The copy isn’t the starting point
Updated: 23 hours ago
Why the most important work in complex B2B communications often happens before the first word is written.
A CMO called. The company was ready to expand into the US market. Several years had passed since my Rain colleagues and I had first worked with the client. At the time, we'd helped develop the messaging for a new brand identity, supporting their ambition to expand beyond France.
Now was the time. With several major wins in Canada under their belt, they were ready to take on the US market. Our mission was to develop the copy for a new English-language website, specifically tailored to the US market.
It was a natural fit. We knew the client, understood their business, and brought experience in the US market.
But while the assignment was to write the website copy, the real work began well before the first headline or paragraph took shape.
One of our first steps was to look closely at the company's competitive landscape in the US. The client had provided us with a list of competitors, but as we began investigating their websites, product offerings and positioning, we started to question whether these were really the companies they should be benchmarking themselves against.
And if not, who were their real competitors in the US market?
The 80/20 principle — the work behind the words
As with most projects, writing is rarely my starting point. Yes, it's the end point, the visible deliverable, but before pen hits paper (or words emerge on the screen), there's a considerable amount of investigative work to be done.
I need to understand what the client wants to achieve, who they're trying to reach, what matters to their customers and how best to position their offering. In my decades working in marketing and communications, I've never taken on an assignment and thought, okay, I'll just sit down and write this.
I've always looked at it as an 80/20 principle. It's not scientific, but in my experience, roughly 80% of the work goes into research, interviews, analysis and figuring out the right communications approach. The remaining 20% is the actual writing.
That's not to discount the writing itself. Far from it. But whether I'm developing an executive summary for a major RFP, a new homepage or the opening remarks for a CEO, there's a tremendous amount of work that happens behind the scenes.
And much of that work involves making decisions. What really matters to the audience? Where does the company stand apart from its competitors? Which claims can we support? And are we looking at the situation from the client's perspective, or from that of the people they're trying to convince?
A brief is a starting point, not a conclusion
A project rarely begins with a rock-solid brief. While that’s generally considered the norm when working with outside agencies and consultants, it hasn’t been my experience. And I personally don’t mind it that way.
Why? Because even a detailed brief can set boundaries and assumptions before we’ve fully understood the challenges and opportunities. Back to my opening example.
The CMO knew the end goal. Expand into the US market, reach new customers with the company’s evolving offering, and leverage the market knowledge gained over the previous two years through their Canadian clients.
Our mission was to work alongside the CMO to understand how best to position the company’s offering within a complex B2B market. That meant taking a closer look at who their direct competitors really were, how their products and positioning compared, where the company could stand apart, and whether we clearly understood the audiences they wanted to reach.
As we investigated the original competitor list, we found that some companies weren’t necessarily competing in the same market or offering comparable solutions. We identified other potential competitors, shared our findings with the CMO, and worked together to refine the competitive landscape that would guide the website messaging.
It wasn't that our client was wrong. It's that examining assumptions together can lead to stronger positioning. That’s why I believe a brief should be a starting point, not something that prevents us from questioning the direction as the project unfolds.
See the business through the customer's eyes
In our AI-driven era of split-second answers, it's tempting to jump to conclusions. But fully understanding a customer's concerns takes time.
While an RFP outlines the technical requirements and evaluation criteria, it doesn't necessarily reveal everything that matters to the people making the final decision.
Does the bidder truly understand us? Will they be a long-term partner we can trust? Will their proposed solution address our customers' concerns and needs? Are they genuinely committed to this project, or are we just another proposal among many?
These are all valid concerns. Responding to an RFP and developing a well-thought-out executive summary go beyond meeting technical requirements or simply listing the bidding company's merits. The executive summary needs to demonstrate a genuine understanding of the customer.
To do this, I investigate leadership priorities, customer concerns, local issues, and the broader environment in which the organization operates. From there, I can shape a more relevant executive narrative and identify authentic points of alignment between the customer's priorities and the bidder's existing initiatives.
In essence, effective communications must demonstrate an understanding of the customer, not merely describe the supplier.
Looking beyond the RFP
When developing executive summaries for Alstom's US transit proposals, my research went well beyond the technical specifications. For one Philadelphia project, I examined
SEPTA's leadership priorities, listened to interviews, and researched the concerns of riders and the local community.
That work helped identify genuine points of alignment between SEPTA's priorities and Alstom's existing initiatives, including workforce development and opportunities for women.
The objective wasn't simply to present Alstom's capabilities. It was to demonstrate an understanding of the organization it hoped to serve.
Research is also about credibility
It's easy to become accustomed to our own cultural norms and assume they'll translate naturally into other markets. But that can lead to serious missteps, with audiences interpreting a company's words or intentions in ways the company never intended.
We may operate in a global economy, but cultural differences still matter. Part of my responsibility is to step outside my client's familiar environment and consider how their communications will be received by a different audience.
That might mean researching local customs and expectations before preparing a CEO's opening remarks at a press event announcing a partnership with government officials. Or ensuring that a thought leadership article series addressing broader industry issues remains accurate and within the company's area of expertise.
Both examples demonstrate why research isn't just a way to make the writing more interesting. It helps avoid misleading claims, inappropriate assumptions, and reputational missteps.
Better thinking makes better communication possible
My 80/20 principle is more of a north star than a fixed formula. The value of preparation isn't measured by how much research you complete, but by the quality of the decisions that research enables.
The right words emerge from understanding the business, its customers, and the context in which decisions are made. It's about taking the time to investigate, question assumptions, and understand what really matters to the people you're trying to reach.
In complex B2B communications, where decisions often involve significant investments and long-term relationships, customers want to know they've been heard and understood. And that starts well before the first word is written.