Why is that so many proposals contain no value proposition at all? What are those proposal writers afraid of?
That is our topic this time.
Regards,
Tom Sant
Overcoming the Fear of Value
Are you afraid of value? There's plenty of evidence that suggests most proposal writers are. For one thing, very few proposals even contain a value proposition. And for another, when I bring up the importance of putting a value proposition in your proposals, the audience pushes back—hard!
I call this reaction "value paranoia." The result is weak value propositions that do little or nothing to move a deal forward. Here's an example of a so-called value proposition born of value paranoia:
"We offer a full range of enterprise-strength, integrated technology solutions."
Pretty exciting, huh? Makes you want to grab your checkbook, right? Or how about this one:
"We are a true one-stop shop for all your financial services needs."
I'll bet that makes you want to shout YES!, doesn't it? And here's another one—one that was actually used as the value proposition for an opportunity worth over $500 million:
"We are committed to the success of the enterprise."
Good grief! These are horrible. There's just no other word to describe them. For one thing, every one of them starts with "We," even though common sense would suggest that an effective value proposition should be focused on the buyer and what they care about. And for another, they contain no promise of positive results that can be tracked or quantified. Finally, none of them are backed up by even a shred of proof. These three supposed value propositions—all of which appeared in real proposals, by the way—are little more than marketing fluff.
When I press clients to create a more compelling value propositions—"ABC Company can reduce total energy costs by 75 to 80 percent by implementing our solar energy panels"—they sometimes squirm in their seats.
"What if the client actually follows up and holds us to our promises?" they ask. "Where will we find the baseline data against which to measure our impact? How will we ever get this past our in-house lawyers?"
These are all good questions. But they are questions that can be answered by modifying your sales and implementation processes and presenting your value proposition in clear, careful language. They are not reasons to refrain from offering a meaningful value proposition.
1. What if the client actually measures our results?
It'd be great if they did, assuming your products and services are as good as you claim. Why not make that part of your implementation strategy? Tell them that you'll work with them to set up the processes necessary to track results. Getting that data should make it a lot easier for you to win the rebid or the next phase of work.
2. Where will we find the baseline data against which to measure our impact?
Ideally, you will get it from the client, but we all know that many of our clients aren't measuring current performance so they have no way to know what kind of impact our products and services have had on their operations. If the client can't provide the baseline data, how about industry associations? They often publish data that represents industry averages. Or how about getting your own baseline data by going in to a new client immediately after you have won a deal and measuring the key parameters at the outset and then measuring them again after six months? If you do this half a dozen times, you'll have your own baseline data that you can use as a starting point with customers. You'll know the average cost of processing a check in the Accounts Payable systems from half a dozen organizations that are similar to your new client. You'll know how long it takes to process a data record in a legacy system compared to what it takes once your system is in place. And so on.
3. How will we ever get this past our lawyers?
Lawyers believe that their job is to keep the company out of trouble. And they know that the primary sources of trouble are (1) clients and (2) employees. If they can just eliminate both sources, they will have done their job perfectly. Unfortunately, in the real world there must be a balance between the "excess of caution" that lawyers love to live by and the slight risk of doing business that is required to actually close a deal. By using weasel words appropriately—"this may result in…," "you could see an increase of up to 20 percent…", "based on current assumptions, we project savings of…"—you can protect the company from making promises that could come back to haunt you and yet you can still offer a meaningful value proposition.
Value propositions are the means by which we motivate the decision maker to move forward. A strong, specific value proposition that offers quantifiable improvements in a core area of performance is the key to shortening your sales cycle and winning more business. Don't let value paranoia cripple yours.
We can calculate a compelling value proposition from automating your proposal operations. Give us a call and we'll put some pretty impressive numbers in front of you—and no marketing fluff!
April 19, 2010
March 9, 2010
Why Great Proposals Lose
Sometimes you do everything right but it all comes out wrong. You write a fabulous proposal and you still lose. Here’s why it happens.
That is our topic this time.
Regards,
Tom Sant
Why Great Proposals Lose
Shouldn't quality be rewarded? Shouldn't an outstanding effort be crowned with success?
Well, maybe in Hollywood, where happy endings are required, but in real life it doesn't always happen that way. Sometimes you produce a great proposal and it still loses. It's beautifully written. It has terrific graphics. The win theme is creative and strong. And what happens? Nothing. It doesn't even get down-selected to the final two or three. What's up with that?
