Scanability: Understanding How Proposals are Consumed
Most proposal evaluators will not read a response cover to cover.
Instead, they will prioritize the topics that drive the ultimate decision-making. If you’ve been given the client goals or the evaluation criteria, you can build your efforts around that as you craft your proposal. But even then, because proposal evaluation is an extra demand on their day-to-day job, most proposal evaluations consist of skimming and circling back.
Proposal teams need to be aware of the scanability of their responses and the proposal package.
Scanability refers to how easily a reader can skim and quickly understand key points in a piece of written content. To score written content for scanability, you can use a systematic approach based on specific criteria.
Here's a guide:
Criteria for Scoring Scanability
Headings and Subheadings
Evaluation: Are headings descriptive and clearly break the content into sections?
Score:
1: No or poorly written headings.
3: Some headings are clear, but not consistently applied.
5: All headings are clear, relevant, and well-structured.
Bullet Points and Lists
Evaluation: Are lists used effectively to organize information?
Score:
1: No lists or excessive paragraphs with dense text.
3: Some lists used but not consistently or appropriately.
5: Frequent and well-organized use of lists.
Short Paragraphs
Evaluation: Are paragraphs concise and limited to 3-5 sentences?
Score:
1: Long, dense paragraphs dominate.
3: Some short paragraphs, but others are lengthy.
5: All paragraphs are concise and easy to scan.
Highlighting (Bold/Italics/Colors)
Evaluation: Is key information emphasized using bold, italics, or color sparingly and effectively?
Score:
1: No emphasis or excessive use that creates clutter.
3: Some key points highlighted but inconsistent.
5: Strategic and consistent use of emphasis.
Whitespace
Evaluation: Does the layout include sufficient whitespace to prevent visual fatigue?
Score:
1: Text is tightly packed, with minimal spacing.
3: Some whitespace, but the page feels cramped.
5: Generous whitespace enhances readability.
Visuals and Graphics
Evaluation: Are images, charts, or graphics used to support text and break up content?
Score:
1: No visuals or irrelevant/low-quality visuals.
3: Some visuals, but not effectively integrated.
5: High-quality visuals that complement and clarify the content.
Readable Fonts
Evaluation: Is the font style and size easy to read, and is there a clear hierarchy (e.g., headings vs. body text)? Let your brand standards be your guide.
Score:
1: Hard-to-read fonts or no differentiation between text elements.
3: Fonts are readable but lack hierarchy or consistency.
5: Fonts are highly readable with a clear structure.
Callouts, Pull Quotes and Graphics
Evaluation: Are callouts, pull quotes and graphics used to draw attention to critical points?
Score:
1: No use of callouts/graphics or poorly executed.
3: Some callouts/graphics, but inconsistent placement or focus. Graphics are hard to read or interpret.
5: Thoughtful and consistent use of callouts and graphics.
Navigation Features
Evaluation: Are features like a table of contents, hyperlinks, or anchor links included for ease of navigation?
Score:
1: No navigation aids.
3: Some navigation aids, but they are incomplete or not user-friendly.
5: Comprehensive and user-friendly navigation features.
Content Chunking
Evaluation: Is information broken into manageable sections for easier digestion?
Score:
1: Content is one large block of text.
3: Some chunking, but large sections remain.
5: Content is fully chunked into clear and logical segments.
Scoring and Interpretation
Total Score: Add the scores for each category.
40–50: Excellent scanability.
30–39: Good, but room for improvement.
20–29: Average; significant revisions needed.
<20: Poor; requires a complete overhaul for readability.
Bonus Tips
Use a response template in your organization’s branding when allowed. A branded template ensures you more control and flexibility.
Use online readability tools to check metrics like reading grade level (e.g., Flesch-Kincaid). Most professional services should aim for 10-12 grade for skimming ease (most magazines and newspapers aim for eighth grade).
Conduct a user test: Ask someone unfamiliar with the content to scan it and provide feedback on clarity and ease of finding information.
Scoring content for scanability ensures it meets reader expectations for quick comprehension, improving engagement and retention. This is a great exercise to have your RFP writers to complete as they have to experience the proposal on the other side!
Want your content objectively evaluated? Need strategies to improve your proposals? Contact me at ellenjonesconsulting.com.
