Myself and Mike recently had a meeting with a large local authority about their forthcoming contract and the framework agreement that was going to come with it – i.e. lots of other councils jumping on the massive negotiated discount.

Now, in a previous rant, I dismissed framework agreements as fundamentally flawed because their sole focus is to squeeze as much out of you for as little as possible, meaning that you can’t deliver a quality service and you’re limiting your options to a handful of major players.

But this was different. Firstly, we were actually having a meeting with them. This is unheard of. Most of the time, you get a massive document requesting tonnes of creative but with no hope of a brief or even a conversation about what’s being asked of you.

We talked about how we work, how we think a local authority pitch should be run, and they took notes! Yes, they took notes!! They actually listened to us. They didn’t fling us out the door when we expressed the opinion that maybe the cheapest possible supplier isn’t the most suitable.

Is this the start of something new? Are we looking at a different way of pitching for local authorities where they look closer at the agencies and don’t make their decision based on a mathematical calculation?

Imagine a local authority pitch process that involved in-depth consultation, agency days where you get a full brief on your project. Maybe site visits where they take the time to get to know you.

If this is a new dawn, I for one am very excited.

Finally, small agency and big agency can compete on a level playing field where it’s about the quality of the service and the product. Things are going to get very interesting for all of us, and the ultimate winners will be the local authorities.

As copywriters, we wander through a world of misused possessive apostrophes and plural versus singular debates. It seems that most sign writers have a real problem with grammar, I’d say at least 30% of signs I see ignore the possessive apostrophe.

But the funny thing is that, as copywriters, we try and stretch the rules of grammar. Anyone who started writing ads for schools has had the ‘don’t start a sentence with And’ argument with a headteacher. The purpose of copy is to engage, communicate and excite. Some ‘rules’ are actually stylistic myths.

Anyway, to my point. Lyn, our production manager and the best proof reader I’ve ever seen, sent me these links to answer some common questions. Although we’re professionals at this, we still sit around and debate the merits of certain rules. Sometimes it sounds wrong, but is actually right. Anyway, you may find these useful.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2182961_use-correctly.html
http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/
http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/

Further to Martin’s rant about framework agreements a month or so ago, I’d like to tell you about my experience recently. (This is probably either brave or stupid – having a go at a framework tender half way through the process - but I think it needs to be said.) Way back in October 2007, we completed an online PQQ (Pre Qualification Questionnaire) for a major procurement organisation. As we understood it, this was the first stage in becoming an official preferred supplier that any Government department, public authority or not-for-profit organisation could ultimately call upon for recruitment related services without having to go to formal pitch. Seemed sensible to us and we spent some time completing the online documentation. Some 2 months after the date by which we were due to have heard the result, we finally learnt that we had got through to the next stage and downloaded the (very) complex ITT (Invitation To Tender). Now, most tenders take a while to get your head around. Very few are actually written for the purpose of producing a shortlist for a recruitment marketing supplier. They typically tend to be standard documents that get rolled out for every procurement exercise whether it is for something relevant or, as was the case recently, for industrial magnets. Anyway, without going in to detail – and believe me, you don’t want me to – this ITT is confusing. To the point where we are no longer sure what we are tendering for, it’s that general. Are they after recruitment marketing agencies? Search consultancies? Outsourcing specialists? I don’t know any more. And, one has to provide what amounts to a separate bid for every area of specialisation, each with several client testimonials and case studies – or to be a general supplier… or not…or something. Oh, and if you do become a preferred supplier in whatever specialism or generalism you are down for, none of the Government departments, public authorities or not-for-profit organisations this exercise is aimed at helping actually have to take any notice of the preferred supplier list anyway. They can conduct their own separate tender or pitch process as before. To be fair, one is able to send questions through to the organisers, but all answers are sent to all tenderers, and none actually include the original question. So, everyday one receives emails with answers to people’s queries, but no context, which isn’t very helpful. I received an update from the organisers last week informing me that the deadline has been extended by 2 weeks to give interested parties a better chance to put their best bids forward. Or is it because neither tenderer nor organiser has the slightest clue what’s going on?