That’s not a particularly specific cite - I might have read a single article or two, but I haven’t the time or inclination to read everything harvard has been inclined to post about negotiation.
I’m afraid I don’t know Swedish, so I can’t help you there. Perhaps if I explain what I think the terms of discussion are?
For starters, I don’t think there’s something magical or cryptic about ‘win/win’ and ‘win/lose’ that I’m missing. As best I can tell that’s just whether you care if the other guy is happy with you after the deal. I concede that it may make a lot more difference in the political arena, because there you can provide negative incentives in addition to positive ones; sticks in addition to carrots. This rarely is the case in civilian sales transactions; I rarely hear “Take the deal or I’ll break your legs” when I go to Walmart.
So. If you have the ability to make threats and throw your weight around, then yes, you have to choose whether you mind making the other guy seethingly furious with you as he grudgingly consents to your terms. In sales though, if the guy is furious with you, you are rather unlikely to get the sale. Not entirely unlikely, because despite cosmosdan’s blanket assertions to the contrary there can be an element of coercion to a sale if the customer feels they have little chance of finding better terms elsewhere (less likely in this age of the internet, I admit). But still, as a general rule your average salesperson must resort to sweetening the deal rather than threatening dire consequences if you fail to comply.
So. The salesperson’s only options are to 1) add value, 2) reduce price, 3) accept the customer’s terms, or 4) refuse to change their terms. The customer’s only options are 1) request a lower price, 2) accept the given price, or 3) refuse to change their terms. Given that, what actions would the salesperson take to try win/win negotiations, and how do they differ from win/lose? What actions would the customer take to try win/win? Win/lose?
You’ve failed to give even one reasonable example of coercion so for now my blanket assertion, which was accompanied by an explanation of why there was no coercion, will have to stand.
Customers or salespeople can be dishonest assholes, but that is the person not the practice of haggling itself.
Looking at your comment on coercion here my guess is those conditions would serve to discourage haggling rather than encourage it. If I know I have the best deal in town and the customer has little or no leverage through competition I am less likely to haggle.
Technically, “You won’t find a bargain like this anywhere else” is a (weak) form of coersion, as it threatens them with the inability to get their item. Of course, this is often a transparent lie, but tell that to the dudes who were selling generators during Katrina for a 1000% markup.
Not that you will accept this as an example of coersion, mind you, but then you already wore out my interest in convincing you of anything in this thread due to your choice to respond to my arguments by pretending I hadn’t made any.
And to add a less weak form of coersion, I’ve heard tales of people getting something sprung on them late in the process of a ‘long’ sale, such as a house purchase or already-started contracting project, where they are given the options of “suck it up or have to completely quit and eat the loss of your efforts so far”. I would also count this as coersion, though some might/will not.
From reading the rest of that post I realized that I have not been able to communicate at all the idea that this does not fit into your preconception of negotiation. And if we haven’t gotten very far despite of the effort you and I have put in, I don’t think there’s much point in us spending more energy on it. I’m obviously not very good at explaining it to you, and you’re not that interested anyway.
Weak indeed. I see coercion as something much stronger than occurs in day to day haggling.
I’d acknowledge that in sales trickery might qualify from a strictly technical standpoint but it’s not the kind of threat that holds much wieght since in America there are usually plenty of choices. If a salesman says “You won’t find a better deal anywhere” you go check it out. It’s coercion in such a weakened form that it really doesn’t qualify.
I’ll mention again that dishonest techniques from either the salesperson or the buyer is on the individual and is not connected to the act of bargaining.
When I said that you essentially hadn’t and had created some feeble excuse to quit. You aren’t normally so thin skinned in GDs.
You came into this thread making what I thought were exaggerated and drastic claims. I called you on them and gave you an opportunity to defend them. I countered your assertions and unnessecarily extreme examples with specific explanations refuting your claims, at which point you retreated. It’s GDs not IMHO Make a well reasoned argument that realsitically reflects the subject we’re discussing rather than unrealsitic extremes and I’ll gladly recognize valid points.
Being willing to read an article or two is pretty high interest, actually; I’m just not interested enough to engage in an undirected read of an entire college internet site. I don’t exactly see that a crime of apathy.
