The received wisdom in the proposal profession – reflected in the APMP Foundation examination – is that one should use ‘serif’ fonts (such as Times New Roman) for body text, and a ‘sans serif’ font (such as Arial) for headings and captions. Having played with a few typefaces over the years – including some interesting experiments, setting out the same proposal in different fonts and gathering feedback from users – it’s always seemed like a fairly sensible guide.

Certainly, most designers tend to work primarily with sans serif fonts. They’re deemed easier to read at larger font sizes, and work well on short documents. And that’s where many corporate branding teams focus when mandating a ‘corporate font’: their practical experience revolves largely around brochures, adverts, websites, emails, letters – not on proposals, which are much longer. Yet I’ve worked with many top-notch designers who’ve seemed very cynical about the advice that one should switch over to a serif font for longer documents, and I’m far from sure that that’s merely ignorance on their part.

So, I decided recently to look for the underlying evidence to support the two sides of the debate. That took me to a fascinating article by Alex Poole, entitled “Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces?”. Alex explains that “An argument has been raging for decades within the scientific and typographic communities on what seems a very insignificant issue: Do serifs contribute to the legibility of typefaces, and by definition, are sans serif typefaces less legible? To date, no one has managed to provide a conclusive answer to this issue.”

He talks through various typographical definitions in detail, then “reviews the evidence for and against the legibility of serif and sans serif typefaces”, drawing extensively on various academic studies of the issue. And his conclusion?

What initially seemed a neat dichotomous question of serif versus sans serif has resulted in a body of research consisting of weak claims and counter-claims, and study after study with findings of “no difference”. Is it the case that more than one hundred years of research has been marred by repeated methodological flaws, or are serifs simply a typographical “red herring”?

It is of course possible that serifs or the lack of them have an effect on legibility, but it is very likely that they are so peripheral to the reading process that this effect is not even worth measuring. Indeed, a greater difference in legibility can easily be found within members of the same type family than between a serif and a sans serif typeface. There are also other factors such as x-height, counter size, letter spacing and stroke width which are more significant for legibility than the presence or absence of serifs.

Finally, we should accept that most reasonably designed typefaces in mainstream use will be equally legible, and that it makes much more sense to argue in favour of serif or sans serif typefaces on aesthetic grounds than on the question of legibility.

So maybe, just maybe, the ‘standard’ proposal convention is less robust that it might appear. Certainly, I’ll be less forceful with corporate branding folks having reviewed the article than I’ve sometimes been in the past. But it doesn’t shake me from my belief that the best way to choose a font for your proposal is to make sure it’s one with which the evaluators would feel comfortable, and potentially to print samples of the document in different fonts and canvass opinion on which is easiest to read and most attuned to your story and brand.

Upon reading the text, it was evident that what the writer wanted to convey was that the action would be taken if the project manager wasn’t in compliance. Unfortunately, as is often the case with the written word, the language used allowed for this to be interpreted a couple of ways and one of them has a negative connotation.

The response read, “If, upon review, the project manager is determined to be non-compliant, we will take action as needed.”

Another example of language having two meanings, in this case those being opposite of what was intended, comes from a response I sent to one of our associates (hi there Rickie). She had raised a concern and I replied, “I will pass on your concern…” As she pointed out, this could be taken as I wasn’t going to address her concern.

I offer these examples as reminders as to why our being careful with the language we use and carefully editing and reviewing content is so critical to the quality of our responses.

Not proposal-specific, but I think we’ll all relate to it:

Click here to view the embedded video.

This facility is unavailable due to essential maintenance works

… because ‘broken’ really would have been too simple.

Along similar lines, on a trip to Versailles a month or so ago:

The tour continues on the opposite side of the peristyle.

OK, make me feel stupid. Peristyle? Where do I go now? Oh – you mean the walkway with columns that I’m standing in.

Why is it that people writing notices – or proposals – feel the need to try and impress the reader with overly-grandiose language? And don’t they realise that, in their attempts to impress, they actually achieve the very opposite?

And then sometimes there’s stuff that’s just weird – like the name of the shop I passed in my cab en route to Abu Dhabi airport, all-too-early the other morning having run a course there for a great group:

Syria Flower Butchery

No, I couldn’t work it out either. But there seemed to be more flowers around than carcasses, and I’d be more than a little concerned about asking them to make up a bouquet…

Please feel free to provide any words that you see repeatedly that Spell Check failed to catch.

