IN a recent issue of Asia Pacific Air
Cargo I suggested air freight
companies “de-commoditise” their
service — or offering — to
prospective clients. The article
included a real-life example of the
glaring opportunities (and the
rewards) for companies willing to
think, and act, outside the square
when it comes to researching and
proposing solutions to clients’ needs.
In this issue, I’m going to write about
de-commoditising your actual proposal
or Request-for-Tender response.
How do you ‘de-commoditise’ your
proposal?
The simple answer to that question is
. . . by not producing a ‘commodity’
proposal in the first place.
What then is a ‘commodity proposal’?
A commodity proposal is what 95 per
cent of companies produce (according
both to my observations and also the
comments of many experienced tender
evaluators I have spoken to).
In short, it’s an RFT response or a
proposal that is:
• Self-centric instead of client-centric
• Feature-focused instead of benefitfocused
• Ineffective in meaningfully differentiating its proposed product or service
• Full of industry / supplier jargon
• Overly liberal in its use of trendy
but essentially meaningless terms
• Template-based i.e. the core
content could have been produced for
any number of end recipients
In this article we have sufficient space
to address the first three points. I’ll
cover the second three points in a
subsequent article.
Self-centric vs client-centric
Invariably, when I evaluate a tender or
proposal produced internally by an
organisation, the first word in the
Executive Summary is ‘We’.
With few exceptions, most of the
paragraphs in this all-important
opening section also start with ‘we’ and
it’s not at all uncommon that most of
the sentences within each paragraph
start with ‘we’ as well!
This is a clear indication, firstly, that
the tendering company doesn’t know
enough about the organisation it’s
proposing to; secondly, that it brings a
largely self-focused viewpoint to the
table; and thirdly, that the tenderer is
probably pushing a pre-formulated, offthe-shelf ‘solution’, with greater priority
placed on its own convenience or
profitability than the client’s.
Answering an EOI, RFP or RFT — or
putting a proactive proposal to a client
organisation — is a lot like dating. Even
the best-looking proposal can become
boorish if it constantly puts its own
needs first and shows little genuine
interest of the other party. It simply
doesn’t augur well for a successful
long-term relationship.
If, on the other hand, a company has
done its homework and is genuinely
concerned to seek out and satisfy the
precise needs of the client organisation,
its proposal language will be entirely
different. It will be focused on its
understanding of the client’s problems,
priorities and environment, and it will
paint a clear picture of how it intends to
bring about a superior solution to these
issues.
But beware! This does not mean you
simply change the word ‘we’ to ‘you’.
And it does not mean you resort to
‘consultant speak’, with its annoyingly
we-already-know-everything-about-you
undertones.
No! It means you genuinely research
your prospective client organisation’s
issues as they concern your own
industry, you determine how you will
bring a genuine solution and the best
overall value to your prospect, and then
you communicate it from their perspective.
Feature-focused vs benefit-focused
Anyone with a sales background will
no doubt be thinking: “Sure. Don’t talk
about ‘features’, talk about ‘benefits’.
That’s basic. That’s Sales 101.”
But it’s easier said than done when
you’re constantly looking out at the
landscape from your own viewpoint,
from within the organisation that
produces the product or provides the
service you’re selling.
Too often, sales personnel producing
proposals rely heavily on ‘cut-andpastes’ from glossy, company or ‘brand’
focused promotional literature. These
often promote features. At best, any
benefits they do describe are highly
generic.
Clients aren’t interested in features,
unless they know as much about your
industry as you do and can make the
translation for themselves. And stating
generic benefits quite often results in
missing the mark, too.
What impresses clients are features
How to ‘de-commoditise’
tenders and proposals
AIRCARGO ASIA-PACIFIC, APRIL-MAY 2006 • Page 29
I’ve heard it argued many times by sales
executives that “at the end of the day, they’re
really only interested in the lowest price”
‘
step is to identify and articulate precisely how what you’re proposing is
going to solve their problem in a
manner superior to that of your
competitors’ offerings.
Of course, this means you have to know
what your competitors are up to at all
times — and not just their pricing structures. You have to undertake the same
‘matchmaking’ exercise between your
competitors’ likely solutions and the prospect’s needs. Only then
can you be even reasonably certain that your
point of difference is
what you think it is, and
that it is a winner with
the prospect.
So much to learn
and apply, so little
time! Stay tuned.
Jordan Kelly operates
Strategic Proposals, a Sydney-based
consultancy that helps companies adopt a
well-researched approach to winning key
accounts. She also provides proposal
evaluation, planning and production
services.
Jordan can be contacted on 02 9232 0595
or jkelly@strategicproposals.com.au.
www.strategicproposals.com.au
translated into benefits which are highly
specific to their individual circumstances.
To achieve that level of translation,
you’ve got to drill right down deep, find
and then articulate the direct connection between your feature and the
client’s most pressing priorities. You’ve
got to clarify, quantify and qualify. And
you’ve got to do it all from the viewpoint of the prospect.
Failing to meaningfully differentiate your
proposed product or service
This problem is an extension of the
first two i.e. not knowing enough about
the prospective client before a solution
is formulated and a proposal crafted,
and not going deep enough into the
‘features to benefits’ translation.
It’s also the Number One reason
tendering companies find themselves
relying on price as the primary sway
factor in their RFP or RFT response.
I’ve heard it argued many times by
sales executives that “at the end of the
day, they’re really only interested in the
lowest price”.
But here’s the news. That’s not what
the evaluators say at all. They know
that price does not necessarily equate
to overall best value. On the contrary,
they often say they are left to seek out
for themselves any meaningful points of
difference in tender submissions and, in
the absence of anything convincing, are
left with price as the only real
differentiator.
Want proof of that?
Assisted by the Logistics Association
of Australia, I interviewed three senior
executives, each of whom had had
considerable experience both in tender
evaluation and production within a
variety of different companies (Note: I
realise the road freight industry represents a different transport mode but its
challenges in this area are very similar).
Here is a typical comment made by
these executives (all representatives of
‘tier one’ players from within their
industry):
“There’s very little differentiation at
all. What most logistics companies are
producing is really boiler-plated and
unfocused stuff. Aside from the lack of
meaningful substance, it’s also very
poorly written and the customer
doesn’t even read it. And those that
have got a unique pitch don’t make a
very good job of getting it across in the
final document.”
The starting point
The starting point for conveying a
meaningful difference about your
service or solution, is to genuinely
understand in detail the prospect’s
predicament