What's up is that your seemingly great proposal might be doomed by a fatal flaw. And just as is true of those Shakespearian heroes and their fatal flaws, the consequences for your proposal are tragic. Here are some of the most common flaws that can doom your magnificent effort:
• Weak qualification of the opportunity. The proposal was well written, true, but there was never a deal there in the first place.
One of my clients in London received an RFP from a global technology firm. Overjoyed by the size and scope of the opportunity, my client assembled a top team who worked for six weeks to respond to the complex and difficult bid document. They even spent £100,000 with an outside graphics firm to create fantastic illustrations and slides. But when they arrived at the prospect's headquarters to present their proposal, they were told, "We're so delighted you chose to respond, considering that we don't actually intend to change our supplier this time around."
Ask yourself three questions: Is the client serious? Can we be competitive? Can we win? If you can't answer these questions honestly, throw up a big yellow flag. Otherwise, you may be in for a case of proposal heartbreak.
• Not understanding the business drivers. You can be 100% compliant to the RFP and 100% a loser if you don’t understand the client's real needs. The RFP almost never discusses the business problems that lie behind an opportunity. So your proposal, which does a great job of responding to the technical requirements, may be missing the point completely.
Suppose a bank discovers they have a serious problem with the security of their accounts, particularly in regard to on-line banking functions. They issue an RFP, seeking help. Do you think they will indicate exactly what the problem is, how serious it is, how many customers are at risk? No, no, and no. RFPs can quickly become public documents, so any revelations about leaky security could damage the bank's reputation, create panic among customers, and possibly send the share price plummeting.
• Failing to leverage lessons learned. Have you had previous engagements with a client? Have you received a debriefing after submitting a previous proposal? If so, you may have valuable insights that will enable you to personalize the message. Unfortunately, the so-called lessons learned often go into long-term storage and are never looked at again. It's surprising how many companies invest millions of dollars in CRM systems, but don't use them to store information or insights into decision makers, corporate culture, or other factors that could strengthen the next proposal effort.
• Pitching to people who aren't there anymore. If we have a long-standing relationship with a client or a government agency, we might find ourselves unconsciously slipping into a traditional pattern. We know what they want. We know how they like us to organize our bid. We share experiences and assumptions, so we don't bother to spell that stuff out. "They know that," we say. "We don't need to mention it." What we may fail to notice is that those people have moved on. Some of them retired. Some were replaced. Maybe a few of them transferred to new positions. And as a result our usual way of proposing may not work anymore. I recently worked on a huge proposal to a government agency, one that was deemed a "must win", and kept getting "advice" from the old timers about the way that agency liked things done. What they weren't acknowledging was that six months earlier the entire command structure in t hat agency had been replaced and the culture was totally different. Happily, we ended up pitching to the people who were there, and I got word a couple of weeks ago that the proposal won.
There are probably a few other reasons why otherwise great proposals lose. But I suppose you could argue that if a proposal was hampered by one of the fatal flaws I've listed above, it probably wasn't all that great in the first place.
If you're looking to eliminate hidden fatal flaws and produce truly great proposals, give us a call. We have the software, the training and the processes to help increase your win rate. And how great would that be?
That is our topic this time.
Regards,
Tom Sant
Why Great Proposals Lose
Shouldn't quality be rewarded? Shouldn't an outstanding effort be crowned with success?
Well, maybe in Hollywood, where happy endings are required, but in real life it doesn't always happen that way. Sometimes you produce a great proposal and it still loses. It's beautifully written. It has terrific graphics. The win theme is creative and strong. And what happens? Nothing. It doesn't even get down-selected to the final two or three. What's up with that?
What's up is that your seemingly great proposal might be doomed by a fatal flaw. And just as is true of those Shakespearian heroes and their fatal flaws, the consequences for your proposal are tragic. Here are some of the most common flaws that can doom your magnificent effort:
• Weak qualification of the opportunity. The proposal was well written, true, but there was never a deal there in the first place.
One of my clients in London received an RFP from a global technology firm. Overjoyed by the size and scope of the opportunity, my client assembled a top team who worked for six weeks to respond to the complex and difficult bid document. They even spent £100,000 with an outside graphics firm to create fantastic illustrations and slides. But when they arrived at the prospect's headquarters to present their proposal, they were told, "We're so delighted you chose to respond, considering that we don't actually intend to change our supplier this time around."