————————————————————————–

Affect versus Effect

There is a lot of confusion around these two words. Keep this in mind to keep the two straight: “Affect” is a verb and “effect” is a noun. It’s as simple as that.

Farther versus Further (versus Father)

While both words refer to distance, grammarians distinguish “farther” as physical distance and “further” as metaphorical distance. You can dive further into a project, for instance, or you can dive farther into the ocean. And we all do know what ‘Father’ means, right? Unfortunately, spell check will allow all of these words in whatever context you choose to use them.

From and Form

Sure, you know the difference with these two words. Spell check doesn’t (this is a typical typo for me, especially when my fingers are flying over the keys just a bit to fast!)

Its versus It’s (and all other apostrophes):

According to a copy editing instructor for California-based copy editing service provider confusing “its” and “it’s” is the most common error in the English language. That one minuscule apostrophe (or lack thereof) drastically changes the meaning of the entire sentence. “It’s” is a contraction of “it is,” whereas “its” refers to possession.

“Your” versus “You’re” falls into the same category. Your, a pronoun, is the possessive case of ‘you’. ‘You’re’ is a contraction of “you are”.

Sales versus Sails

Can you imagine presenting with a proposal that you will help them “…increase sails by 20 percent”?! Unless the proposal happens to be to a manufacturer of sails (the kind that are used on sailboats!), this careless mistake will probably get your proposal sailing right into the recycling bin.

Supposed To, not Suppose To

“Suppose” is a verb, meaning to think or to ponder. Used in the past tense, this verb is “supposed”, as in “I was supposed to make sure I didn’t use ‘suppose to’”.

Their versus There versus They’re

“Their” is possessive; “there” refers to distance; and “they’re” is a contraction of “they”.

Then versus Than

Six is more than five. If you add one to five, then you have six. “Than” refers to a comparison, while “then” refers to a subsequent event.

Threw versus Through (and thru) versus (Thorough)

“He threw the ball through the window.” “Threw” is the past tense of the verb “to throw”. “Thru’ is this word spelled incorrectly and should never be used!). “Through” is a preposition meaning ‘in at one end, side, or surface and out at the other:’ And speaking of “through,” be careful to make sure you don’t actually mean “thorough” or vice versa. Thorough is an adjective meaning ‘complete, executed without omission’. Like many of the words mentioned here, this slight variation in spelling will not be picked up by a computer, and could easily be missed by an editor or proofreader, especially if they are rushing through a document. Writing “We are through when it comes to editing/ proofreading our proposals” when you mean to write “We are thorough…” is rather ironic.

Waist vs. waste

Waist is a noun, describing the part of the body between the ribs and the hips, usually the narrowest part of a person’s body. Waste is a verb, typically used in conjunction with an object, and is defined as to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander: If you always eat everything on your plate, your waist will likely go to waste.

Wonder versus Wander

You can wander around while you wonder why “wander” and “wonder” have such different meanings, yet sound oh so similar.

Would Have, not Would of

This common mispronunciation has led to the rampant misuse of this phrase. However “would of” is never correct and will most likely make it appear as if your proposal was a written by someone lacking language skills.

Your comments interest us.

I love that they’re curious to hear what you think; that they’ll weigh up what you say and – in the refreshing underlying implication of the message – that they may well conclude that whilst you are entitled to your opinion, it may be entirely wrong.

Feedback on proposals – from customers or team members – is always facinating to hear. Yet, of course, it’s not always correct, fair – or, necessarily, honest: people do play games to protect their own position, avoid conflict, transfer blame, claim credit, seize the moral high ground, dodge further actions. It’s why strong, impartial facilitation of these debriefs and workshops is so important.

“While in horrendous traffic today, constantly being cut off left and right, moving at a snail’s pace and generally getting myself all riled up, my 3 year old turned to me and said “Daddy, you need to calm down. Let’s take a few deep breaths together. Then we can find a playground, you can swing for a while, and we’ll all feel much better.”

I’ve been on many proposal teams that could use someone with this kind of wisdom.

But what of writing? The longer I work on proposals, the more I come to appreciate that lots of the best people out there at managing proposals out there are actually pretty mediocre wordsmiths.

So: you work in the world of proposals. (At least I assume so! If not, the web’s full of far more interesting sites for you than The Proposal Guys!). What are you like as a writer? Honestly?

My test, I guess, is whether you write for pleasure. I find that most folks who can write proposal content that really flows invariably also write outside office hours – perhaps a blog, or fiction, or for some society or local journal.

