Negotiating for me is really about creating a genuine win-win scenario for myself and my counterpart. This is impossible to achieve if you are playing (or are even perceived to be playing) 'hardball.'
My basic rules for all negotiations:
1. Be useful to your counterparty. (Simply, this means to be well-informed and listen intently. Present any information they need as they need it. Don't be the type to 'bury' the opposition in paperwork when you know they're looking for a few specific details.)
2. Be empathetic to their needs. (Everyone has a reason to show up to the table. If you can identify, with absolute clarity, what they need - you can help them get there. In return, it's often MUCH easier to get what you need.
3. Don't try to win. (The extra 1-5% you might gain in most cases is outweighed by the negativity of the event. If you're negotiating with a future employer, vendor, or potential client, then the value of having them actually want to talk to you is greater than the difference most of the time.)
And lastly, #4 - If your counterparty plays hardball with you, give them a truly fair offer that addresses their needs. If they don't take a fair deal when offered, be prepared to walk away.
The appropriate strategy is context-dependent. Your strategy is appropriate for most cases, but there are some situations where your interaction is a one-off, and you don't expect to have to interact with your counterparty at all after the transaction. Buying a car is a typical example here: If you're able to negotiate a car dealership down to a price that's minimal profitable for them, the dealer will be unhappy, but there are no negative consequences for you. In those situations you should absolutely "try to win" - an extra 1-5% off is money in your pocket, and there are no negative consequences beyond some uncomfortable interactions with the dealership staff.
TL;DR - Don't buy a car or house using the same negotiating strategy you would use to negotiate a professional services contract.
> 3. Don't try to win. (The extra 1-5% you might gain in most cases is outweighed by the negativity of the event. If you're negotiating with a future employer, vendor, or potential client, then the value of having them actually want to talk to you is greater than the difference most of the time.)
This one is useful when the two parties are equals, but it is horribly wrong in negotiating with a future employer.
Once they've identified you as someone they want, and they've made you an initial offer, nothing you can say* will make them walk. And if you negotiate well, you'll be identified as higher value than someone who didn't.
*Within reason - if they offer $120k and you ask $150k, that's fine. If they offer $120k and you ask $500k, you might run into problems.
There is a both a significant overlap and significant difference between bargaining and negotiating. The part of negotiating that is not bargaining includes gaining rapport, what former FBI Hostage Negotiator Chris Voss calls "tactical empathy".
President Lincoln summed it up best:
"If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.
"Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what he will, is the great high road to his reason, and which, when once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing his judgment of the justice of your cause, if indeed that cause really be a just one."
I teach some of the principles of rapport to stand-up comics. For example, do your material until they start ignoring you, then talk to the audience. When they start paying attention, return to your prepared material.
I prefer to think of this as winning the short vs. long game. If a person wins this single deal for +5%, but blows up the relationship, they have likely lost the long game. Now any future deal with the 'loser' will be harder, and there may be ripple effects out to other deals.
The above is not only with business deals, but with but life in general.
I'd distinguish between scenarios in which there is a win-win solution and those in which there isn't. If there is a win-win scenario, then there should be one or more bargaining equilibria as a rational solution to the problem, and negotiating merely consists in providing the information and insight that allows both parties to reach or get close to an equilibirum. This activity is cooperative.
"Real" negotiation takes place when there is no such equilibrium. For example, hostage negotiations, car sales, or a negotiation between a landlord and the tenant are of this sort. Maximizing your utility minimizes the other's utility, and vice versa. These types of negotiations proceed only by using psychology to trick the other side into making concessions. Being a tough guy is mostly counter-productive in such cases, too, it's more about exploiting cognitive biases like the anchoring effect. This activity is adversarial.
Good mediators are people who are able to turn such win-lose scenarios into real bargaining with win-win solutions, not by mere "reframing", but by really changing the decision/distribution problem. That's often possible, if you make the goals of the participants and broader setting/presumptions part of the negotiations.
This advice seems fine but not great for salary negotiation.
In general, because of the information asymmetry and extreme advantage the employer has over the employee, accepting a weak offer can mean leaving over 30% on the table, and that matters to individuals. (It matters to some companies)
You can have healthy conversations explaining that you want to reach an agreement that's good for both of you and still explain that you need to get paid. Companies and recruiters actually value that _more_.
My recommended reading/listening on negotiating as an employee is patio11's posts.
As a company, yeah, don't try to "win" and be fair (as much as is possible given funding constraints)
> And lastly, #4 - If your counterparty plays hardball with you, give them a truly fair offer that addresses their needs. If they don't take a fair deal when offered, be prepared to walk away.
