The Value of Proposal Writing

In "Top 6 Reasons New Businesses Fail," Investopedia writes, "According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), approximately 20% of new businesses fail during the first two years of being open, 45% during the first five years, and 65% during the first 10 years. Only 25% of new businesses make it to 15 years or more." Based on those statistics, I suppose that managing a successful consulting practice for 28 years qualifies me to say that success in business often hinges on securing new opportunities, partnerships, and projects. At the heart of these endeavors lies a critical skill: proposal writing. A proposal is a strategic tool that can make or break your chances of winning new business.

Hallmarks of a Proposal

1. Articulating Vision. A well-written proposal clearly articulates your vision and objectives. It’s your opportunity to demonstrate that you understand the client's needs, possess a customized solution to meet them, and prove you have the talent to achieve those goals. A strong proposal explains your plan of action and your rationale for this approach.
2. Building Credibility. Writing a proposal expresses how you think about a given situation, whether you care about what you do, and how you understand your readers' concerns. A proposal can be the first impression a potential client or partner has of you and your organization. A well-structured, professional proposal showcases your expertise, sense of purpose, attention to detail, and commitment to quality. It builds trust and positions you as a credible, reliable partner capable of delivering on promises.
3. Differentiating Your Offering. In competitive markets, many organizations offer similar products or services. Proposal writing allows you to highlight what sets you apart—whether it’s market awareness, innovative solutions, superior service, or unique expertise. This differentiation is crucial in convincing clients to choose you over the competition.
4. Demonstrating Value. Clients and partners want to know how their investment in your services will pay off. A strong proposal clearly outlines the benefits and ROI they can expect. By focusing on the value you deliver, rather than just the cost, you can make a compelling case for why they should invest in your solution.
5. Fostering Relationships. Proposal writing involves collaboration and communication with the client or partner. This interaction can help build a relationship even before the project begins. A well-crafted proposal shows that you understand your readers' needs and can collaborate with them for mutual success.
6. Driving Organizational Growth. Winning proposals are a direct path to growth. They open doors to new revenue streams, partnerships, and long-term opportunities.

Tips for Effective Proposal Writing

• Know your audience. Tailor your proposal to the specific needs and concerns of the client. Understand their pain points and goals, and address them directly.
• Write clearly and concisely. Avoid unnecessary complexity and make every word matter. A clear, straightforward proposal is more likely to resonate with your audience.
• Highlight benefits. Focus the proposal on solving the client’s problem and the tangible benefits they will receive.
• Use a professional tone. You are what you write. Your proposal should be error-free and tone-sensitive. This practice will enable your client to see you as focused, diligent, thorough, efficient, and concerned, rather than inept, lazy, careless, sloppy, or crude.
• Include an executive summary. Summarize the key points of your proposal, including the problem or opportunity, offering, plan, contingencies, qualifications, and cost. 

Proposal writing communicates your vision, builds credibility, and cultivates relationships. By investing time and effort into crafting compelling proposals, you not only increase your chances of success but also set the foundation for long-term growth and partnership. A well-written proposal can unlock new opportunities and drive your organization forward.

Do You Know How to Argue? Part 3: Remaining Purposeful

Part 1 of this series on arguing well notes that an argument needs to be clearly stated. If one American votes Democratic and her neighbor votes Republican, they are not engaging in an argument. They are voting. But if she claims that her candidate would make a better leader, she would need to qualify that statement for an argument. She might say the Democratic candidate follows through on pledges more regularly than the Republican, or has more expansive government experience, or speaks more eloquently, or  supports gun reform more ardently through his voting record. 

Part 2 looks at the rules of arguing, such as how long should the argument run, what will be the range of talking points, how will the argument be resolved, who will resolve it, and whether a judge is necessary.

After defining the terms of the argument and setting the rules, let the argument begin—but keep the lines of argumentation in check. For a purposeful argument, we'll need to be faithful to two principles: stick to the point of the argument and refrain from logical fallacies. We'll cover each of these separately.

