There are several steps the Writer should follow when faced with a Sourcing Job that is identified as a Client Update (Partial/Full).
If the answers to all these questions is YES, then move forward on writing the Client Update. If the answer to a few of them is NO, then send it back to the Dash for re-sourcing.
For any Client Update (Partial/Full) that you are assigned, it is in your best interests to verify the Sourcer’s findings. Perform a short (20-minutes max) “back-up search”. Use similar-but-different search strategies to see if you can find the information yourself - or find figures/data that will allow for a triangulation. Sourcers aren’t perfect and sometimes make mistakes in identifying a request as a CU when it actually isn’t.
So, perform your own due diligence in making sure the information is actually not available!
You are encouraged to draft a response that features the most-logical flow-of-information based on the questions within the client’s request. However, a Client Update is set up a bit differently than a traditional client brief, so you need to ensure you have everything there that should be. See the section below titled “Client Update Template” for details.
Please see the section below titled “Exemplary Client Updates” for several 5-Star Client Rated examples of Client Updates. Then, review the outlined sample Client Update to get an in-depth look at how the process is handled by the experts.
You are encouraged to draft a response that features the most-logical flow-of-information based on the questions within the client’s request. However, a Client Update is set up a bit differently than a traditional client brief, so you need to ensure you have everything there that should be.
1. First Insight: Indicates which part (or all) of the answer was not found and why.
2. Second Insight: Indicates one or two primary findings of the research.
3. Third Insight: Indicates one or two secondary findings of the research.
The Executive Summary should directly-yet-briefly explain what information was found - and what was not found - and why/how. It also should outline a brief summary of the helpful findings. It should never be boilerplate, so alter the example below to suit your particular request/response.
Example (Full/Partial Client Update):
While there is no pre-existing information to fully answer your question, we've used the available data to pull together key findings: _____________ (outline key findings before diving into what/why you could not find). Below you'll find an outline of our research methodology to better understand why the information you've requested is publicly unavailable, as well as a deep dive into our findings.
As noted in the section above (titled “Preparing A Strong Methodology for the Writer”), the Methodology must include easy-to-follow logic, detailed and thorough explanations of search strategies and the results of those searches, details on any assumptions used in triangulations as well as any calculations performed, and links to relevant sources. Carefully explain how you searched and where (giving examples with links is best), however:
Each client request is different, so structure your Methodology in a way that makes the most sense to you (based on the client’s particular questions). Important Note: You are required to address every part of the client’s request within this section!
Example (Partial Client Update):
An extensive search of the public domain revealed no news articles about Pittsburgh's corporate incentives between 1987 and 2002 because the capabilities of online news archival between 1987 and 2002 were extremely limited, since the internet itself was so new.
Since searching news articles directly was fruitless, we side-stepped the issue by instead searching for reports (as opposed to press) about Pittsburgh's corporate incentives during this time. We were then able to back-research the reports to find references to news articles, and in some cases, the news articles themselves. Using these reports and news articles, we compiled your findings, outlined below.
It's important to note that select publications, like the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, offer paid access to their news archives between 1987-2002. It's possible that these archives have articles on this topic that would further help your search. If you'd like to purchase access, you can follow this link.
This section proves to the client that, although we did not find the exact information s/he was hoping to find, we were able to pull together relevant key findings that are likely to offer insight into the topic of interest to the client. In effect, it proves we performed due diligence in our job!
For each part of the client’s request, detail 5 – 7 data points of related information. Remember – this is not just basic industry information (the client already knows this!); rather, it is insightful information that directly relates to the primary focus of the client’s question.
You may need to get creative on this, but we believe in you, and know you’ll come up with terrific info to keep a smile on the client’s face! Since every request is different, this section (or sections) will be different for each Client Update.
The Conclusion is written like a standard Wonder response’s Conclusion. It is straight-to-the-point on what was (and was not) found. It is the most concise summary of the brief.
Example (Partial Client Update):
Despite the limited capabilities of internet archiving between 1987 and 2002, we've found and added 3 news articles to your spreadsheet regarding Pitsburgh's corporate incentives between 1987 and 2002. To further support these articles, we added multiple reports and studies that shed more light on the city's efforts. If you're interested in additional news articles, you can purchase access to the Pittsburgh Gazette's archives here.