Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Ask The Coach

By Mike O'Horo
May 01, 2003

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:

  • Your firm prefers not to do this kind of work, or is emphasizing other types of work now.
  • You're skeptical about legitimacy of competition, eg, you perceive little chance to win the work due to a longstanding incumbent.
  • The pricing is undesirable.
  • Your firm rejects all RFPs as expensive, unwieldy, undesirable processes.

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:

  • “Actually, we've shifted our emphasis recently to [work type] and are phasing out [work type].”
  • “Haven't you been using ABC Firm for that for a long time? Under what circumstances could you envision using someone else?”
  • “We're potentially interested in working with you on this, but we have some real concerns about the pricing cited in the RFP. Can we explore that issue?”

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:

  • Your firm prefers not to do this kind of work, or is emphasizing other types of work now.
  • You're skeptical about legitimacy of competition, eg, you perceive little chance to win the work due to a longstanding incumbent.
  • The pricing is undesirable.
  • Your firm rejects all RFPs as expensive, unwieldy, undesirable processes.

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:

  • “Actually, we've shifted our emphasis recently to [work type] and are phasing out [work type].”
  • “Haven't you been using ABC Firm for that for a long time? Under what circumstances could you envision using someone else?”
  • “We're potentially interested in working with you on this, but we have some real concerns about the pricing cited in the RFP. Can we explore that issue?”

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.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

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?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

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.