Grant assessors read a lot of applications. After the first few, patterns start to emerge. Certain phrases recur. Certain sections read as if they could have been written about any company in any sector. The specific detail that would make the project credible and distinct is missing.
Generic applications fail because they do not give assessors what they need to score well. An assessor marking a section on commercialisation needs to see a plausible, specific route to revenue. A section on team capability needs to show relevant credentials. When those sections are filled with general statements, there is nothing concrete to score against.
Why it happens
The most common reason is that businesses repurpose existing content — pitch deck language, website copy, investor materials — without adapting it for the specific scheme and question. Pitch decks are designed to persuade. Grant applications are designed to be assessed. Those are different purposes, and the framing that works in one context often does not work in the other.
The other common cause is time pressure. When a deadline is close and the team is stretched, the application gets written quickly and submitted without a proper review. Generic content is faster to produce than specific content. But it does not perform as well.
What specific content actually looks like
The difference between a generic application and a specific one usually comes down to detail. Not more words — better words.
A generic team section says “we have extensive experience in machine learning.” A specific one says “our technical lead spent four years at a scale-up building the recommendation engine that now serves 12 million users, and has applied the same architecture to this project.”
A generic commercialisation section says “there is significant market demand for this product.” A specific one says “we have three signed letters of intent from NHS trusts representing a combined annual procurement budget of £2.4 million.”
The specific version takes longer to write. It is also the version that gets funded.
The role of an outside reader
One reason generic content persists is that the people writing the application know the project well. To them, the important details feel obvious — they do not realise they have not written them down. An outside reader without that context will notice immediately when something is asserted but not evidenced.
The best point to get an outside read is when you have a complete draft and still have time to act on the feedback. That means at least a week before submission, ideally more for a complex scheme.
If you are not sure whether your application is specific enough, or whether it is hitting the right criteria at all, a Grant Reality Check is the direct way to find out. We assess your project against the scheme scoring criteria and give you a written verdict on what is working and what is not.
Nesta has published practical guidance on writing strong grant applications.
Tom Burke is the founder of GrantPal, a UK grant advisory service. He works with businesses across technology, manufacturing, and the creative industries to identify grant opportunities and improve application quality.