Writers write – incessantly, addictively. And if you don’t – if your skills are in some of the other, equally critical elements of the proposal process – perhaps you need to surround yourself with a few wordsmiths if you want inject a little magic into your proposals.

If you do write cool stuff that’s online, why not add a comment with a link? We’re always on the hunt for cool stuff to read!

I recently had a call from someone who informed me that I hadn’t answered a mail from her which she sent several days prior. She told me this mail was quite important and she asked why I hadn’t read or responded. When I asked her for the subject line so I could check on this she said it “Meeting on Tuesday cancelled”.

Well, I had received a mail regarding Tuesday’s meeting, with the subject line Meeting on Tuesday, opened it, read it and responded to it. I then put the date and time in my calendar (the sender hadn’t used an ‘invite’).

I then subsequently received a mail with the subject line “Tuesday meeting cancelled”. Again, I opened this mail, read it and responded to it. I then deleted the date and time from my calendar.

When I received the second mail with the subject line “Tuesday meeting cancelled I. quite logically in my opinion, ignored it. After all, I’d already read and responded to it. I assumed, again I think quite logically, assumed it had inadvertently been sent a second time.

Most of us receive an incredible amount of mail. Most of us also receive an incredible amount of mail that is “just so much noise”. In our workshops, Jon and I talked about the need for a good proposal strategy to “cut through the noise level.” It’s the same with mail. Want me to read it? Make sure the subject line is appropriate and informative.

A few tips on what makes for an effective subject line –
•    Be specific as to the topic “Meeting to discuss next steps on project XYZ. Please confirm intention to attend.”
•    Be clear and specific. I.e. “Confirming my intention to attend Tuesday meeting.”
•    Let the receiver know if there is action required, “Decision on purchase of XX. Action required.”
•    If it’s not a priority or essential. “Meeting notes. FYIF* – if/when you can get to” it.”

*For your information/files

7. Use simple, memorable qualification criteria. We advocate four: “is it real, do we want it, can we win it, can we do it?” Pretty much all of the more detailed discussions you’ll need to have can be categorised under one of those headings – and there’s real power in having a qualification mantra that everyone involved in bidding understands and can repeat.
8. Make sure your process has teeth. It’s not uncommon for me to be assured by a client during a benchmarking exercise that they do indeed have a qualification process – often a time-consuming and complex one at that. Yet when I ask what percentage of deals they qualified out of the previous year, they look blankly, and confess that it was a round number: 0.
9. Treat the usual last-gasp tactics of salespeople (we can’t win, but we’ve got to bid because either “it’s strategic” or “if we don’t bid this time, we won’t be invited to bid on their next deal”) with healthy cynicism – even, perhaps, a degree of disdain. I’ve worked on bids that have fallen under those headings – but only after a particularly thorough review, and with a clear strategy as to what we’re going to do in our proposal, knowing that we won’t win and that doing so isn’t actually our goal.
10. Be brave! Recognise that your qualification decision may change as the deal progresses – particularly, as you learn more about your competitive position. If something happens to convince you that you’re wasting your time, shout about it! Even on the most reliable airlines, flying the most modern planes, sometimes people need to listen to the safety announcements so that they know where to find the emergency exits!
11. Subject to the above… make sure the client is always given a clear, consistent, early and honest view of your intent regarding whether or not you’re going to expect to bid.
12. Handle any “no bid” decision extremely sensitively. Planning, scripting and rehearsing the feedback to the customer needs great care – as does coaching salespeople in how to handle the buyer’s likely objections (“but we do want you to bid: of course you can win” being shorthand for “if you drop out, you might compromise my purchasing process and / or my personal credibility internally”)
13. Be clear on the role of the proposal manager in the process. Do you own the salesforce’s or business unit’s revenue target for the year? No? I thought not. So our role in helping those folks to achieve their goals is to offer advice from a proposal perspective (is it possible to produce an appropriate proposal in the timescales?), perhaps mixed with a sense of the deal’s “winnability” drawn from your bidding experience, perhaps blended with your ability to act as an excellent facilitator (and to be seen, perhaps, as an independent in the process, sitting ‘between’ the salespeople and the business). You have the right not to be expected to waste your time on lost causes. And yes, you may sometimes have to be the one that provokes the telling debate – given (1) above, salespeople are rarely the first people to jump up and say: “you know what – we shouldn’t go after this”. But, ultimately, it’s not your call.

Hope that helps. And I’d welcome your own experiences and advice if you’d care to leave a comment!