I think this is easier said than done. A lot of negotiations are invariably started with very incomplete information. Knowing what a fair offer for the other side would be often isn't clear.
If this game at ncase [0] has taught me anything, it is that adversaries tend to exploit good intentions, more often than not. It is really difficult to navigate such waters, imo. I haven't figured out the panacea, but it is safe to assume that negotiation tactics must be in accordance with level of trust and situational context. Looking after one's own self-interest regardless tends be a nice rule of thumb.
#4 is key, and in business, you often lose that ability. You can’t tell AWS, Microsoft or Oracle to pound sand, for example. (In most cases.)
In those situations, usually the path to getting the best outcome is more about you. If you deeply understand what you need, especially as compared to what you want, you can get relative advantage.
Usually people who are selling things care about this quarter more than next year. If you understand what they need to get, you can usually find a way to make things work.
In being empathetic to their needs, make sure you're also being "empathetic" to your own needs. This means recognizing that their "need" to get their development work done without spending too much money on you is directly opposed to your need to have healthcare and money for rent, food, etc.
Obviously neither of these needs can be successfully ignored, but thinking of it this way helps me mitigate the guilt that comes with asking for more, without engaging the "winning" rhetoric even subconsciously.
Like everything, it depends on the situation. But this seems to be key to me. Most people seem to walk in with expectations of leaving with something. If you're not willing (or able) to walk away, you're at some kind of disadvantage.
Yes you should take good notes, but in my experience if your counterparty isn't documenting their offer and concessions as a matter of course, they are lying and trying to trying to scam you.
This may be good for long term business deals but not optimal for software engineers salary negotiations. Considering the pace of job change, its optimal to take the hard negotiations.
This matches my experience perfectly, both in salary and contract negotiations. You get a long way with smile and a focus on the core: We both want to do something together.
> We don't allow you to work on your own projects while working for us
"Completely unacceptable. Im a free soul and I demand my freedom!"
Compared to
> We don't allow you to work on your own projects while working for us
"I perfectly understand, no need to invite competition or leak ideas, however in my experience you'll actually benefit from XYZ and I'd be happy to ..."
My intuition is, that as long as the talk is progressing in a pleasant manner, you're inching towards your goal.
Unless they use your easy going cooperativeness to run you in circles, endlessly delaying something they don't want to happen. Or constantly delivering only a token amount of their side of any compromise deal to cause re-compromises etc.
Sometimes soft negotiations have to turn to hard negotiations. In fact, I would argue that the potential to turn into a hard negotiation - but not yet being such - is a key factor in making soft negotiations work.
> My intuition is, that as long as the talk is progressing in a pleasant manner, you're inching towards your goal.
Not in my experience. Plenty of people able to progress talk in super pleasant manner without moving from their original position. Or to pleasantly promis and then conveniently forget that. Or most often, to make it sound like they agree, make vague pleasant statements that mean nothing.
If a company ever told me I cannot work on other things in my personal time, I would promptly tell them to suck on a rock and walk out. You can't negotiate with asinine people/corporations with asinine policies. If they feel comfortable telling you what you can and cannot do on your own time, imagine what they feel comfortable telling you to do while you're working.
For me trying to negotiate with people playing super hardball (ignoring social norms etc) makes me think they will not honour any agreements made. Because those rely on social norms too. Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal etc.
Well, that will depend on your interpretation of their actions, your local or industry-specific norms, and the actual circumstances of the negotiation.
I have met tough negotiators who uphold their end of the deal just fine.
The people who let me down the most are those who do not even attempt to negotiate on my prices: usually they'll think about it way later, but still won't accept discounts, until they run out of budget. Then you're thinking to yourself “why did they undermine this whole thing by paying me more than they could afford, for something I was willing to negotiate on?”. Then they miss 20k in billing, and you break it off.
Which is why you'd want to contractualize agreements. Sounds like you're, naturally, wary of entering into a gentleman's agreement with someone you don't feel is a gentleman.
If you want to share: what were some insights you gained from the book?
I considered reading it, but then I read a review that says that although it’s useful, it presents a few quite manipulative tactics:
“A lot of what affects how much you enjoy these books is, again, how self aware you are or how much consideration you've given to how you talk to people and the best way to get what you want from others. If you already easily have any easy time convincing people, or have thought about it and are self aware of how you behave and talk to others then I don't think any of these things are going to be surprising or helpful but if you haven't ever actually considered the way you interact with people then maybe this will be an eye opening book for you. Personally I think I've always been a little manipulative so I wasn't all that impressed. The writing was average also so the books clear and easy to read but I wasn't impressed by the writing either.”