Ask yourself three questions: Is the client serious? Can we be competitive? Can we win? If you can't answer these questions honestly, throw up a big yellow flag. Otherwise, you may be in for a case of proposal heartbreak.
• Not understanding the business drivers. You can be 100% compliant to the RFP and 100% a loser if you don’t understand the client's real needs. The RFP almost never discusses the business problems that lie behind an opportunity. So your proposal, which does a great job of responding to the technical requirements, may be missing the point completely.
Suppose a bank discovers they have a serious problem with the security of their accounts, particularly in regard to on-line banking functions. They issue an RFP, seeking help. Do you think they will indicate exactly what the problem is, how serious it is, how many customers are at risk? No, no, and no. RFPs can quickly become public documents, so any revelations about leaky security could damage the bank's reputation, create panic among customers, and possibly send the share price plummeting.
• Failing to leverage lessons learned. Have you had previous engagements with a client? Have you received a debriefing after submitting a previous proposal? If so, you may have valuable insights that will enable you to personalize the message. Unfortunately, the so-called lessons learned often go into long-term storage and are never looked at again. It's surprising how many companies invest millions of dollars in CRM systems, but don't use them to store information or insights into decision makers, corporate culture, or other factors that could strengthen the next proposal effort.
• Pitching to people who aren't there anymore. If we have a long-standing relationship with a client or a government agency, we might find ourselves unconsciously slipping into a traditional pattern. We know what they want. We know how they like us to organize our bid. We share experiences and assumptions, so we don't bother to spell that stuff out. "They know that," we say. "We don't need to mention it." What we may fail to notice is that those people have moved on. Some of them retired. Some were replaced. Maybe a few of them transferred to new positions. And as a result our usual way of proposing may not work anymore. I recently worked on a huge proposal to a government agency, one that was deemed a "must win", and kept getting "advice" from the old timers about the way that agency liked things done. What they weren't acknowledging was that six months earlier the entire command structure in t hat agency had been replaced and the culture was totally different. Happily, we ended up pitching to the people who were there, and I got word a couple of weeks ago that the proposal won.
There are probably a few other reasons why otherwise great proposals lose. But I suppose you could argue that if a proposal was hampered by one of the fatal flaws I've listed above, it probably wasn't all that great in the first place.
If you're looking to eliminate hidden fatal flaws and produce truly great proposals, give us a call. We have the software, the training and the processes to help increase your win rate. And how great would that be?
January 6, 2010
Why Saying YES is Always More Dangerous Than NO
Why Saying YES is Always More Dangerous Than NO
You don’t have to be the parent of a teenager to realize that saying YES is always potentially more dangerous than saying NO. (Although if you are the parent of a teenager, you can probably come up with plenty of examples to illustrate the point.)
The same thing is true in business. And if we’re going to sell our products or services, we have to make saying YES a little less risky.
That is our topic this time.
Regards,
Tom Sant
Why Saying YES is Always More Dangerous Than NO
It's a truism of consultative sales methodologies that there are numerous decision influencers in an opportunity who have the power to say NO to a deal, but only one person who has the authority to say YES. The person who can say YES is sometimes called the "economic buyer" (in Strategic Selling terminology) or the "center of power" or simply the "boss.” Whatever you call that person, he or she carries a heavy burden: they have the authority to commit the organization to change.
Change is risky. After all, we know how to do what we're already doing. Maybe we don't do it very well and maybe it's not producing the results we want, but at least we feel comfortable in following the process and getting things done the way we've always done them. It's not surprising, then, is it, that we might see you and your enthusiastic recommendations for change as being more than a little threatening?
In our sales process and particularly in our proposals, we can make saying YES a little less dangerous for our clients. Here are seven ideas:
• Chunk the recommendation down into bite-size pieces. If our solution involves complex products and services, significant resource commitments, extended development cycles, or a large price tag, we're probably making our decision maker feel uneasy about saying YES. Why don't we divide that big solution into several smaller ones? Maybe we can start with a simple planning or assessment project that provides a clear Go/No Go gate at the end to protect the client from becoming embroiled in a large-scale disaster.
• Avoid over-engineering the solution. Simple is always safer than complex. Easy is always less risky than difficult. Try to avoid the temptation of adding in extra elements when you are configuring your recommendation.
