Month: October 2024

Introduced to tackle growing concerns over the safety of internet users – particularly children and vulnerable groups, the Online Safety Act (OSA) marks a significant shift in the regulatory landscape for businesses operating online platforms in the UK.
Passed in October 2023 and progressively being enforced, it has introduced a wide range of new obligations, imposing stricter requirements for transparency, age verification and content moderation to create a safer online environment.
Under the Act, businesses operating online must now ensure transparency by regularly publishing their safety measures and reporting on their efforts to regulators. This means not only creating new policies where needed, but also providing evidence that these policies effectively mitigate risks associated with harmful content. The Act places specific emphasis on platforms accessed by children, requiring additional safeguards and age-appropriate design features.
To comply with these new regulations, digital platforms will be required to implement more stringent risk mitigation policies and are mandated to collaborate with Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator. Ofcom will oversee the implementation of the Act and enforce penalties for those not in compliance. To comply, businesses must maintain detailed compliance records by continuously updating and improving their safety measures to keep up with evolving risks.
Effective Age Verification and Safeguards for Children
One of the most critical elements of OSA is the focus on protecting children and young people as and when they access the internet. Come 2025, online platforms accessible to minors will be required to implement age checks to accurately determine whether or not users are children.
Ofcom will publish final guidance in early 2025, however, in the meantime it is clear that basic or outdated age-check systems – such as a simple ‘yes/no’ checkbox or self-declared age – will not suffice, and highly effective age assurance measures must be used. Innovative technologies that verify users’ ages while protecting their privacy are not a pipedream; they are available and ready to be deployed.
Platforms will also be expected to integrate further age-appropriate design features that reduce the risk of children encountering harmful content. This means filtering out explicit material, protecting personal data, and setting limitations on interactions with adults, all while maintaining a user-friendly experience. For example, social media platforms will need to assess how they moderate conversations, regulate social interactions, and structure the visibility of certain types of content.
The Need for Content Moderation and Transparency
Encouraging effective content moderation is another key element of the Online Safety Act. Businesses are obligated to implement systems to moderate harmful content – including hate speech, violence, and inappropriate material that could harm users, particularly minors. To achieve this, platforms must adopt proactive rather than reactive measures to prevent harmful content from being uploaded or spreading before it reaches their users. Content moderation efforts must also be transparent, with businesses documenting and publishing their policies, any actions taken, as well as their results.
The Act is designed to hold platforms accountable, not just for the safety measures they put in place, but also for how well the measures work in practice. Companies failing to demonstrate robust content moderation could face legal repercussions or fines from UK regulator Ofcom.
Technologies to Make the Internet Safer
Safety technology solution providers have been continuously innovating and developing solutions to keep up with the ever-changing and challenging online environment. In the age assurance space, technological advancements and the introduction of AI-driven techniques have meant that safety tech providers can now offer a range of highly accurate, privacy-preserving age assurance methods that protect user privacy, minimise friction, and ensure compliance with ever-evolving regulations.
While some methods require user interaction, such as uploading an image of an ID document or taking a short selfie video, other methods use existing user data. This data, such as an email address, can often be collected as part of the account creation process or during the checkout process on online marketplaces, and can be deployed in the background with no further user interaction required. Email address age estimation can accurately determine a user’s age without requiring sensitive personal information, allowing businesses to maintain compliance while protecting user privacy.
Within content moderation, Artificial Intelligence (AI) will play a critical role in helping platforms maintain an even safer environment. The technology can be utilised alongside human moderators to add an additional layer of support and scalability, quickly removing harmful material at scale.
An Opportunity for UK Businesses
For UK businesses, OSA is not just another regulation to follow but a hugely important opportunity to make the internet safer. By adopting cutting-edge safety measures and prioritising transparency, businesses can build trust with their users and demonstrate a commitment to protecting children when they venture online.
Businesses that proactively harness and implement effective age verification and content moderation will also benefit from the ability to avoid regulatory fines and quickly adapt to future regulatory changes. Considering the fast-paced nature of the internet, companies that are able to stay ahead of regulatory requirements now will be better positioned to thrive and grow in the years to come.
As a new piece of legislation, the OSA naturally requires businesses to change how they operate, which may initially prove challenging. However, by staying up to date on regulatory changes, leveraging cutting-edge technologies, and implementing them effectively, businesses can strategically position themselves to become a trusted voice in their space and ultimately better protect kids and young people online.
Read more:
The Impact of the Online Safety Act on UK Businesses