> Most business books push a singular narrative around negotiations: Go hard or go home. The advice is tied to the idea that the negotiation table is a place of conflict where one party must best the other.
Good business texts haven't emphasized this approach for a long time. The prevailing negotiation methodology has been "grow the pie" for a long time. In this approach, you're not trying to claim more of the pie directly, but rather make the pie bigger and then claim a larger overall slice.
However, this article is a good reminder that an overly strong negotiating strategy can create friction later in the deal. That's good advice, and it shows the value of good business development.
> where one party must best the other ... you're not trying to claim more of the pie directly, but rather make the pie bigger and then claim a larger overall slice.
If you're claiming more of the pie, but the pie isn't really bigger, you're just indirectly attempting to best the other. It's the same outcome, but with a different approach couched in friendlier wording.
> This is potentially less important if you negotiate over the price of a sofa on Craigslist.
Perhaps off topic, but speaking of sofas and CraigsList no one should buy a new sofa without checking a few weeks on CraigsList's free section. At least in New York City, every day sees plenty of new ones for free that will otherwise go to landfills even if like new.
My two sofas came free from people in my building, both like new.
Getting a sofa from people in the building or friends is less risk than craigslist. I know someone who got bedbugs from a sofa on craigslist. So there’s a slight risk right there
Most negotiation strategies attempt to optimize deal terms. This article makes the point that when post-deal relationships are important, it is better to optimize a combination of deal terms and quality of the post-deal relationship. It concludes that a softer approach better achieves this broader goal by yielding a much better relationship even though it might be at the cost of worse deal terms.
I largely agree with this, although the researchers omit the important tactic of developing an acceptable alternative deal with a counter-party's competitor and then focusing negotiation on comparisons to it. Done well, you can still drive a hard bargain in a soft way, while maintaining the relationship by diverting the counter-party's resulting negative feelings away from you and towards the competitor.
The only time I negotiated aggressively was with someone who couldn't "read the air" about their prices.
We've had a long relationship since, and still this person can't "read the air" about pricing.
Ironically, by the end of the whole process, I realized this person could probably lower their prices by about 5-10% if they just paid closer attention to their bills and operational efficiency.
There’s a service in Uganda called boda boda. Basically they are guys who ride small motorbikes and offer rides to passengers.
When they see me, a white man, they like to charge a very high price. Sometimes I can get very frustrated and want to “win” the negotiation. But then I think about how miserable the next 30 minute ride may be, and I also think about how dangerous it may be. If he feels frustrated or angry with the result of the negotiation, it may affect his driving, and it is already a highly dangerous activity to start.
So, I often negotiate softer with them. It’s one of the reasons I like SafeBoda and Uber, because then the price is set by the app and I don’t have to have the potential argument with the driver. So during the ride I have great relaxed conversation with them and then when I arrive, since I know the price is typically too low, I give them a good tip, and everyone seems happy.
So two thumbs up for softer negotiations with services.
I know negotiation is like a sport in some cultures, but I find it needlessly antagonizing. I'd rather pay extra to just not deal with it, and find other means of getting said product/service in the future.
Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try and love one another, right now...
The way I see it you are paying Uber to do the hardball negotiations for you and then you tip. Uber is certainly not soft and is the bigger part of the equation.
When I started at Uber back in early 2014, I didn't negotiate the offer at all. It seemed reasonable, so I accepted. Maybe I could have gotten more - but accepting has been, by far, the best decision of my career.
A couple of years ago, we purchased a used Tesla (2014 MS P85D+) from someone on Craigslist. The estimated value of the car in a private sale was $48-53K on TrueCar, and the buyer was asking $50K. We paid $50K. We haven't had any problems with the car, and ended up having some roof racks/equipment given to us for free later on by the seller because he didn't need them anymore. We even found out he had prepaid the next 5 years of maintenance with Tesla.
We just went under contract on a new house, and we negotiated the deal without a real estate agent representing us. This was the extent of the negotiation:
- Us: We'll pay 6% below list, but you can save 3% because we don't have an agent.
- Them: We'll accept 5% below list.
- Us: Ok.