Stick to the point. Let's say we agree to argue about whether the Democratic candidate has more expansive government experience than the Republican candidate. The Democratic supporter might say her candidate has been a town mayor for eight years. Fair enough. Now the Republican supporter replies his candidate has six years experience, two in the town council, two in the state assembly, and two as US attorney general. The Democratic supporter must concede that while her candidate has more years of experience, her opponent's is more expansive, on the town, state, and federal levels. This fact alone may not be sufficient for the Republican supporter to win the argument, but he is winning 1-0. Perhaps the Democratic supporter can talk about her candidate's service on state and federal commissions, or her four-year stint as a naval officer. But she would not want to talk about her years as a corporate attorney unless she had government clients.  

Avoid logical fallacies. Using them will surely erode, if not completely destroy, your credibility. In 2006, I wrote a 20-part series on logical fallacies, such as:

• straw man, misrepresenting an opponent's position to destroy its credibility. Example: Since you like the Democratic candidate, you hate Republicans. 
• ad hominem, attacking the person, not the position. Example: You like the Democratic candidate, but you have been wrong on so many other issues, so you're wrong now.
• unequal comparison, equating unequal ideas. Example: Voting for the Democratic candidate is like voting for a monarchy.
• guilt by association, inappropriately associating an idea or a person with another discredited idea or person to refute an argument. Example: Ten years ago you voted for a candidate who ended up in prison, so why should your voting preference have any credibility?

There are scores of logical fallacies worth studying, so know them all before entering a well-reasoned argument. The point is to narrow your field of vision to remain purposeful.

Do You Know How to Argue? Part 2: Setting Rules

In part 1 of this series on arguing effectively, I explain that we have to define terms carefully before embarking on an argument. For instance, I would want to qualify the proposition Paris makes a better vacation than Venice by at the least stating the precise location (the city in France, not in Texas or New York, versus the city in Italy, not in California or Florida), the vacationers (college students? young families? middle-aged singles, senior couples?), and the purpose of vacation (architecture? art? dining? history? music? sports? theater? walking?).

Rules of conduct also apply to argument. Should we establish the points we want to argue (e.g., buildings, waterways,  walks)? Should we insist on refuting each point the opponent raises? Then how do we refute? If I raise a point about the beauty of the great squares of Paris, such as the Place de la Concorde or the Place Charles de Gaulle, should you be required to refute my point by devaluing those locations? by explaining why Piazza San Marco and Campo San Polo are superior? by jumping off point to claim the Ponte di Rialto and Ponte dell' Accademia are more beautiful bridges than the Parisian squares? Should we determine time allotments for each point we want to argue, as well as the total time for the entire argument? Should we assign a judge to keep us on track? If the argument should lead to a winner, how would we determine victory? What about an audience to determine the winner? 

In my years of sitting in corporate conference rooms, university lecture halls, and Thanksgiving dinners, I have noticed that many of these arguments turn into exchanges of indignation, invective, or insult because people don't establish rules. We might be arguing about entirely different things when we don't define terms, but we are certainly arguing pointlessly when we don't set the terms of engagement. 

Do You Know How to Argue? Part 1: Defining Terms

Most irresolvable arguments result not from intractable parties unwilling to compromise but from their inability or unwillingness  to clearly define their terms, or their unawareness of sound  argumentative principles. Arguments are useless without establishing definitions. I'm not talking about social arguments, such as whether a career in the public sector is better than one in the private sector. Talk that one up all night with your buddies over your hummus dips and G&Ts, for all I care. 

But a really useful argument requires us to set clearly established routes through which our rhetorical lines can go—if only all the TV pundits and politicians took heed! To illustrate, let's look at that weakly phrased proposition in the first paragraph.

As a first step in the public-private sector argument, let's see who's arguing. Assume one is a 32-year-old single woman without children happily employed for 3 years as a medical doctor in a group family practice and living in a Manhattan co-op apartment. The other is a 45-year-old male public high school gym teacher, also happy at his work for the past 13 years, and a homeowner in suburban Pennsylvania married to a 43-year-old public elementary school teacher with two children, a 9-year-old girl and 5-year-old boy. Of course, we can collect much more personal data if needed, but this is a starting point. Maybe one more item about the doctor and the gym teacher: Even though she prefers the private sector and he the public sector, they are open-minded about their position, a trait uncharacteristic of the times we live in, don't you think? Based on this information, the argument might be reworded to "A career in the private sector is better than one in the public sector for a doctor" or  "A career in the public sector is better than one in the private sector for a young family with a hefty mortgage and college bills on the horizon."

