If attacking competitors is ok for election campaigns, is it ok for tenders?
The concept of ‘ghosting’ competitor offerings in tenders is a well-known persuasion technique. Negative persuasion is proven to be
But, in BidWrite’s experience, most Australian organisations are reluctant to use this technique. They believe it to be a bit ‘grubby’.
Procurement professionals we talk to echo similar sentiments. In essence, they tell us that some competitive comparison in tenders is OK,
but devoting lots of tender real estate to bad mouthing competitors is not appealing.
But this doesn’t change the fact that use of negative reinforcement and sowing the seeds of doubt persuades. Which is why, presumably (and
despite earlier assurances to the contrary), Australian federal election campaigning is now dominated by attack ads.
So, here’s our conundrum. If it’s a known effective persuasive technique, and practiced widely in certain circumstances, why shouldn’t
ghosting be used more in tendering?
Of course, there must be a limit. Defamatory language and untruths are not OK. But in ever-increasingly competitive bidding situations,
inside sourcing processes that make it harder and harder to argue points of competitive difference, why would we limit ourselves to only
part of the persuasive toolkit.
There is a clear case to drive tender ghosting harder. If it’s OK for people who want to run our country, surely, it’s good for
organisations trying to win and retain business too.
For more information about any of the contents of this article, please contact BidWrite at firstname.lastname@example.org
or 1800 243 974