b) waiting until the dates are definite but then giving you too little notice!
Sorry if the moving target here is proving confusing, but I’d still rather forewarn you as best I can rather than springing things on you last minute…
Certainly my experience is that content contributors value early engagement over and above the occasional unexpected delay. It’s always easier for them to re-allocate any time they’ve set aside, back to their day jobs, than it is to try and carve out time for proposal work from an already-packed schedule.
Posted by BJ on 2 May, 2008 under Musings |
While driving the other day my wife and I were discussing the first music either of us had purchased. As is usually the case for us, we had music playing (for those interested in such things, the song on at the moment was Eric Clapton’s version of Crossroads.)I fondly recalled the first album I ever purchased, at the ripe old age of 11. It was Gary Lewis’ This Diamond Ring. (Those who are old enough to remember this tune, definitely before Jon’s time, may well recall the song, and the lyrics might come easily to mind. In my case, they didn’t, which, as those who know me will tell you, is VERY unusual for me.
Now, sometimes having music on while trying to recall another song can be helpful. Other times, the music playing can be extremely distracting. That was the case while I listened to Eric Clapton play the blues and tried to recall the words to this 60’s pop tune.
So I tried an experiment.. I decided to leave the music playing and see if I could recall the lyrics, which I once knew well and which I was sure were in my memory banks somewhere. I tried for the several minutes of the Clapton tune to recall the lyrics without success. Then, as soon as the song stopped, the lyrics almost immediately came to mind.
I think this is something that happens within proposals. There’s a tendency to want to present multiple and often somewhat disconnected messages and/or themes and more rather than less information.
All of this vies for the reader’s attention and makes it difficult, perhaps impossible to discern a clear message and theme (the melody), let alone remember it (the lyrics) after the review has been completed.
Sticking to one tune and keeping things simple is definitely the way to go.
