In general marketing copy, a seasoned copywriter will tell you that the correct and strategically responsible approach to the “short copy vs long copy” debate is: The correct length for any marketing piece (without a specified word count or when limited by format) is “as long as it needs to be” . It should not be longer: It should make its point impactfully and using only the word count that is required to do so. (The exception to this rule is the Direct Marketing copywriter, who uses repetition and re-phrasing as part of the well-recognised DM formula.) It should not be shorter: Any communications piece that has, as its primary imperative, the requirement of compelling the reader to a course of action (including the selection of a CV owner as the best candidate for a position) should never stop short of ensuring that objective, purely to conform to some arbitrary minimum length expectation. The piece must include all the information essential to achieve its intended purpose. If a page or word count has been stipulated, the information must be prioritised and compacted to nonetheless achieve the strategic inclusion of all the required key data / points. This is the responsibility of a skilled writer. (That said, any imposed word count that makes this task literally impossible is, at best, unrealistic, and at worst, irresponsible, on the part of whomever is making the unworkable stipulation.) But What About A CV? What Applies? In the case of an executive’s bio or resume, more often than not, the challenge is indeed to convey an abundance of relevant and “tasty” information within a length-limited or semi-lemgth-llmited format. The key is prioritisation and planning. And, in turn, the key to effective prioritisation and planning is the well-researched, intricate understanding of the targeted position and the selection committee or other readership. With prioritisation informed decisions can, for example, be made as to whether to use valuable word count allowance to include a greater listing of experiences versus substantiating and providing case examples to support other, higher-priority inclusions. This highlights the fact that a savvy CV production is not one that should be left to your “common garden” writer. An executive resume – or indeed, any CV – is a high-stakes piece. Every inclusion and every word employed to articulate every inclusion should be strategically selected – both for impact and for achievement of the ultimate ob jective.
When you pepper your Curricula Vitae (or any other component of your bids or proposals) with your own in-house jargon, you demonstrate your inward, internal, self-focused thinking. You give the evaluator the clear message that you’re unable or unwilling to think or communicate from any perspective other than your company’s. You indicate: self-centricity (vs client-centricity) a culture of corporate or “brand” arrogance, Intellectual inflexibility, and (possibly) a lower-than-optimum IQ. Unless they use the exact same jargon, you’ll be inadvertently indicating to the evaluators that it is the client side of the relationship that will have to constantly make the effort to interpret you and your position, rather than vice versa, as it should be. To avoid submitting CVs peppered with this “insider” terminology, enlist – as a confidential audience – someone who understands the client-side’s industry or working environment and can read or listen to your writing through their ears.
One of the most common mistakes bidders make when answering a call for Expressions of Interest or Requests for Proposal, is submitting a response that’s full of unsubstantiated claims (as website copy and general marketing materials commonly are). Nowhere is this more common than in project team members’ CVs. In turn, the most prevalent forms of this, are subjective “self-opinions” regarding one’s strengths, achievements and track records. By way of example: If you, as the CV owner in this case, describe yourself as “a resourceful and highly respected leader with the ability to adopt innovative approaches to challenging situations”, you better be quick, in your subsequent paragraphs, to offer proof of your: Resourcefulness Your own personal track record for innovative approaches Why the situations you applied them to were particularly challenging, and Why that resulted in your being regarded highly, and by whom Rinse and repeat across several more examples, since you claim this standing not only as the result of your involvement in one project, but across a greater career span The Magic Happens Here . . . Then, if you want to rivet the evaluators to their seats, highlight the relevance to the similar challenges you’ll likely be faced with on the project you’re bidding for. Now, with regard to the answer generated by the above question, what’s the proof point of this high-relevance criticality? Offer proof of your claim (and not just by citing the name of a project), or demonstrate that the claim is proven or is provable. In summary, table proof that your claim is true (not just your opinion); provide some authoritative indicator of third-party concurrence; make it relevant to the client and, in turn, prove this relevance. If you can’t specifically do all that with the project in question, you’ll have to read more of my future articles to work out what to do in such an instance. Or, better still, take my course, OPERATION CV: On-Target, Bid-Specific Curricula Vitae. (TRELAWNE: LINK TO COURSE DESCRIPTOR-&-SALES PAGE.)
