Updating proposal boilerplate
I’ve reviewed many proposals where the wrong client name has been left in and it screams to a prospective client ‘we couldn’t be bothered’.
For instance, a change management consultancy hoping to win work with local government might be contending with these direct and indirect audiences who can influence the final decision: These audiences are not fools.
Usually they’ll be reviewing several (if not scores of) bids so it’s important not to be boring, irrelevant or so generic and ‘me too’ that all they will have to assess you on is price.
The scenario that has led to the need for a proposal, bid or tender will supply you the context around just how much tailoring and fresh writing will need to be injected into your customisation of boilerplate.
Another advantage of collecting this type of material is that it will have been previously approved, it should be reasonably non-controversial and you won’t have to waste time seeking sign-off on every aspect of the content (perhaps just new elements).
Over time you can build up succinct ½ page to one page write ups that give you a consistent model for responding to questions around: As part of your bid wrap up process index, cross reference or otherwise update your content library after each bid hands in.
I once had a client say he wanted to do ‘fresh writing’ for the entirety of content in every single tender, bid and proposal response.