Some of Britain’s largest retailers are facing the prospect of paying millions in damages due to a wave of equal pay lawsuits, many of which are backed by contentious litigation funding arrangements.
Last month saw the latest development in a long-standing legal case against Asda, where tens of thousands of employees are suing the supermarket. The claim argues that shopfloor workers, predominantly women, are paid less than warehouse workers, who are mainly men, in violation of equal pay legislation.
The Asda hearing comes on the heels of a legal victory for workers at Next, where an employment tribunal found that the retailer failed to justify the pay disparity between its warehouse staff, primarily men, and its shopfloor workers, who are mostly women. Next plans to appeal the ruling, which could see compensation amounting to £30 million for the claimants. The case was represented by law firm Leigh Day and funded by Harbour Litigation Funding.
Similar legal challenges have been launched against other retail giants, including Morrisons, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, and the Co-op. Leigh Day has confirmed that all its supermarket equal pay cases are being pursued under a damages-based agreement, involving over 100,000 retail employees across the UK. Harbour Litigation Funding is also supporting claims against Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, and Tesco.
David Williams, an employment partner at the City law firm Fox Williams, noted that the retail sector is under significant pressure. “There’s quite a degree of concern [in the retail industry] and I think it’s coming from a variety of sources. The liabilities are potentially enormous because there are lots of people in the sector and there’s a history of businesses not taking equal pay seriously,” he said. “This is a wake-up call for many companies to audit their practices and address salary disparities.”
Therium Capital Management, another litigation funder, is backing the case against Tesco. Founded in 2008, Therium manages 12 separate litigation funds, collectively supporting claims valued at $36 billion. The company has a track record of backing high-profile cases, including legal action against the Post Office and supporting Noel Edmonds in his legal battle with Lloyds Bank over issues related to its HBOS subsidiary.
Litigation funders operate by raising capital from sources such as hedge funds and sovereign wealth funds. This money is pooled to finance various claims, with profits from successful cases enabling further investments in legal actions. While this funding model can facilitate access to justice, it has sparked controversy. Critics argue that it breaches the common law principles of champerty and maintenance, which historically prevented third parties from funding legal disputes for profit.
The rapid rise of class action lawsuits and third-party funding has led to concerns within the business community. A recent report by the Adam Smith Institute warned that these legal mechanisms expose many companies to claims worth billions. Meanwhile, the US Chamber of Commerce has been lobbying against the spread of class action litigation and associated funding models in the UK and Europe, arguing that they mirror contentious practices seen in the United States.
In England and Wales, two types of no-win, no-fee agreements are now prevalent. The traditional model, conditional fees, allows lawyers to take an uplift of up to 100% on their standard fees for winning cases. However, the newer damages-based agreements are more controversial. Resembling contingency fees in the US, these deals permit lawyers and their third-party backers to claim up to 50% of the damages awarded, leading to unease among defendant companies facing potential litigation.
Read more:
Equal pay lawsuits threaten to cost retailers millions as legal pressure mounts

Lord Bamford and his family have pocketed a £300m windfall from their JCB business empire, following a robust year for the construction equipment manufacturer that saw profits surge by 44% to £805m in 2023, according to the latest accounts.
This substantial dividend payment was approved by Bamford in late May, shortly after the recent general election that ushered in a Labour government. With the Budget set for release next week, speculation is growing around potential tax reforms targeting the UK’s wealthiest, as Labour aims to shift the tax burden. Sir Keir Starmer has indicated a policy focus on ensuring “those with the broadest shoulders bear the heavier burden,” suggesting that changes to capital gains and property taxes could be on the table.
Labour’s plans include a commitment to freeze taxes for “working people” – specifically excluding those who hold significant investments, such as shares or second homes. This policy direction has sparked concerns among Britain’s affluent families and business owners about a possible wealth tax.
Lord Bamford, one of Britain’s most notable industrialists and a well-known supporter of Brexit, has long been a substantial donor to the Conservative Party, supporting former prime ministers including David Cameron, Boris Johnson, and Liz Truss. JCB, the Staffordshire-based manufacturing giant, remains wholly owned by the Bamford family, who are now among the wealthiest in Britain with an estimated fortune of £5.9bn.
The Bamford family has a long-standing tradition of entrepreneurship: Lady Bamford founded the Daylesford Organic farm shop chain, while Jo Bamford, their son, owns the bus company Wrightbus. Since inheriting JCB from his father, company founder Joseph Cyril Bamford, Lord Bamford has expanded the business into a global player with a popular product lineup that includes the iconic 3CX Sitemaster backhoe loader, rivalling American giants Caterpillar and John Deere.
As Labour’s Chancellor Rachel Reeves faces mounting pressure from within her party to introduce a “wealth tax,” some MPs are calling for a 2% levy on individuals with assets exceeding £10m. Critics, however, argue that such a policy could deter investment and stifle entrepreneurial growth, potentially pushing high-value businesses and individuals away from the UK.
The recent £300m dividend payout to the Bamford family came through JCB Services Ltd, the main division of the group, after raising its dividend to £6,159 per share, up from £5,312. Despite this strong financial performance, JCB is bracing for a downturn in the coming year. Recent reports indicate that JCB has already made cuts of over 230 UK-based agency jobs due to lower-than-expected global demand for manufacturing.
JCB’s chief executive, Graeme Macdonald, offered a cautious outlook for 2024, citing challenges in the UK and European markets, particularly a contraction in housebuilding and a decline in Germany’s economic activity. With the manufacturing sector under pressure, JCB and similar companies may face an uphill battle in the months to come.
Read more:
Lord Bamford’s £300m family windfall from JCB raises questions amid potential wealth tax