• Link your solution to the customer's needs. One of the best ways to overcome the tendency to say No is to make it clear that your solution addresses their key needs. We've discussed this before, but as a quick reminder, I urge you to start your presentation of the solution with a quick summary of two or three key needs that the client wants to address. For each need, show how a specific feature of your solution addresses it, what the benefit to them will be, and a quick proof statement (a reference, for example) indicating that it's likely to work. Now they see that they are in fact buying a solution. Unfortunately, most proposals contain canned descriptions of products and services that are not linked to anything. They're just information dumps and they provoke a profound desire to say NO.
• Include service level agreements or real guarantees in the contract. The client is more likely to feel protected if we've been willing to offer them a way of measuring our performance and if we're putting some of our revenue at risk.
• Avoid self-serving behavior. The flip side of putting guarantees into your offer is taking out anything that might be construed as self-serving. For example, if you require buyers to purchase an expensive support package as part of the deal, even though you have assured them that your solution is dependable and low maintenance, they are justified in thinking you're just trying to jack up your own commission. If you recommend a product that doesn't quite address their needs and they later find out you were being spiffed on that product, they're likely to question the objectivity of your recommendation.
• Provide a convincing value proposition. People will take risks when the potential payoff is big enough. Unfortunately, most proposals fail to include a value proposition. And when they do include one, it often consists of marketing fluff rather than measurable results that will have a positive impact in a key area of organizational performance.
• Tie your recommendation to an inescapable compelling event. If the client has a fixed date in the future by which something has to be done, and your solution will help them get there, make the connection obvious.
One bonus tip worth considering: create a persuasive and fully compliant proposal. We can help you with that one, because Sant Suite is designed to take away the hard parts of writing a winning proposal. That's why so many of our clients say YES to our solution!
You don’t have to be the parent of a teenager to realize that saying YES is always potentially more dangerous than saying NO. (Although if you are the parent of a teenager, you can probably come up with plenty of examples to illustrate the point.)
The same thing is true in business. And if we’re going to sell our products or services, we have to make saying YES a little less risky.
That is our topic this time.
Regards,
Tom Sant
Why Saying YES is Always More Dangerous Than NO
It's a truism of consultative sales methodologies that there are numerous decision influencers in an opportunity who have the power to say NO to a deal, but only one person who has the authority to say YES. The person who can say YES is sometimes called the "economic buyer" (in Strategic Selling terminology) or the "center of power" or simply the "boss.” Whatever you call that person, he or she carries a heavy burden: they have the authority to commit the organization to change.
Change is risky. After all, we know how to do what we're already doing. Maybe we don't do it very well and maybe it's not producing the results we want, but at least we feel comfortable in following the process and getting things done the way we've always done them. It's not surprising, then, is it, that we might see you and your enthusiastic recommendations for change as being more than a little threatening?
In our sales process and particularly in our proposals, we can make saying YES a little less dangerous for our clients. Here are seven ideas:
• Chunk the recommendation down into bite-size pieces. If our solution involves complex products and services, significant resource commitments, extended development cycles, or a large price tag, we're probably making our decision maker feel uneasy about saying YES. Why don't we divide that big solution into several smaller ones? Maybe we can start with a simple planning or assessment project that provides a clear Go/No Go gate at the end to protect the client from becoming embroiled in a large-scale disaster.
• Avoid over-engineering the solution. Simple is always safer than complex. Easy is always less risky than difficult. Try to avoid the temptation of adding in extra elements when you are configuring your recommendation.
• Link your solution to the customer's needs. One of the best ways to overcome the tendency to say No is to make it clear that your solution addresses their key needs. We've discussed this before, but as a quick reminder, I urge you to start your presentation of the solution with a quick summary of two or three key needs that the client wants to address. For each need, show how a specific feature of your solution addresses it, what the benefit to them will be, and a quick proof statement (a reference, for example) indicating that it's likely to work. Now they see that they are in fact buying a solution. Unfortunately, most proposals contain canned descriptions of products and services that are not linked to anything. They're just information dumps and they provoke a profound desire to say NO.
• Include service level agreements or real guarantees in the contract. The client is more likely to feel protected if we've been willing to offer them a way of measuring our performance and if we're putting some of our revenue at risk.
