Thread
3 negotiation tactics I use to get what I want:
Pretext:
I’ve read a few books on this, like Chris Voss’ "Never Split The Difference". They’re useful especially if you want to study and become a student of negotiation and the psychology around it.
I don’t. I just want to negotiate efficiently without complex mind games.
So
I’ve read a few books on this, like Chris Voss’ "Never Split The Difference". They’re useful especially if you want to study and become a student of negotiation and the psychology around it.
I don’t. I just want to negotiate efficiently without complex mind games.
So
1 - Specific #’s
Specifics soften the real number and take attention away from arbitrary walls the other party has up.
They also come off intentional and imply you’ve put thought into the # and aren’t just trolling for a steal.
Specifics soften the real number and take attention away from arbitrary walls the other party has up.
They also come off intentional and imply you’ve put thought into the # and aren’t just trolling for a steal.
I call this one the "ol 357" after having used it to negotiate manufacturing prices on one of our healthiest product lines to date.
The manufacturer and I had stumbled around a $4 price point for days, my final counter at $3.57 got it done.
The manufacturer and I had stumbled around a $4 price point for days, my final counter at $3.57 got it done.
2 - External logic
A lot of negotiations become power struggles and a matter of winning or losing. You vs them. Externalizing your number squashes this dynamic and can even put you on the same team.
What I mean is: Blame your number on someone or something else.
A lot of negotiations become power struggles and a matter of winning or losing. You vs them. Externalizing your number squashes this dynamic and can even put you on the same team.
What I mean is: Blame your number on someone or something else.
In the 357 example, $4 was his best price and he couldn’t get lower.
I told him I ran the #'s, and our cost model didn't work with this piece any higher than $3.57.
This is no longer about what either of us want, it’s about what works in the model. We're on the same team now.
I told him I ran the #'s, and our cost model didn't work with this piece any higher than $3.57.
This is no longer about what either of us want, it’s about what works in the model. We're on the same team now.
3 - "Is that reasonable?"
This is a super powerful question.
Even when you’re fiercely at odds with someone, it's not because you're unreasonable. We're all the same in this regard - People run away from being labeled unreasonable.
Check out how it rounds out the first 2:
This is a super powerful question.
Even when you’re fiercely at odds with someone, it's not because you're unreasonable. We're all the same in this regard - People run away from being labeled unreasonable.
Check out how it rounds out the first 2:
“I know $4 is the best you can do, but anything higher than $3.57 breaks the cost model. We can't launch this product if it doesn't fit in the cost model. Is that reasonable?”
Yes. It is super reasonable fam. It'd be crazy to say otherwise.
Yes. It is super reasonable fam. It'd be crazy to say otherwise.
This combo works like a charm, I use it constantly.
Having anchored your desired cost lower than the $3.57 in previous convos will make this a gimme, but it’s a slippery slope to complex psychological games from there.
Keep it simple, dumbass.
Having anchored your desired cost lower than the $3.57 in previous convos will make this a gimme, but it’s a slippery slope to complex psychological games from there.
Keep it simple, dumbass.
TL;DR:
- Use specific numbers
- Externalize logic to get on same side
- Ask if you're being reasonable
That’s it.
- Use specific numbers
- Externalize logic to get on same side
- Ask if you're being reasonable
That’s it.
My name is Colin and I tweet and thread about building cannabis brands and businesses. If you liked this thread, I’d love for you to join 53,810 others and gimme a follow.
Is that reasonable?
@landforce
Is that reasonable?
@landforce