The house had already been reduced 13% from the original list price - it's near train tracks and we think that scared a lot of people away. But we visited open houses and listened to the trains several times and decided we weren't bothered by it - they go slow because of a nearby turn and never blow the horn. We felt the original pricing was in line with the market for something of the same quality fit/finish. So we got a new house for 20% less than we would have paid for a similar one in exchange for something that doesn't really bother us.
Also, the builder built his own house 20 feet away. We're going to be neighbors with the person we were negotiating with, and it would be better to be on good terms with them than to simply extract the maximum amount of value from them in the transaction. If anything in the house needs to be fixed in the future that isn't technically covered in the builder's warranty, they're more likely to work with us to fix it or help us get it fixed at a low cost. Plus they're our only neighbor and we're probably going to invite them over for dinner every now and then.
However, as much as I'm a fan of win/win dealmaking, I find it only works well when the other party is interested in a win/win. The first thing I do when I approach the negotiating table is assess whether the other party is a smarmy Glengarry Glen Ross/Art of The Deal jerk who is trying to rip me off. My solution to negotiating with one of these people is simple - don't. Just walk away. Leave the wolves to bite at each others' throats and find someone else to work with. You can only get ripped off if you put yourself into a situation where the people you are dealing with are trying to rip you off.
One of the key reason these negotiations are so messed up is that often people negotiate who are not directly part of the post negotiation relationship aka. purchasing and sales vs. business and service delivery.
This is such an important concept for negotiations of all sorts. If you are negotiating the hard way, then people are going to be put off from interacting with you in the future.
There is a social element to all relationships, and the Trump-style win or go home strategy only works if you have massive leverage, and even then it will leave a sour taste in the mouth of the other party.
You want the other party to feel satisfied with their part of the deal. Not just because it's good for business (which it is), but because we are human beings and we should not be trying to squeeze every last penny out of each other.
[+] [-] Proziam|6 years ago|reply
My basic rules for all negotiations:
1. Be useful to your counterparty. (Simply, this means to be well-informed and listen intently. Present any information they need as they need it. Don't be the type to 'bury' the opposition in paperwork when you know they're looking for a few specific details.)
2. Be empathetic to their needs. (Everyone has a reason to show up to the table. If you can identify, with absolute clarity, what they need - you can help them get there. In return, it's often MUCH easier to get what you need.
3. Don't try to win. (The extra 1-5% you might gain in most cases is outweighed by the negativity of the event. If you're negotiating with a future employer, vendor, or potential client, then the value of having them actually want to talk to you is greater than the difference most of the time.)
And lastly, #4 - If your counterparty plays hardball with you, give them a truly fair offer that addresses their needs. If they don't take a fair deal when offered, be prepared to walk away.
[+] [-] alexhutcheson|6 years ago|reply
TL;DR - Don't buy a car or house using the same negotiating strategy you would use to negotiate a professional services contract.
[+] [-] slumdev|6 years ago|reply
This one is useful when the two parties are equals, but it is horribly wrong in negotiating with a future employer.
Once they've identified you as someone they want, and they've made you an initial offer, nothing you can say* will make them walk. And if you negotiate well, you'll be identified as higher value than someone who didn't.
*Within reason - if they offer $120k and you ask $150k, that's fine. If they offer $120k and you ask $500k, you might run into problems.
[+] [-] QuantumGood|6 years ago|reply
President Lincoln summed it up best:
"If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.
"Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what he will, is the great high road to his reason, and which, when once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing his judgment of the justice of your cause, if indeed that cause really be a just one."
I teach some of the principles of rapport to stand-up comics. For example, do your material until they start ignoring you, then talk to the audience. When they start paying attention, return to your prepared material.
[+] [-] matwood|6 years ago|reply
I prefer to think of this as winning the short vs. long game. If a person wins this single deal for +5%, but blows up the relationship, they have likely lost the long game. Now any future deal with the 'loser' will be harder, and there may be ripple effects out to other deals.
The above is not only with business deals, but with but life in general.
[+] [-] jonathanstrange|6 years ago|reply
"Real" negotiation takes place when there is no such equilibrium. For example, hostage negotiations, car sales, or a negotiation between a landlord and the tenant are of this sort. Maximizing your utility minimizes the other's utility, and vice versa. These types of negotiations proceed only by using psychology to trick the other side into making concessions. Being a tough guy is mostly counter-productive in such cases, too, it's more about exploiting cognitive biases like the anchoring effect. This activity is adversarial.
Good mediators are people who are able to turn such win-lose scenarios into real bargaining with win-win solutions, not by mere "reframing", but by really changing the decision/distribution problem. That's often possible, if you make the goals of the participants and broader setting/presumptions part of the negotiations.