• Avoid self-serving behavior. The flip side of putting guarantees into your offer is taking out anything that might be construed as self-serving. For example, if you require buyers to purchase an expensive support package as part of the deal, even though you have assured them that your solution is dependable and low maintenance, they are justified in thinking you're just trying to jack up your own commission. If you recommend a product that doesn't quite address their needs and they later find out you were being spiffed on that product, they're likely to question the objectivity of your recommendation.
• Provide a convincing value proposition. People will take risks when the potential payoff is big enough. Unfortunately, most proposals fail to include a value proposition. And when they do include one, it often consists of marketing fluff rather than measurable results that will have a positive impact in a key area of organizational performance.
• Tie your recommendation to an inescapable compelling event. If the client has a fixed date in the future by which something has to be done, and your solution will help them get there, make the connection obvious.
One bonus tip worth considering: create a persuasive and fully compliant proposal. We can help you with that one, because Sant Suite is designed to take away the hard parts of writing a winning proposal. That's why so many of our clients say YES to our solution!
December 22, 2009
Rhetoric: It’s Not Just for Politicians Any More
Rhetoric: It’s Not Just for Politicians Any More
Rhetoric became a dirty word back in the sixties. Maybe it’s time to rehabilitate both the concept and the practice.
That is our topic this time.
Regards,
Tom Sant
Rhetoric: It’s Not Just for Politicians Any More
For some reason, the word “rhetoric” has acquired a negative meaning. It implies the misuse of language, the manipulation of arguments to mislead rather than inform, to arouse emotions rather than thought, to distort the truth rather than reveal it. Many of us would point to politicians or political pundits who make a living ranting on cable TV as examples of people who indulge in “rhetoric”.
But for more than two thousand years rhetoric was at the heart of western educational practice. Plato and Aristotle would be surprised to hear us define rhetoric in such a narrow, negative way. So would Abraham Lincoln, whose inspirational oratory is an example of rhetoric at its finest.
At the heart of traditional rhetoric is a focus on using language to motivate an audience to take action—precisely what we want to accomplish with a sales presentation or a proposal. Our goal is to combine information, evidence and informed opinion in a way that helps our customer make a decision that favors us. The action we have motivated is the decision—manifested in the client’s signature on our contract or a verbal commitment to move forward with a business deal. And the way we have motivated that action has nothing to do with misleading our audience or twisting facts or arousing false emotions.
Instead, the first rhetorical move we need to make is to ask ourselves what matters to the audience? Research into decision making suggests that what matters the most is their own pain (their needs, issues, problems, gaps in capability, and so forth), followed closely by the potential for them to achieve gain (the outcomes or results they can achieve by solving their problems or addressing their needs). Unless we focus on these two topics first, we are highly unlikely to win the client’s attention, much less arouse their motivation to act.
If you have read Persuasive Business Proposals or if you’ve been reading these Messages that Matter for awhile, you recognize that these first two moves are the basis for what I call the persuasive paradigm or the NOSE pattern for persuasive communication. (The N and O stand for Needs and Outcomes, and the S and E stand for Solutions and Evidence.)
But rhetoric includes more than the structure of our message. It also involves the clarity and effectiveness of our delivery. For example, which of these opening statements is more effective for a proposal to the US Navy?
Current limitations in scope and access are preventing the US Navy from gaining full value from satellite data intended to improve fleet situational awareness and increase combat effectiveness. Currently used legacy algorithms have the capacity to decode and process only a small percentage of the total data feed being broadcast from the satellites.
The US Navy depends on satellite data to improve fleet situational awareness and increase combat effectiveness. Unfortunately, that data is currently limited in scope and access to the data is difficult. Because processing is handled by outdated algorithms, only a portion of the data is available, a situation that is analogous to having access to a vast library of information but then being allowed to look at only one shelf.
I would argue that the two openings say the same thing, but that the second version is more effective largely for rhetorical reasons. What have we done differently?
First, we have changed the subject and verb in the first sentence from something highly abstract (“limitations…are preventing…) to something much more concrete in the second version (“The US Navy depends…”). That makes the opening sentence more interesting and more obviously relevant right away.
Second, we have broken a rather long sentence (28 words) into two shorter sentences (16 and 15 words respectively). That makes them easier to decode. It also separates two distinct concepts: how satellite data benefits the Navy and what the current problems are with that data. One concept is positive; the other is negative. Separating them gives both of them more punch.