Chancellor Rachel Reeves is facing renewed calls to implement a wealth tax, with economists, climate advocates, and high-net-worth individuals urging her to introduce a tax on the UK’s richest citizens to help fund essential public services and accelerate the transition to net zero.
In an open letter to the chancellor, notable economists Thomas Piketty (pictured) and Gabriel Zucman joined 29 organisations, including Greenpeace, Oxfam, and Unite the Union, in backing the proposal, which they claim could raise more than £100 billion.
The signatories argue that a wealth tax would ensure that “the wealthiest individuals in our society contribute their fair share during the government’s promised decade of national renewal.” The proposed levy targets assets rather than income and has gained traction as the chancellor prepares a substantial fiscal tightening of £40 billion, largely through tax rises, in her budget next week.
Greenpeace’s previous proposal of a temporary 2.5 per cent wealth tax on holdings over £10 million would affect fewer than 75,000 people, with estimates suggesting it could raise at least £130 billion over five years. Economists agree that a one-off wealth tax might be more effective than a recurring annual levy, as it would reduce opportunities for tax avoidance via asset relocation or disposal.
The letter stresses that substantial funds are available to address the UK’s pressing social and environmental needs. It notes that the combined wealth of the UK’s richest 250 households stands at £748 billion, and highlights that the carbon footprint of the wealthiest 0.1 per cent is approximately 12 times that of the average UK citizen.
Georgia Whitaker of Greenpeace criticised recent government decisions to restrict winter fuel allowances, arguing that taxing the wealthiest should be less controversial than cutting support for vulnerable pensioners: “How can the government think that taxing the vast wealth of the very richest in our society is more controversial than cutting winter fuel payments to poor pensioners?”
Despite these calls, the chancellor has previously indicated that she does not plan to introduce a wealth tax. Next week’s budget is expected to include tax increases in areas such as capital gains, inheritance, and employer National Insurance, alongside a potential shift in fiscal rules to allow for increased government borrowing to fund public investment.
Read more:
Economists and Activists Call on Rachel Reeves to Introduce Wealth Tax in Inaugural Budget

