Proposal and Functional Scope Feedback by Maria Van Thienen https://padlet.com/maria_van_thienen/k5m5y04tlsmc en-us 2019-07-19 12:32:45 UTC 2019-08-22 21:14:32 UTC hello@padlet.com EXAMPLE maria_van_thienen https://padlet.com/maria_van_thienen/k5m5y04tlsmc/wish/371692701 +
- I like the new proposal updated design
- I like that the new functional scope slides are focused on benefits and KPIs

- 
- I think the proposal should be shorter
- I think we should have more features on the functional scope slides]]> 2019-07-19 13:09:46 UTC https://padlet.com/maria_van_thienen/k5m5y04tlsmc/wish/371692701 Travis L https://padlet.com/maria_van_thienen/k5m5y04tlsmc/wish/371811878 - I like that we re-did the support slides to be self contained instead of "everything from essential plus other stuff"
- I also like that we added a your project and "what we heard" part. I think this is very important. 
-I still think we could do a better job at value mapping. For example we have the use case, such as onboarding, we should have a slide showing, the reduction in ramp time or time to first deal and the value in $$ over the next few years.

]]> 2019-07-21 22:30:29 UTC https://padlet.com/maria_van_thienen/k5m5y04tlsmc/wish/371811878 David L https://padlet.com/maria_van_thienen/k5m5y04tlsmc/wish/371868112 + Proposal is great for deals with several decision makers that you can't talk to

-Proposals are too long.
And plus with the Functionnal Scope it makes a lot of slides to read for the prospect]]> 2019-07-22 07:26:20 UTC https://padlet.com/maria_van_thienen/k5m5y04tlsmc/wish/371868112 Hugues L client_success https://padlet.com/maria_van_thienen/k5m5y04tlsmc/wish/372806529 + I like most of the new slides especially:
> onboarding/roll-out timeline
> Une collaboration étroite entre nos équipes
> All slides on support & services, learning engagement academy and league
> +++ Les Leaders font confiance aux Leaders

- The proposal is too long. I'm not sure having three slides on contexte/objectifs/besoins is really a game changer in the MID sector
- Sending both two packs of slides (one for the proposal and one for the features) is, according to me, risky as there's a good chance prospect only open the proposal slides
]]> 2019-07-31 11:14:15 UTC https://padlet.com/maria_van_thienen/k5m5y04tlsmc/wish/372806529 Vincent D https://padlet.com/maria_van_thienen/k5m5y04tlsmc/wish/372836087 + Great to have good slides for the new offer Surface and Leadership. Clear and efficient.                         
+ Great to have slides that enhances our main difference versus competition on Engagement offer. It is the first time it is simple and dedicated to collaborative learning. 

- Main topic : We absolutely need to have slide on the functionnal coverage of 360Learning Engagement. Even if it is a bit "commidities", we need to show what we do. I explain why : when we answer a call for tender, we dont always have the occasion to perform a demo, so we need to explain our Look & Feel and show we have all functionalities they need. Not having those slides could cause serious damages for Call for Tender and even for standard follow up slideshow. The actual Engagement slides could make think we sell only "Slack" or a "blog" whereas we deliver a philosophy:)
- 3 slides on the context maybe too much : 1 slide seems enought to me- Strange to have to different documents (never seen that) 
- a risk that the customer only open the pricing and stay focus on that.- I would avoid the slides with Premium and Enterprise differentiation (we use mainly Enterprise so it is confusing).]]> 2019-07-31 16:15:31 UTC https://padlet.com/maria_van_thienen/k5m5y04tlsmc/wish/372836087 Shilpn P client_success https://padlet.com/maria_van_thienen/k5m5y04tlsmc/wish/372940194 +The proposal works great for me to send near the end, when my champions and decision makers need to review it with their respective boards. We won't always have the opp to present to their board, so this enables them to demonstrate the impact of 360L.

-The pricing slide could be more effective. Almost all of the oppties are Enterprise Version, so I don't see a need for a specific line item there. The version can be listed below the Solution chosen in the first line item. 
-I think it's valuable to have a line item in the pricing for integrations - LMS/HRIS and Content PRoviders]]> 2019-08-01 12:26:08 UTC https://padlet.com/maria_van_thienen/k5m5y04tlsmc/wish/372940194 Anne F https://padlet.com/maria_van_thienen/k5m5y04tlsmc/wish/372950348 + the slides are a lot more clear and 'understable' than in previous proposal
+ Some new slides are very customer oriented and the inclusion of the services was very important as we now consider this as mandatory.

- I agree with Hugues, the proposal is too long and we need then to send 2 documents. The customer will never open both in the real life, he will only focus on the one where the price is.
I would suggest to send the functionnal scope earlier in the process, for example after a demo where we need to focus of demonstrating one of our 3 solutions for the customer to have a deck 'materialising' what would have been showned in the demo.
Or, add those slides as an appendinx in the proposal.
- I also think that even if this is very important to include services in this deck we should reduce the number of slides. Here we have more slides on the services than on the PF
- Last point : clearly 3 slides for customer context is a lot too much!
Moreover in first phase approach in one entity of a big customer + the customer already know what is is main business + how many people are in the company...
the important infos is to describe our understanding of their project, their organisation (to validate the price of the services indeed), and to which entity and for what need we are adressing the proposal.
In the previous version, this was on one only slide, a lot more impactfull.
As to illustrate that, I will share you the proposal I've sent to Chanel with the older version and the new one I've made for Airbus ADS with the new version.

]]> 2019-08-01 14:12:47 UTC https://padlet.com/maria_van_thienen/k5m5y04tlsmc/wish/372950348 Fabien M fabien_meinstein https://padlet.com/maria_van_thienen/k5m5y04tlsmc/wish/373739131 + 
- Slides are clear and well designed
- On Proposal slides : timeline slides (7,8,9) might be efficient to sign faster with a prospect showing him the project takes time to prepare
- Good to have profile images from our teams
- on Functional slides -  great emphasis on collaborative learning
- I don't know if Arnaud gave you this feedback yet but as he suggested our pricing slide could include :
contract duration : 36 month
offer is valid until XX/XX/2019
- Proposal is quite long if we want our clients to read it. I think we could shorten the recap of Context/needs/objectives giving synthetic information  
- I think I would rather only show on slides the offer we choose for our prospect without comparing it. It can create some confusion if we show all our offers. The risk is to have questions like "maybe I only need this offer / is it less expensive ?" For me slide 38 is a better option than slide 37.

Nice to have in slides:
- Do you think it would be possible to have on slide 13 Proposal a mock up of an iphone X and a macbook pro 13inch (then we can do a quick capture of the demo platform of the client and paste it into the presentation => personalization)

- If I present the proposal to my prospect, I would find impactful to have as an intro slide a model like in slide 47 with the prospect photo and one quotation (if applicable) that sum up his needs. At least it can be an icebreaker for the proposal presentation...
]]> 2019-08-08 14:46:11 UTC https://padlet.com/maria_van_thienen/k5m5y04tlsmc/wish/373739131