[+] [-] wrsh07|6 years ago|reply
In general, because of the information asymmetry and extreme advantage the employer has over the employee, accepting a weak offer can mean leaving over 30% on the table, and that matters to individuals. (It matters to some companies)
You can have healthy conversations explaining that you want to reach an agreement that's good for both of you and still explain that you need to get paid. Companies and recruiters actually value that _more_.
My recommended reading/listening on negotiating as an employee is patio11's posts.
As a company, yeah, don't try to "win" and be fair (as much as is possible given funding constraints)
[+] [-] anarazel|6 years ago|reply
I think this is easier said than done. A lot of negotiations are invariably started with very incomplete information. Knowing what a fair offer for the other side would be often isn't clear.
[+] [-] ignoramous|6 years ago|reply
[0] https://ncase.me/trust/
[+] [-] Spooky23|6 years ago|reply
In those situations, usually the path to getting the best outcome is more about you. If you deeply understand what you need, especially as compared to what you want, you can get relative advantage.
Usually people who are selling things care about this quarter more than next year. If you understand what they need to get, you can usually find a way to make things work.
[+] [-] duaoebg|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] denzil_correa|6 years ago|reply
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry
[+] [-] LaserToy|6 years ago|reply
Interesting approach which uses Emotion aware technics to get what you want. The main point - let your opponent to negotiate with themselves.
[+] [-] anarchodev|6 years ago|reply
Obviously neither of these needs can be successfully ignored, but thinking of it this way helps me mitigate the guilt that comes with asking for more, without engaging the "winning" rhetoric even subconsciously.
[+] [-] Pigo|6 years ago|reply
Like everything, it depends on the situation. But this seems to be key to me. Most people seem to walk in with expectations of leaving with something. If you're not willing (or able) to walk away, you're at some kind of disadvantage.
[+] [-] gowld|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eric234223|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lbj|6 years ago|reply
> We don't allow you to work on your own projects while working for us
"Completely unacceptable. Im a free soul and I demand my freedom!"
Compared to
> We don't allow you to work on your own projects while working for us
"I perfectly understand, no need to invite competition or leak ideas, however in my experience you'll actually benefit from XYZ and I'd be happy to ..."
My intuition is, that as long as the talk is progressing in a pleasant manner, you're inching towards your goal.
[+] [-] Normal_gaussian|6 years ago|reply
Sometimes soft negotiations have to turn to hard negotiations. In fact, I would argue that the potential to turn into a hard negotiation - but not yet being such - is a key factor in making soft negotiations work.
[+] [-] watwut|6 years ago|reply
Not in my experience. Plenty of people able to progress talk in super pleasant manner without moving from their original position. Or to pleasantly promis and then conveniently forget that. Or most often, to make it sound like they agree, make vague pleasant statements that mean nothing.
[+] [-] irateswami|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eb3c90|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] microcolonel|6 years ago|reply
I have met tough negotiators who uphold their end of the deal just fine.
The people who let me down the most are those who do not even attempt to negotiate on my prices: usually they'll think about it way later, but still won't accept discounts, until they run out of budget. Then you're thinking to yourself “why did they undermine this whole thing by paying me more than they could afford, for something I was willing to negotiate on?”. Then they miss 20k in billing, and you break it off.
[+] [-] runeb|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dot1x|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thulecitizen|6 years ago|reply
I considered reading it, but then I read a review that says that although it’s useful, it presents a few quite manipulative tactics:
“A lot of what affects how much you enjoy these books is, again, how self aware you are or how much consideration you've given to how you talk to people and the best way to get what you want from others. If you already easily have any easy time convincing people, or have thought about it and are self aware of how you behave and talk to others then I don't think any of these things are going to be surprising or helpful but if you haven't ever actually considered the way you interact with people then maybe this will be an eye opening book for you. Personally I think I've always been a little manipulative so I wasn't all that impressed. The writing was average also so the books clear and easy to read but I wasn't impressed by the writing either.”
Source: https://www.goodreads.com/review/1841965174/
[+] [-] spchampion2|6 years ago|reply
Good business texts haven't emphasized this approach for a long time. The prevailing negotiation methodology has been "grow the pie" for a long time. In this approach, you're not trying to claim more of the pie directly, but rather make the pie bigger and then claim a larger overall slice.
However, this article is a good reminder that an overly strong negotiating strategy can create friction later in the deal. That's good advice, and it shows the value of good business development.