In a groundbreaking victory for consumer rights, the Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of the claimant in the Johnson v. Firstrand Bank case, setting a historic precedent in the motor finance industry.
The ruling, championed by Sentinel Legal and HD Law, holds lenders accountable for mis-selling Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) finance agreements, a decision that could see over £21 billion returned to UK consumers. This is a major step toward financial relief for households as the economy continues to struggle with inflationary pressures and cost-of-living challenges.
A Transformative Moment for Consumer Protection
The Johnson case exposed a series of unethical practices, where consumers were unknowingly drawn into PCP deals with hidden fees and inflated interest rates. Misled at the point of sale, many believed they were securing fair finance terms, only to find themselves tied to costly terms. This Court of Appeal ruling forces greater transparency on lenders, placing consumer protection and transparency at the forefront of future car finance agreements.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has taken note of this landmark ruling and is expected to heighten its regulatory oversight of motor finance agreements in response. Sam Ward, Director at Sentinel Legal, described the ruling as a “massive win for consumer justice,” adding, “For too long, lenders have used complex, often misleading finance deals to exploit consumers. This ruling reclaims some power for consumers, holding banks accountable for deceptive practices.”
Exposing Hidden Commission Arrangements
Kevin Durkin, Director of HD Law, was instrumental in bringing the Johnson case to the Court of Appeal. He emphasized the role of the judiciary in exposing “underhanded practices” that benefited banks and dealerships at the expense of consumers. “For years, vague references to commissions were buried in fine print. This ruling highlights the need for clarity and has set a new standard for motor finance accountability,” Durkin stated.
The judgement suggests parallels with the infamous PPI mis-selling scandal, which compelled financial institutions to pay substantial redress to affected consumers. The ruling now forces lenders to confront the fallout from PCP mis-selling, potentially facing significant claims from affected borrowers. The decision sends a clear message to the industry: covert commission deals and hidden fees will no longer be tolerated.
The Impact on the Motor Finance Industry
The ruling’s repercussions are expected to resonate throughout the motor finance sector, where lenders have relied on commission arrangements and high-interest agreements to increase profitability. The FCA is closely watching this development, particularly with Barclays’ recent judicial review on PCP finance mis-selling. This heightened scrutiny by the FCA could lead to a broader regulatory clampdown, with potential implications for other banks and car finance providers.
Sentinel Legal has positioned itself as a champion for those impacted by these unfair PCP agreements, with Director Sam Ward affirming, “This ruling opens the door for consumers to seek compensation. With up to £21 billion likely to be returned to UK consumers, this case highlights the critical importance of transparency in finance deals. Sentinel Legal is dedicated to ensuring justice and financial redress for those impacted.”
Looking Forward
As the industry faces increasing pressure to comply with stricter standards, this landmark ruling is a reminder of the importance of transparency and ethical practices in financial services. With further cases likely to emerge, the ruling is a pivotal step towards accountability and could reshape the landscape of motor finance in the UK.
Read more:
Landmark Court of Appeal Ruling Promises £21bn Payout for Motor Finance Mis-Selling Victims

The UK’s iconic clubbing scene is on the brink of collapse, with an alarming rate of 10 nightclub closures every month, according to new research from the Nighttime Industries Association (NTIA).
The report warns that unless the government intervenes, the UK could see the “end of a clubbing era that has defined generations” by 2029, leaving no nightclubs remaining.
Michael Kill, CEO of the NTIA, has urged the government to take immediate action, describing the nighttime economy as a “vital part of the UK’s social fabric.” Ahead of next week’s Autumn Budget, he called for targeted support to rescue an industry battered by rising operational costs and dwindling footfall amid the cost-of-living crisis.
“We are witnessing the systematic dismantling of the nighttime economy,” Kill said. “This industry is not just about entertainment; it’s about identity, community, and the economy.”
A crisis in the UK club scene
Over the past four years, the UK has lost 37% of its nightclubs, equating to over 300 closures, as operational costs soar and fewer people are going out due to financial pressures. An NTIA survey of 500 businesses revealed that 70% of venues are either barely breaking even or operating at a loss, painting a bleak picture for the future of the industry.
Kill expressed concern about upcoming budgetary measures, particularly potential changes to alcohol duty and the ongoing ban on smoking in public spaces, which he says could impose further costs on the struggling sector.
Reinventing the clubbing experience
While permanent club venues are struggling, some are finding innovative ways to adapt. Actor and music enthusiast Vicky McClure has launched Day Fever, a daytime clubbing event that offers an alternative to traditional nightlife. These events have been a hit, with sell-out crowds drawn in by the convenience of daytime partying, especially for those with childcare commitments or non-traditional work hours.
Similarly, temporary or “meanwhile spaces” are offering hope. Drumsheds, one of the world’s largest nightclubs, is operating out of a former Ikea site in Tottenham, north London. Run by Broadwick Live, the club has transformed the disused furniture warehouse into a venue for some of the biggest names in dance music. Co-founder Simeon Aldred explained that while the venue is temporary, it allows for experimentation and helps highlight how culture can fit into urban redevelopment projects.
Despite these creative efforts, the future of UK clubbing remains uncertain without broader support. Industry experts argue that the government must step in to provide financial relief and policy changes that allow venues to thrive, rather than adding further burdens.
Read more:
UK nightclubs face extinction as 10 venues close per month, industry warns

