1. Enlargement of the negotiation cake / field of view
Since the price is often the central point of a negotiation, negotiators regularly fall immediately on this topic. It makes sense to first look for options together with the negotiating partner in order to enlarge the so-called negotiation pie .
For this purpose, for example, additional negotiating materials or the participation of third parties are considered. Negotiators should at the same time resolve from their fixation on the price and try to integrate other aspects such as delivery periods, quality, additional services, financing, etc. into the overall solution, thus broadening their field of view.
The inclusion of other points opens up the scope for the parties to give in each case different aspects. Thus the other side may be willing to accept a lower price if it receives a corresponding concession elsewhere.
2. First offer
Negotiators, who make the first, well-founded offer, can usually achieve economically more advantageous results. This is the so-called anchor effect (Engl. Anchoring effect ), which means that the first offer influenced the setting of the counter-offer. There is a shift towards the anchor, especially when there is uncertainty about the fair price. A good, but still realistic first offer for the own side can influence the price negotiation to their own benefit. A first offer which is too bad for the negotiating partner, on the other hand, jeopardizes the conclusion of the contract.
3. Low expectations
If one can not make the first offer in a situation, it is all the more crucial to set a goal (as ambitious as possible) before the negotiation itself and to keep it in mind in order to counteract the anchoring effect.
At the same time, attempts can be made to raise low expectations for negotiations with the negotiating partner. This is usually achieved by means of critical comments on the goods or services. This is intended to encourage the interlocutor to submit one from the viewpoint of his own side for the worse first offer than originally intended.
4. Reactions to an offer from the negotiating partner
But how should we react to the negotiating partner's offer? If you want to get a better offer, you have a variety of options depending on your situation.
1. First no counter offer
Inexperienced negotiators tend to make an offer immediately (counter-anchors). This tactical important move, however, should be carried out at a later date. First of all, it may be advisable not to place a counter-anchor. Instead, the offer may be refused ( not happy ) and the negotiating partner may be asked to improve their offer ( "What can you still do for me?" ). With a little luck, the conversation partner already has an idea. If this happens, it is also referred to as "negotiating against itself" at the negotiating partner.
A silence on an offer is perceived as a strong rejection and can lead to the other side improving their offer. Psychological responses are even more strongly felt, such as head shaking, frowning, hand-waving, shocked / indignant look.
Also popular is the tactics to discredit the offer of the opponent (anchor discredit). In this case, a counter offer is not submitted immediately, but the offer is rejected as inappropriate (with the best possible justification). Since, for example, the quality of the product is frequently questioned, this is a thoroughly aggressive tactic. In the worst case, an attitude which is too negative can lead to the termination of the negotiations.
2. As far back as possible
According to the tactics described, there is a time when it is sensible to submit a counter an offer, ie a counter offer. First, care must be taken to counteract the anchoring effect. In addition, it is advisable to set as far a distance as possible, because the midpoint rule leads to an agreement in the middle of the two offers. The counter offer should be justified as much as possible. If, however, the counter-anchor is set too far away, the agreement can appear as futile and the negotiations fail.
5. Better offer
The negotiating power of a party is measured primarily by its alternatives to the subject just negotiated ( BATNA - best alternative to a negotiated agreement ). The better their own alternatives, the more their own negotiating position. These alternatives are therefore also mentioned in the negotiation in order to achieve a better result.
In the case of purchases, negotiators therefore often argue that they have a better offer from a third party and that the negotiating partner must at least deal with this in order for a contract to be concluded. If there is such a better offer really, this is a convincing argument. However, caution is required, as this is an aspect that is often bluffed.
6. Neutral criteria / third parties
An agreement in the middle of anchors and counter anchors does not always have to be fair. In particular, if an unrealistic offer has been submitted, it may be appropriate to insist on so-called "neutral criteria" to determine the price. These may be, for example, comparative prices. When it comes to purchasing an apartment, you can, for example, look at the prices for comparable objects. Even neutral third parties, such as experts, can contribute to the agreement on the price through their expertise.
7. Smaller concessions
In negotiations that take place in a bazaar, there are many offers and opposites, through which both parties playfully move towards each other. Within the scope of these negotiations, the concessions indicate how much room for negotiation the other side still has. For it can be observed that the amount to give the negotiator step by step in the negotiation steadily decreases, in particular the closer they reach their minimum goal (English: diminishing rates of concessions ). There is, therefore, the tactic to make smaller concessions faster, in order to signal that there is hardly any room for negotiation.
8. Salamitactics
The Salamitaktik is probably one of the best known tactics. With her (small) before the conclusion of the contract, small claims are always presented "slice-like". The small claim is partly combined with the saying "This is not to fail".
This is the idea behind the salamitactics: small contracts are usually not failing, especially because agreement has already been reached on the other points. In terms of price negotiation, this could, for example, refer to the granting of a 2 percent discount on payment within 14 days. However, clever negotiators face counter-demands on salamitactics.
9. Additions instead of price reduction
In some cases the pain threshold is reached for the negotiating partner. Further giving in to the price is often forbidden by his superiors (price limit as a dealbreaker ). In this case, the negotiation may be postponed and the granting of allowances instead of a price reduction. There is often a small room for the negotiator of the other side.
Comments
Post a Comment