Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Q: We occasionally receive RFPs for work that we really don't want. How can we gracefully phrase the “thanks but no thanks” letter?
A: I wouldn't send a letter. Instead, I encourage you to use this as an opportunity to see how you're positioned with this prospect. First, be very clear and specific internally about why you're not interested. Reasons might include:
Recognize that, on some level, the sender believed that your firm would welcome the RFP, so there is a gap between your respective perceptions. Call and acknowledge receipt of the RFP and, after thanking the originator for thinking of your firm, ask, “What made you decide to include us in this RFP?” Most responses will suggest that the sender perceives that you have the necessary skills. (“If they can do this work, they will want to.”)
Now, gently correct those perceptions:
Your goal in this conversation is to achieve one or more of the following, in descending order of attractiveness: 1) modify the specs to make the prize more attractive and increase chances of selection; 2) avoid “wired” or pro forma selection processes; 3) create a face-saving basis where you and the sender agree that it may not make enough mutual sense to continue the RFP process together.
Send your sales and marketing questions to: The Coach, Mike O'Horo. Those with the broadest appeal will appear here. All others will be answered individually.
Q: We occasionally receive RFPs for work that we really don't want. How can we gracefully phrase the “thanks but no thanks” letter?
A: I wouldn't send a letter. Instead, I encourage you to use this as an opportunity to see how you're positioned with this prospect. First, be very clear and specific internally about why you're not interested. Reasons might include:
Recognize that, on some level, the sender believed that your firm would welcome the RFP, so there is a gap between your respective perceptions. Call and acknowledge receipt of the RFP and, after thanking the originator for thinking of your firm, ask, “What made you decide to include us in this RFP?” Most responses will suggest that the sender perceives that you have the necessary skills. (“If they can do this work, they will want to.”)
Now, gently correct those perceptions:
Your goal in this conversation is to achieve one or more of the following, in descending order of attractiveness: 1) modify the specs to make the prize more attractive and increase chances of selection; 2) avoid “wired” or pro forma selection processes; 3) create a face-saving basis where you and the sender agree that it may not make enough mutual sense to continue the RFP process together.
Send your sales and marketing questions to: The Coach, Mike O'Horo. Those with the broadest appeal will appear here. All others will be answered individually.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.