More than 1,500 UK entrepreneurs and business leaders have signed a letter to Chancellor Rachel Reeves, urging her to reconsider proposed changes to business asset disposal relief (previously known as entrepreneurs’ relief), ahead of the budget on October 30.
The letter warns that modifying or scrapping the relief could severely undermine the entrepreneurial spirit that has driven UK economic growth and innovation.
Currently, business asset disposal relief allows entrepreneurs to pay a reduced tax rate of 10% on qualifying gains, up to a lifetime cap of £1 million. However, this relief is believed to be at risk as the government seeks ways to cut costs and repair public finances. The signatories of the petition argue that removing or limiting the relief would send the wrong message to entrepreneurs and investors, making the UK a less attractive place to build a business.
Prominent signatories
The petition, organised by venture capital firm Fearless Adventures, co-founded by Dominic McGregor, includes signatures from leading entrepreneurs such as Peter Roberts, founder of Puregym; Will Butler-Adams (pictured), managing director of Brompton; and Jennifer Roebuck, co-founder of Tortilla. They argue that the relief provides a crucial incentive for entrepreneurs to take risks when starting businesses and is vital for fostering economic growth.
The letter acknowledges the importance of tax revenue to fund public services but contends that taxing entrepreneurial gains at the same rate as regular income would deter business creation. In addition to calling for the relief to be retained, the signatories are asking Reeves to restore the lifetime limit to £10 million, which was reduced to £1 million in 2020 by then-chancellor Rishi Sunak.
Conflicting views on the relief
While the signatories emphasise the importance of the relief for encouraging risk-taking and business innovation, critics argue that it is poorly targeted. Both the Resolution Foundation, a left-leaning think tank, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have called for the relief to be scrapped, citing concerns about its cost and effectiveness. The relief has been labelled “Britain’s worst tax relief” by some experts, arguing that it disproportionately benefits wealthier individuals without sufficiently stimulating economic growth.
However, entrepreneurs maintain that removing or limiting the relief would harm not just high-profile founders but everyday business owners such as restaurant operators, mechanics, and designers, who rely on it as an incentive to take the financial leap required to launch a business.
Concerns from the Federation of Small Businesses
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) echoed these concerns, warning that increasing taxes on entrepreneurs when they sell their businesses would stifle business creation and innovation. Tina McKenzie, the FSB’s policy chairwoman, pointed out that many entrepreneurs invest their life savings into their ventures, making them vulnerable if they cannot secure a fair sale. McKenzie stressed that removing the relief could discourage people from starting new businesses and taking the risks necessary for economic growth.
 
Read more:
Entrepreneurs petition chancellor to maintain business tax relief

The UK government has secured a £1.5 billion profit following Octopus Energy’s acquisition of the collapsed energy supplier Bulb, marking the conclusion of the Bulb bailout saga. Octopus Energy paid over £3 billion to the government, providing a significant financial boost amid pressing budget constraints.
The government intervened in November 2021 when Bulb went into administration. A year later, Bulb was sold to Octopus Energy in a landmark deal that has proven highly beneficial for both taxpayers and billpayers.
A deal that delivered for taxpayers
As part of the agreement, a wholesale arrangement was established to hedge the costs for Bulb’s customers, ensuring that energy prices during the transition period would not burden taxpayers or billpayers. Additionally, a profit-sharing mechanism was included in the deal until Octopus repaid the hedging funds in full.
On 30 September 2024, Octopus made its final payment, completing the deal without any loss to the public finances, a far better outcome than the initial £6.5 billion cost projections.
The government’s profit from the deal included £1.28 billion from the wholesale arrangement, benefiting from energy price declines, £19 million from the profit-sharing mechanism, and £200 million in interest. An additional £20 million is expected from the profit-sharing agreement.
No added cost to billpayers
Unlike many other corporate failures, this agreement did not impose additional costs on energy customers through higher standing charges. Octopus also guaranteed jobs for all Bulb employees, with 94% choosing to stay, and seamlessly transferred Bulb’s 1.5 million customers to its systems within six months.
Greg Jackson, founder of Octopus Energy, praised the outcome: “This outcome is a remarkable success story for taxpayers and billpayers. Octopus worked hard to find a fair deal which saved the Treasury billions compared to alternatives.”
Read more:
UK Government nets £1.5bn profit from Octopus-Bulb deal, closing the bailout chapter

