The propensity of many bid teams and/or writers to resort to convoluted corporate bombast and meaningless mumph in their EOI, RFP and RFT responses is an enduring problem.
Bidders cause themselves a huge problem when they insist in using trendy fashion-speak and other frivolous fuzz in their written responses.
There are two key reasons they do this; neither of them good.
More often than not, the use of this gobbledygook is an attempt to sound sophisticated and “switched on” . . . “up to the minute”.
Other times it’s to smoke over a lack of substance in answers to the bid documentation’s questions.
Often, it’s both.
However, bid teams and their writers can also get tangled up in this type of non-English even when there actually is knowledge and potential substance to be conveyed in the content of a proposal or bid. This is particularly unfortunate, because those documents come across pretty much the same as the substance-less version that uses the same terminology to disguise a lack of core message.
I’m going to give you some examples of this “empty” writing. They’re fabricated because quite clearly I can’t refer to confidential bid documents. Nonetheless, they’re typical of some of the writing I see produced by sales and bid teams, and many senior executives too.
Example 1
We employ best-of-breed technology options to implement cutting-edge, proven solutions, ensuring you of a constantly innovative approach and continuous improvement in your IT environment.
Example 2
Our track record demonstrates our commitment to world best practice and, accordingly, we will engage our focus on innovation throughout the contract.
Example 3
As your business partner, we will work closely with you to leverage our experience across the project, producing an optimal solution that is robust, scalable and that can be seamlessly integrated with your existing systems.
Do experienced operatives really write this kind of nonsense?
Yes. They do.
The entire content of some of the bids I’m given to provide commentary on is as convoluted and meaningless as the above examples. Tens (and sometimes hundreds) of pages of, largely, non-information.
Again, this commonly happens when little or no prior planning takes place and where, as a result, there is no central bid strategy. Worse still, this strategy-less starting point guarantees a very supplier-centric bid or proposal. And usually one that is not even particularly readable or sensible, let alone compelling.
My recommendations are two-fold:
- Use plain English. Resist the temptation to dazzle the prospective customer or client organisation and its evaluators with an extensive array of corporate or industry jargon.
Feel free to download my free e-book, Deadbeat Words. You might find it a help in identifying certain words that have become ingrained in your own corporate vocabulary without your realising their jargonistic nature.
- Place priority emphasis (as early as possible) on conducting intensive, thorough bid strategy planning sessions (preceded by comprehensive client, contract/project and competitor research). This will help ensure a distinctive win theme and, in turn, solid content.