But if your idea of negotiation has nothing to do with either making offers or making threats or offering bonuses or lowering prices or any of that, then you indeed right, your idea of it will not fit into my idea of it. I do indeed requre some negotiation to occur during my negotiations, and if you don’t that does indeed make it difficult for me to understand what you’re talking about.
In my opinion I already had made sufficent arguments and you have done nothing at all to dismiss them but make unsupported assertions to the contrary - a trend that continues in your prior post. I have personally classified the fact you don’t see me as having made arguments as a perception problem on your part, and there is nothing I can do about that, since I cannot expect anything I say to get past the “no it aint; that’s no argument; you have made no argument” approach that I see you to be employing.
Actually, I think I figured out a way to explain it to you in a completely different way:
Imagine using a negotiation technique yourself, where you actually want the person you are negotiating with to be as good as possible. It probably helps if you emphasize the with as in opposite of against.
Dishonesty, as the trickery definition of coercion has to hold some kind of realisitic threat to qualify as coercion IMO
In the case you’re giving the threat is what? A loss of time?
I worked for a car dealer who regularly used the technique of lying to the customer about the car payment. The buyer would take the car home at a payment they could afford. A few days later the dealer would call to say the bank hadn’t accepted the deal and the payment was going up. Their hope was that the buyer had already shown the car to freinds and would be too embaressed to return it. The buyers were still free to return it so it wasn’t that much of a threat.
I also hate bargaining. I have bought 2 cars in my lifetime, one from a dealership (2 year old pre-owned Audi) and the other from a private party (7 year old Volkwagen).
The dealership was located in North Carolina (I am on the west coast) and they had the exact make/model/features I wanted. I corresponded with them a few times before making a flat, take-it-or-leave-it offer at about $2000 less than the listed price (but about $1000 above blue book, still a tidy profit available for them). They took it. I may have been able to haggle further but I prefer not to.
For the private party, we went and test-drove the car, then made an offer about $300 less than the listed price (from $6800 to $6500 or somesuch). He took it.
I believe there’s more than enough room in the traditional “haggling” structure to make an offer less than the asking price without having to go through a drawn-out back and forth exchange.
If you seriously think you made sufficieant arguments while I made nothing but assertions the perception problem isn’t mine. This is obvious to anyone with basic reading skills. You came in making assertions that I challenged. I backed my challange up by explaining why you were mistaken.
That occurs in post 25 my first response to you, and in post 27post 30 and post 33
Then in post 34 you decide you don’t want to play anymore and made a feeble excuse rather than defend your arguments. You’re doing the same now. In each of my posts I counter your assertion and explain why you are incorrect with a reasonable argument.
If you can’t defend your arguments and want to resort to “did so” debate tactics that speaks for itself.
A transparent misrepresentation of my posts. You’re using the term in such a way that it renders the definition {which I posted} virtually meaningless. What you don’t seem to care about is the definition understood by most of the english speaking world.
I was at the Boardwalk in Ocean City, MD last week. One of the salesgirls in a shop said, “you come back to us, we’ll give you the best price”. When she said that, I realized they’d all bargain with you. A simple, “Can you do a better price than this?” while holding out the item’s pricetag was good enough for them to drop the price. No pushing. If they’d said, “no” that would have been acceptable. But in this life you don’t get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate. I’ve never had a problem with just asking and seeing where it takes me.
As someone else said, my friends bring me along for when it’s time to bargain with someone. Or they call me for a ‘refresher course’ before starting out on their own quests.
It is what you make of it and it doesn’t hurt to ask. Two old standbys that apply. MAke an offer and see what happens, Make a decision about how much you want a certain something. No big deal.
If someone is haunted by the thought they might have saved $10 or so then they are taking it wayyyy to seriously.
Price discrimination is a good thing for the seller, but in aggregate the buyers become worse of – partly to pay for the sellers being better off, and partly because price discrimination is not economically efficient and therefore causes a deadweight loss to the economy.
Forget that bit about the deadweight loss. I was thinking of monopolies(which increase their profits through price discrimination). The market can still be efficient, however this is a zero-sum game so the benefits to the seller means that the buyers are worse off.
ETA: Ugh, I am not having a good night. Monopolies are not necessarily able to price discriminate. Just forget I said anything about efficiency.