In general marketing copy, a seasoned copywriter will tell you that the correct and strategically responsible approach to the “short copy vs long copy” debate is: The correct length for any marketing piece (without a specified word count or when limited by format) is “as long as it needs to be” . It should not be longer: It should make its point impactfully and using only the word count that is required to do so. (The exception to this rule is the Direct Marketing copywriter, who uses repetition and re-phrasing as part of the well-recognised DM formula.) It should not be shorter: Any communications piece that has, as its primary imperative, the requirement of compelling the reader to a course of action (including the selection of a CV owner as the best candidate for a position) should never stop short of ensuring that objective, purely to conform to some arbitrary minimum length expectation. The piece must include all the information essential to achieve its intended purpose. If a page or word count has been stipulated, the information must be prioritised and compacted to nonetheless achieve the strategic inclusion of all the required key data / points. This is the responsibility of a skilled writer. (That said, any imposed word count that makes this task literally impossible is, at best, unrealistic, and at worst, irresponsible, on the part of whomever is making the unworkable stipulation.) But What About A CV? What Applies? In the case of an executive’s bio or resume, more often than not, the challenge is indeed to convey an abundance of relevant and “tasty” information within a length-limited or semi-lemgth-llmited format. The key is prioritisation and planning. And, in turn, the key to effective prioritisation and planning is the well-researched, intricate understanding of the targeted position and the selection committee or other readership. With prioritisation informed decisions can, for example, be made as to whether to use valuable word count allowance to include a greater listing of experiences versus substantiating and providing case examples to support other, higher-priority inclusions. This highlights the fact that a savvy CV production is not one that should be left to your “common garden” writer. An executive resume – or indeed, any CV – is a high-stakes piece. Every inclusion and every word employed to articulate every inclusion should be strategically selected – both for impact and for achievement of the ultimate ob jective.
When you pepper your Curricula Vitae (or any other component of your bids or proposals) with your own in-house jargon, you demonstrate your inward, internal, self-focused thinking. You give the evaluator the clear message that you’re unable or unwilling to think or communicate from any perspective other than your company’s. You indicate: self-centricity (vs client-centricity) a culture of corporate or “brand” arrogance, Intellectual inflexibility, and (possibly) a lower-than-optimum IQ. Unless they use the exact same jargon, you’ll be inadvertently indicating to the evaluators that it is the client side of the relationship that will have to constantly make the effort to interpret you and your position, rather than vice versa, as it should be. To avoid submitting CVs peppered with this “insider” terminology, enlist – as a confidential audience – someone who understands the client-side’s industry or working environment and can read or listen to your writing through their ears.
One of the most common mistakes bidders make when answering a call for Expressions of Interest or Requests for Proposal, is submitting a response that’s full of unsubstantiated claims (as website copy and general marketing materials commonly are). Nowhere is this more common than in project team members’ CVs. In turn, the most prevalent forms of this, are subjective “self-opinions” regarding one’s strengths, achievements and track records. By way of example: If you, as the CV owner in this case, describe yourself as “a resourceful and highly respected leader with the ability to adopt innovative approaches to challenging situations”, you better be quick, in your subsequent paragraphs, to offer proof of your: Resourcefulness Your own personal track record for innovative approaches Why the situations you applied them to were particularly challenging, and Why that resulted in your being regarded highly, and by whom Rinse and repeat across several more examples, since you claim this standing not only as the result of your involvement in one project, but across a greater career span The Magic Happens Here . . . Then, if you want to rivet the evaluators to their seats, highlight the relevance to the similar challenges you’ll likely be faced with on the project you’re bidding for. Now, with regard to the answer generated by the above question, what’s the proof point of this high-relevance criticality? Offer proof of your claim (and not just by citing the name of a project), or demonstrate that the claim is proven or is provable. In summary, table proof that your claim is true (not just your opinion); provide some authoritative indicator of third-party concurrence; make it relevant to the client and, in turn, prove this relevance. If you can’t specifically do all that with the project in question, you’ll have to read more of my future articles to work out what to do in such an instance. Or, better still, take my course, OPERATION CV: On-Target, Bid-Specific Curricula Vitae. (TRELAWNE: LINK TO COURSE DESCRIPTOR-&-SALES PAGE.)