Let’s assume…you’re a business leader who has worked hard to empower your team to fly your company flag with confidence and absolute clarity on your brand and what you represent.
This means you’ve successfully created a culture where your vision, purpose and core values are deeply embedded and understood, weaving through every decision made and action taken. Employees are aware of long-term business objectives and feel knowledgeable about the type of clients and projects you are striving to attract.
As a result, your team is nailing this business development lark and helping to position your company to better target the work you want to win. Genuine opportunities are coming your way…
Now what?
How do you give yourself the best possible shot at converting that live opportunity, be it a face-to-face introductory meeting with a new client, or the chance to submit a proposal or actively pitch your business for a dream project?
Let’s consider the steps you can take today to help fill up that pipeline of work for 2025.
The devil is in the detail
First things first, is the brief clear? Have you really understood what the client is asking for? If there are any grey areas make sure you get clarification now and eliminate any ambiguity before the meeting or deadline. It’s also the perfect opportunity to demonstrate early on that you are eager, knowledgeable and dependable.
If, for example, a client tells you they are interested in a certain aspect of your organisation, make sure you lead with that. If you are submitting a proposal or preparing for a pitch and the client has set out specific criteria, then respond accordingly. Don’t assume that you know what a potential client needs better than they do at this stage. You may wish to include other ideas but focus on the primary requirement first. Non-compliance will not do you any favours when your answers are being weighted in a competitive bid process!
Do your homework!
You need to gain an understanding of who the client is, the work they do, their values, their culture and what makes them tick…or the issues giving them sleepless nights. Ultimately, what do they care most about and how can you demonstrate that you align with them and can add genuine value to their business or project.
If it is a face-to-face meeting or a pitch opportunity, find out who will be in the room so you can tailor your messaging to those making or influencing the decision. If, for example, the CFO is in the pitch, you should make sure you are showing value for money, and so on.
Consider the following:

What are the primary challenges and what solutions would you recommend?
Can you prove that you’re best placed to provide those solutions? (the proof is in the pudding – case studies, testimonials, quantifiable facts and figures)
Who are the right people to take/involve in the opportunity from your side and why?
Do you have the right resources?
How would you approach the job and where would you start?
Do as much background reading/online research/fact-finding/site visiting as you can to show that you know what you are talking about and have taken the time to understand the scenario
Look at the industry and market competitors, physical locations if relevant and any existing/historical issues which may have implications
Bonus marks if you can pinpoint an issue the client has not yet mentioned AND provide a logical way to fix it!

Less is more…
We’ve all seen mammoth proposals and we’ve all sat through presentations that put you into snooze-mode quicker than warm milk at bedtime. As Mark Twain said (or allegedly several others), “If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter”.  Frankly, it might take longer to make your collateral shorter, but getting to the point succinctly is key so you don’t lose your audience.
Craft a narrative that’s aspirational, value-led and tells a demonstrable story of how you will meet and exceed all the client’s needs. Focus on the key points and portray them well:

Capture the attention with engaging, relevant and clear visuals. No fuzzy illegible tables allowed!
Lose the novel – key points only
Proof points, where have you done it before – and what were the results?
If it’s a written proposal – avoid the technical jargon
If it’s in person – practice, make eye contact, engage with your audience and of course, aim to wow them with your amazing energy and expertise!

Practice, but be authentic
When approaching a new business opportunity – be it a meeting, pitch, or similar – it’s crucial that your team fully understands the opportunity, the company’s strategy for converting it, and their specific roles in the process.
Many teams stumble at the finish line, even with their best members present, because they fail to properly brief everyone. This often results in a senior leader doing all the talking or team members saying the wrong things due to a lack of preparation.
Anticipating potential tricky questions during meetings or presentations is essential. Being ready with well-thought-out answers helps you avoid stumbling in front of decision-makers and eliminates any doubts about your capabilities.
If you’re giving a presentation, make sure to allocate time for questions at the end, and invite your audience to share any further inquiries they might have.
After the meeting, follow up with a thank-you note, send a digital copy of the presentation, and reiterate your enthusiasm and availability for the project or collaboration.
Final thoughts
Successfully identifying and converting work begins with ensuring that your business development interactions lead to tangible outcomes, and ultimately, to fee-paying work.
Building relationships takes time, and it’s natural not to get perfect results right away. Remember, each experience holds valuable lessons. Embrace feedback, learn from it, and refine your process, content, or delivery for the future.
In the words of Winston Churchill: “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: It is the courage to continue that counts.”
Read more:
Business development to bottom line: Turning effort into results!