Pitching & Proposing: Maximising your chances

Fantastic news, your efforts have resulted in a proposal request. Whether a half-page follow up to a positive meeting, or a 60-page RFP response, pitches and proposals are refreshingly binary – you win or you don’t. Let’s look at three of the key areas where you can improve your conversion rate or maintain your winning streak through continuous improvement and we’ll also have a quick look at pitfalls.

1.Systems

“We don’t do boilerplates, we tailor everything” said the person that has never flipped a proposal in an hour at 9pm at the request of the target. Templates and precedents are vital - of course we’d prefer to tailor every word and of course we’d prefer a longer turnaround, but time and/or resource are always tight so if you’ve created copy or insight that you might repurpose, do so. Well managed templates across core areas such as CVs, case studies, standard fees, services and elements of the executive summary can:

• improve speed of drafting, freeing up time for tailoring or drafting across gaps – the clever stuff

• improve consistency across branding and messaging

• increase the likelihood of the most current and relevant approach/example/value adds being included; and

• lessen the risk of confidential or old info being used in error

Automation and AI are transforming templates, though I’ve not yet seen a platform that quite nails the brief like a human, who might spot that seemingly unrelated examples are perfect.

If you use a template tool, make sure it can be used by anyone that might need to (ie not only BD). If not, people will work around the system in urgent scenarios or see the pitch team as production rather than advisory, which in turn impacts quality.

2.Processes

I believe there are three processes critical to maximising pitching effort and outcome. Firstly, enforce robust qualification criteria to determine where effort should be expended. Firm culture, role of BD and partner behaviour will all influence what these might look like, but at a minimum: fees, margin, competence and familiarity should be considered to maximise success and return, and to free up resource to focus on better opportunities. This is easier said than done but I believe it is the primary area where firms can improve performance, as resource saved here is then immediately transferable.

Secondly, centralise the effort. Even where the pitching team doesn’t support all pitches, passing them through the team enables them to: record and analyse it, pinch improved case studies, update experience, plug gaps, or read it as the potential recipient. All hugely beneficial and in my experience, the usual suspects that don’t loop back to BD or pitching are often circumventing other processes which in turn impacts RoE or risk. Additionally, the BD team should have the best responses for procurement-driven RFPs, which helps to avoid getting knocked out by a dated policy.

Finally, feedback. It really is incredibly useful and most firms are now comfy gathering feedback around losses. While the client partner might collect the most insightful comments, BD teams are often better placed to gather the following areas:

1. Value proposition, quite different from pricing

2. Approach/solution/technology

3. Pricing – rates, competition, models/discounts. A topic for a future blog, price is rarely the only factor

4. Team

5. Experience

6. Competition

7. Can we: keep in touch/be considered for the next project

3.Differentiation and messaging

Resource is finite! Take the hours you’ve saved through efficient use of templates and declining of proposals you were never going to win and use them to dazzle across expertise, fit, differentiation and approach.

Assuming your qualification process has ascertained the opportunity is competitive (so many proposals are effectively benchmarking exercises), there are significant differences to highlight and these are frequently trailed in the request.

Differentiators: While a little formulaic, I still enjoy filling in the blanks on a summary statement “I believe there are three reasons why we are ideally suited to support you, Firstly…”. Most of the time this will be useful in the exec summary and even if you don’t use it directly, it’s an excellent sense check of the key differentiators highlighted and messages delivered. Evidence everything and avoid generic superlatives – commercial, pragmatic, innovative, holistic etc unless you can robustly stand them up.

Storytelling: I’ve worked for two firms who were clear market leaders and could pitch accordingly – “we’re the best at this, that’s why you asked us – here’s our quote and approach” . That’s rare and those firms also faced a reset in approach when competing for work away from their core expertise. 99% of the time you need to tell a story.

Relevant credentials are certainly useful as they reinforce a familiarity with the issue[s], but case studies which clearly articulate the value delivered tend to make the biggest difference. Proposals should:

• Demonstrate an understanding of the sector, issues, needs and challenges. If you’re stretching your credentials, draw out the links between the issue and credential

• Showcase the approach to team integration and development

• Highlight technology use, increasingly weighted in all but the most immediate/urgent projects

• Most importantly, evidence a commercial result where possible across case studies and testimonials. Generic or overtly technical solutions rarely land.

When the answer to “why us", is less clear, it is critical to accentuate and evidence your strengths. But… remember to only use USPs that are relevant for that client and its need. Consider what will resonate with the client, rather than it wondering, for example, why you’ve raised your international network or pensions award in a UK construction pitch.

In short, a successful bid often tells the clearest, most client-centric story while ensuring you have addressed potential barriers across additional determinants such as size, location and fees.

And finally - Pitfalls. The most frequent reasons I see for a static or falling success rate are:

1. Lack of centralisation: When the best responses aren’t stored centrally, the time spent hunting or rewriting often means insufficient resource left for the critical tailoring or thinking

2. Go/no go: While partners might not need to run every proposal through a go/no go process, in my experience there is a stark difference in quality and return between the firms that use them and those that don’t – with the latter less much less successful as the team gets tied up with “no-hopers” – a classic output vs outcome challenge.

3. Templates. While I advocate for templates as an efficiency drive, it’s still important to ensure you are never churning out generic puff – just an hour or two spent tailoring a response will reap rewards.