Third, we have taken the concept of outdated algorithms and expressed it more vividly by using a metaphor. If you attended the Webinar we broadcast with Anne Miller (you can access archived webinars here) you remember the many examples Anne shared of using metaphors to make a sales message clearer and more powerful. Metaphors are a rhetorical device.
To be persuasive, we first need to organize our messages using the right structure and then use language in the right way. The combination will help our client see that what we are recommending makes sense for their situation and will motivate them to take action.
If you would like help in putting the best possible structure into your proposals or presentations or revising your content so that it delivers your message effectively, give us a call. We’re proud to admit that rhetoric is something we’re really good at.
Rhetoric became a dirty word back in the sixties. Maybe it’s time to rehabilitate both the concept and the practice.
That is our topic this time.
Regards,
Tom Sant
Rhetoric: It’s Not Just for Politicians Any More
For some reason, the word “rhetoric” has acquired a negative meaning. It implies the misuse of language, the manipulation of arguments to mislead rather than inform, to arouse emotions rather than thought, to distort the truth rather than reveal it. Many of us would point to politicians or political pundits who make a living ranting on cable TV as examples of people who indulge in “rhetoric”.
But for more than two thousand years rhetoric was at the heart of western educational practice. Plato and Aristotle would be surprised to hear us define rhetoric in such a narrow, negative way. So would Abraham Lincoln, whose inspirational oratory is an example of rhetoric at its finest.
At the heart of traditional rhetoric is a focus on using language to motivate an audience to take action—precisely what we want to accomplish with a sales presentation or a proposal. Our goal is to combine information, evidence and informed opinion in a way that helps our customer make a decision that favors us. The action we have motivated is the decision—manifested in the client’s signature on our contract or a verbal commitment to move forward with a business deal. And the way we have motivated that action has nothing to do with misleading our audience or twisting facts or arousing false emotions.
Instead, the first rhetorical move we need to make is to ask ourselves what matters to the audience? Research into decision making suggests that what matters the most is their own pain (their needs, issues, problems, gaps in capability, and so forth), followed closely by the potential for them to achieve gain (the outcomes or results they can achieve by solving their problems or addressing their needs). Unless we focus on these two topics first, we are highly unlikely to win the client’s attention, much less arouse their motivation to act.
If you have read Persuasive Business Proposals or if you’ve been reading these Messages that Matter for awhile, you recognize that these first two moves are the basis for what I call the persuasive paradigm or the NOSE pattern for persuasive communication. (The N and O stand for Needs and Outcomes, and the S and E stand for Solutions and Evidence.)
But rhetoric includes more than the structure of our message. It also involves the clarity and effectiveness of our delivery. For example, which of these opening statements is more effective for a proposal to the US Navy?
Current limitations in scope and access are preventing the US Navy from gaining full value from satellite data intended to improve fleet situational awareness and increase combat effectiveness. Currently used legacy algorithms have the capacity to decode and process only a small percentage of the total data feed being broadcast from the satellites.
The US Navy depends on satellite data to improve fleet situational awareness and increase combat effectiveness. Unfortunately, that data is currently limited in scope and access to the data is difficult. Because processing is handled by outdated algorithms, only a portion of the data is available, a situation that is analogous to having access to a vast library of information but then being allowed to look at only one shelf.
I would argue that the two openings say the same thing, but that the second version is more effective largely for rhetorical reasons. What have we done differently?
First, we have changed the subject and verb in the first sentence from something highly abstract (“limitations…are preventing…) to something much more concrete in the second version (“The US Navy depends…”). That makes the opening sentence more interesting and more obviously relevant right away.
Second, we have broken a rather long sentence (28 words) into two shorter sentences (16 and 15 words respectively). That makes them easier to decode. It also separates two distinct concepts: how satellite data benefits the Navy and what the current problems are with that data. One concept is positive; the other is negative. Separating them gives both of them more punch.
Third, we have taken the concept of outdated algorithms and expressed it more vividly by using a metaphor. If you attended the Webinar we broadcast with Anne Miller (you can access archived webinars here) you remember the many examples Anne shared of using metaphors to make a sales message clearer and more powerful. Metaphors are a rhetorical device.
To be persuasive, we first need to organize our messages using the right structure and then use language in the right way. The combination will help our client see that what we are recommending makes sense for their situation and will motivate them to take action.
If you would like help in putting the best possible structure into your proposals or presentations or revising your content so that it delivers your message effectively, give us a call. We’re proud to admit that rhetoric is something we’re really good at.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
