Five language mistakes that undermine your persuasiveness, and how to fix them. Research shows that hedging language, abstract claims, and too much "we" measurably weaken your proposal.
The words you choose in your proposal determine whether you persuade or not. And most companies make the same five mistakes.
This is not a matter of taste. Linguists have identified specific language characteristics that measurably correlate with persuasiveness. And the good news is: they can all be improved immediately.
Ta et al. (2022) conducted a large-scale study on what makes text persuasive. One of their most actionable findings: persuasive text contains few self-references. Less "we" and more "you" makes your text more powerful.
Most proposals do exactly the opposite. "We analyze your processes. We design the solution. We implement the system." Three sentences, three times "we" as the subject, zero times "you."
Flip it around: "Your processes will become transparent within two weeks. The new system saves your team 12 hours per week. The implementation will be completed before the end of the quarter." The same information, but now the client is at the center.
"We could potentially make this happen." Feel the difference compared to: "We will make this happen"?
Blankenship and Holtgraves (2005) studied the effect of linguistic power markers on persuasiveness. Their conclusion is clear: hedging language significantly reduces persuasiveness. Words and phrases such as "perhaps," "somewhat," "in principle," "might be able to," and "try to" are all signals of uncertainty.
Powerful language is direct and assertive. Not arrogant, but confident. The difference lies in eliminating hedges and disclaimers.
"We will try to shorten the lead time" becomes: "We will shorten the lead time from 14 to 5 days."
"It could possibly result in savings of around €50,000" becomes: "The expected savings amount to €50,000 per year."
"Significant cost reduction." "Substantially faster lead time." "Major improvements in customer satisfaction."
Ahmad and Laroche (2015) demonstrated that concrete language is more persuasive than abstract descriptions. The reason is simple: concrete formulations are verifiable. They force you to be specific, and specificity builds trust.
"Significant cost reduction" becomes: "€47,000 savings per year." "Substantially faster lead time" becomes: "Lead time reduced from 14 to 5 days." "Major improvements in customer satisfaction" becomes: "NPS increased from 32 to 67."
Every abstract claim you replace with a concrete number makes your proposal measurably more persuasive.
Lohfeld Consulting Group (2022) recommends writing proposals at a Flesch Reading Ease of at least 60 and a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of no more than 12. That corresponds to the language level of a well-written newspaper.
Why? Because complex text does not come across as intelligent. Complex text comes across as inaccessible. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) explains this: when text is too complex for the reader's processing capacity, they switch from central processing (careful analysis) to peripheral processing (quick heuristic judgments). And in peripheral processing, simplicity always wins over complexity.
Pogacar et al. (2018) refined this insight: language complexity should be matched to the reader's processing level. Busy executives need short, direct sentences. Technical evaluators can handle more complex structures. But even for that group, clarity always beats complexity.
Parhankangas and Ehrlich (2014) showed that this makes a measurable difference. In their study, readability predicted the success of funding applications with 73% accuracy.
"The analysis will be performed by our team." Who is doing what here? The passive construction hides the actor and makes the sentence less direct.
"Our team performs the analysis." Clearer, shorter, more powerful.
Lohfeld Consulting Group (2022) advises a maximum of 15% passive sentences in a proposal. Active sentences convey confidence, directness, and accountability. Passive sentences convey detachment and evasiveness.
Take your most recent proposal and count: how often do you write "we" versus "you"? How many sentences contain hedge words such as "perhaps," "possibly," or "try to"? How many claims are abstract ("significant") instead of concrete ("€47,000")?
These five language mistakes are not matters of style. They are measurable factors that determine your persuasiveness. And they can all be improved within an hour.
Ahmad, N., & Laroche, M. (2015). How do expressed emotions affect the helpfulness of a product review? International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 20(1), 76–111.
Blankenship, K. L., & Holtgraves, T. (2005). The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24(1), 3–24.
Lohfeld Consulting Group. (2022). Strength-Based Winning. Lohfeld Consulting Group.
Parhankangas, A., & Ehrlich, M. (2014). How entrepreneurs seduce business angels. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(4), 543–564.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion. Springer-Verlag.
Pogacar, R., Shrum, L. J., & Lowrey, T. M. (2018). The effects of linguistic devices on consumer information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(4), 689–711.
Ta, V. P., Griffith, C., Boatfield, C., Wang, X., Civitello, M., Bader, H., & Loggarakis, A. (2022). The language of persuasion. Journal of Computational Social Science, 5(1), 371–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-021-00144-w