[+] [-] JMTQp8lwXL|6 years ago|reply
If you're claiming more of the pie, but the pie isn't really bigger, you're just indirectly attempting to best the other. It's the same outcome, but with a different approach couched in friendlier wording.
[+] [-] spodek|6 years ago|reply
Perhaps off topic, but speaking of sofas and CraigsList no one should buy a new sofa without checking a few weeks on CraigsList's free section. At least in New York City, every day sees plenty of new ones for free that will otherwise go to landfills even if like new.
My two sofas came free from people in my building, both like new.
[+] [-] tacheiordache|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pigo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beckingz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1e-9|6 years ago|reply
I largely agree with this, although the researchers omit the important tactic of developing an acceptable alternative deal with a counter-party's competitor and then focusing negotiation on comparisons to it. Done well, you can still drive a hard bargain in a soft way, while maintaining the relationship by diverting the counter-party's resulting negative feelings away from you and towards the competitor.
[+] [-] gwbas1c|6 years ago|reply
We've had a long relationship since, and still this person can't "read the air" about pricing.
Ironically, by the end of the whole process, I realized this person could probably lower their prices by about 5-10% if they just paid closer attention to their bills and operational efficiency.
[+] [-] Bjartr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimkleiber|6 years ago|reply
When they see me, a white man, they like to charge a very high price. Sometimes I can get very frustrated and want to “win” the negotiation. But then I think about how miserable the next 30 minute ride may be, and I also think about how dangerous it may be. If he feels frustrated or angry with the result of the negotiation, it may affect his driving, and it is already a highly dangerous activity to start.
So, I often negotiate softer with them. It’s one of the reasons I like SafeBoda and Uber, because then the price is set by the app and I don’t have to have the potential argument with the driver. So during the ride I have great relaxed conversation with them and then when I arrive, since I know the price is typically too low, I give them a good tip, and everyone seems happy.
So two thumbs up for softer negotiations with services.
[+] [-] Pigo|6 years ago|reply
Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try and love one another, right now...
[+] [-] heisenbit|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dpiers|6 years ago|reply
A couple of years ago, we purchased a used Tesla (2014 MS P85D+) from someone on Craigslist. The estimated value of the car in a private sale was $48-53K on TrueCar, and the buyer was asking $50K. We paid $50K. We haven't had any problems with the car, and ended up having some roof racks/equipment given to us for free later on by the seller because he didn't need them anymore. We even found out he had prepaid the next 5 years of maintenance with Tesla.
We just went under contract on a new house, and we negotiated the deal without a real estate agent representing us. This was the extent of the negotiation:
The house had already been reduced 13% from the original list price - it's near train tracks and we think that scared a lot of people away. But we visited open houses and listened to the trains several times and decided we weren't bothered by it - they go slow because of a nearby turn and never blow the horn. We felt the original pricing was in line with the market for something of the same quality fit/finish. So we got a new house for 20% less than we would have paid for a similar one in exchange for something that doesn't really bother us.Also, the builder built his own house 20 feet away. We're going to be neighbors with the person we were negotiating with, and it would be better to be on good terms with them than to simply extract the maximum amount of value from them in the transaction. If anything in the house needs to be fixed in the future that isn't technically covered in the builder's warranty, they're more likely to work with us to fix it or help us get it fixed at a low cost. Plus they're our only neighbor and we're probably going to invite them over for dinner every now and then.
However, as much as I'm a fan of win/win dealmaking, I find it only works well when the other party is interested in a win/win. The first thing I do when I approach the negotiating table is assess whether the other party is a smarmy Glengarry Glen Ross/Art of The Deal jerk who is trying to rip me off. My solution to negotiating with one of these people is simple - don't. Just walk away. Leave the wolves to bite at each others' throats and find someone else to work with. You can only get ripped off if you put yourself into a situation where the people you are dealing with are trying to rip you off.
[+] [-] heisenbit|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eldavido|6 years ago|reply
As an owner, if I negotiate super hard, the tenants will be resentful, and will damage the space, pay late, and cause no end of trouble.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] naveen99|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitcoinbutter|6 years ago|reply
There is a social element to all relationships, and the Trump-style win or go home strategy only works if you have massive leverage, and even then it will leave a sour taste in the mouth of the other party.
You want the other party to feel satisfied with their part of the deal. Not just because it's good for business (which it is), but because we are human beings and we should not be trying to squeeze every last penny out of each other.
[+] [-] diminish|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hwestiii|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bernardlunn|6 years ago|reply