Next we need to consider whether by a career in the public sector we're talking about a career in government jobs or also those non-government organizations whose main source of income is government funding. Also, are we talking about federal, state, or municipal government careers? (There are differences.) What about the departments in those organizations? For private sector, we should also decide whether we mean only salaried jobs or self-employed careers too. Having reflected on those matters, we now change our proposition to Having a career as a purchasing manager in a federal government agency is better than one as a purchasing manager in a Fortune Global 500 corporation.

Now step 3. Should we continue to narrow our terms by mentioning the precise federal government agency and Fortune 500 company? What about the locations in the United States? Let's say the doctor and gym teacher settle on Having a career as a purchasing manager in the FBI in Washington, DC is better than one as a purchasing manager in Exxon Mobil in Irving, Texas.

With step 4 comes the choice of the comparison word better. What in the name of sanity does better mean? Better in what way? Support systems? Salary? Job security? Camaraderie? Paid time off? Growth opportunities? Professional development opportunities? Relocation options? Health benefits? Retirement benefits? Self-fulfillment? After-work area activities? We can go endlessly with this better word, so you can see the argument is bound to go in circles purposelessly without either person arguing persuasively or swaying the other.

Once we learn to define the terms of an argument, we'll often see that we have little to argue about because we agree with our presumed adversaries in most cases.

The Virtues of Waiting

Here’s a memorable comment from a seminar participant about thoughtful writing.

In discussing the tricky business of internal proposals, I noted that proposing an action to our boss implies heaps of issues that could get us in trouble. First, we are suggesting that the boss is presiding over a problem. We may be also insinuating that he might be the cause of a problem. Third, we are indicating that he might not be aware of the problem. Next, we are assuming that he agrees it is a problem. Also, we are implying that we know the solution to the problem better than he does. Finally, we are putting our boss to work, certain that he needs to solve this problem right away.

I told the class participants that they need to ensure that none of these implications surface in their writing. They should avoid any inkling of superiority, condescension, or know-it-all posturing. They need to see matters from the boss’s viewpoint. “We need,” I said, “to write the proposal to our manager as if we’re speaking to him on his worst day.”

At this point, a course participant, who is a regional manager of a commercial bank, blurted, “If I know it’s his worst day, I’d wait another day.”

Needless to say, we all laughed. But in his joke is a profound insight: It’s all in the timing. I can remember when I was a marketing director for a nonprofit agency, I recommended numerous courses of action that fell on deaf ears—only to see some of those ideas come to pass months or even years later. Maybe I was a visionary, but clearly I had a bad sense of timing. As Sir Francis Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, said, “The credit goes to the man who convinces the world, not to the man to whom the idea first occurs.”

So I suppose that course participant is right: If timing is the missing element in delivering a winning proposal, then wait a day!

Wooing Your Readers

Do you write proposals for upper management’s approval? Are you aspiring to a leadership position or already in one? Can you see sound courses of action ahead that need loads of buy-in from all levels of your organization or community? Is your future success based on influencing others over whom your power is limited?


If you’ve answered “yes” to any of these questions, then you will find profitable reading material in The Art of Woo: Using Strategic Persuasion to Sell Your Ideas by G. Richard Shell and Mario Moussa (Portfolio Books, 2007). The authors systematically take their readers on a constructive process aimed toward persuasion without manipulation. Among their practical tips:
• Summarize the idea in a five-minute pitch.
• Confront barriers in your credibility with your audience.
• Map the decision making process, including all key players along the way to the ultimate decision makers.
• Confirm your own passion for the long haul and value small victories.
• Respect your audience’s beliefs.
• Personalize your pitch.


The book has much more to offer than these points. I found especially refreshing the authors’ admonishment that would-be wooers leave relationships better than they were before the wooing began. It doesn’t hurt that the case studies they use are highly entertaining, particularly the one of celebrated rock star Bono’s unlikely success in wooing archconservative U.S. Senator Jesse Helms to support African debt relief and funding for AIDS programs for Africa. This book is a must-read for persuasive writers.




To purchase your copy of The Art of On-the-Job Writing by Philip Vassallo, click here: https://www.firstbooks.com/product_info.php?cPath=14&products_id=144


To purchase your copy of The Art of E-Mail Writing by Philip Vassallo, click here: https://www.firstbooks.com/product_info.php/cPath/53/products_id/196