Do people actually write amounts down on slips of paper and pass them back and forth when negotiating a deal, like in movies or on tv?
If so, why? Why not just say the amount?
Peace,
mangeorge
It’s an aid to fiction. If you don’t use a specific figure, the reader or viewer will just make one up in their head that’s appropriate to the time period when they see the work. If you use a specific figure, you’re going to see it become dated due to inflation (like Dr Evil’s one million dollar ransom).
I’ve seen it done when there is a possibility of being overhead by other parties. It also eliminates the possibility of mispronouncing, or misperceiving, the amount. There is also a psychological advantage that can be obtained through that method. You can lessen the shock of an unexpectedly low offer, and you can observe the reaction of the person as they read the amount, much like a poker player watches the other players as they look at their cards. It also provides a written record.
It is here on the Straight Dope! 
Totally agree. It’s just a prop…like when they open a brief case and it just glows a golden color but they don’t actually show you what’s inside (I don’t remember what the term for this is, but they used this in Pulp Fiction as I recall).
-XT
It would be but we can’t agree on whether it should be spelled muny or moni.
This is a technique sometimes used by a mediator/arbitrator trying to settle a dispute (usually a labor contract). Ask the union to write down the minimum they will accept, ask the employer to write down the maximum they will pay, and give both slips to the arbitrator. He looks at them (but nobody else does), sees that they overlap, and suggests out loud a figure in the overlap. Presumably that should be acceptable to both.
It’s also sometimes used in a different way in negotiations – instead of stating figures, they are passed between negotiators in written notes (via the mediator). There are a couple of (seemingly contradictory) psychological reasons for this:
[ul][li]By not having said the number out loud, negotiators are less committed to it, and might be more willing to modify it. If they say it out loud, they tend to add things like “this is our absolutely best offer” or even just a tone of voice that implies this.[/li]By having it written down, they are more committed to doing it. “You put it in writing that you would accept $15,000; they are offering $15,200; we have a deal here!”[/ul]
It happens often in employment offers.
McGuffin? McGriffin? Something like that.
I didn’t know people actually did this stuff in real life. I’ve never had anyone write down a salary on a scrap of paper like that…I usually get an offer letter in the mail.
-XT
I have done it; but mostly with people who are self-important, and clearly want to feel all mysterious and “in” on the process. It’s a stupid game, and I really prefer to deal openhandedly across the board.
An example would be the obviously inexperienced used-car salesman who almost certainly received no commission whatsoever on the sale of my second car. Also did it with a couple of Subject Matter Experts who had never done Government work before. Little did they know that I was going to request an assist audit in order to verify the validity of their rates.
Yep - MacGuffin, that which moves the plot forward.
You’re thinking of a MacGuffin or McGuffin.
The briefcase in Pulp Fiction was a bit more than a McGuffin, though; the decision to have it have some sort of weird, unknown quality that stunned anyone who looked at it was a twist on the usual McGuffin. McGuffins are generally things that exist solely to be pursued, which don’t really have any qualities of their own that matter.
No, they can have qualities of their own (e.g., Rosebud), but those qualities are just icing on the cake: they are there to move the plot along.
The Rembrandt letters, for the best example ever.
Happened to me. I used to go to time share resort sales pitches just to watch the pitch process in action. (I’d never buy.) The starting point was the sales person going through some calculations of just what a holiday in some exotic location costs in accommodation. Figures are bandied about.
The set-up then involved you being led subtly to think that the sale price for a time share unit was going to be about 90% of the bandied figure. It is then given to you scribbled on a bit of paper. It is dramatically less than your 90% expectation - about 60%.
The idea is to create a break between artificial figures and the “real” figure. And also to have you notice for yourself how low the figure is. If the sales person keeps telling you how low it is when the sale price is being delivered, you generate resistance almost automatically. By contrast, if there is no push accompanying the figure, there is no push-back.
Clever, in its way.
I wonder if there’s a special name/trope for things like this where you never learn the exact contents. You don’t find out what’s on the CD in When Strangers Appear, either, and there are probably other examples like this too.
[quote=“t-bonham@scc.net, post:6, topic:551857”]
It’s also sometimes used in a different way in negotiations – instead of stating figures, they are passed between negotiators in written notes (via the mediator). There are a couple of (seemingly contradictory) psychological reasons for this:
[ul][li]By not having said the number out loud, negotiators are less committed to it, and might be more willing to modify it. If they say it out loud, they tend to add things like “this is our absolutely best offer” or even just a tone of voice that implies this.[/li][li]By having it written down, they are more committed to doing it. “You put it in writing that you would accept $15,000; they are offering $15,200; we have a deal here!”[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
Something that hasn’t been mentioned yet - having both parties write down figures before seeing the other’s offer makes them start the negotation on level ground. In a verbal negotiation, the first person to state a value often puts himself at a significant disadvantage.
I sometimes think that people are so hung up in out-foxing the other that they might just fool themselves. When I see an ad that doesn’t state a price I immediately lose interest. If you reply and ask for a price, they’ll most say somthiing like “what’s it worth to you”. I don’t bother. Now if the ad say’s a price and adds “obo”, or “negotiable”, I might be interested. If the price seems good to me, I’ll make the deal. If not, I’ll make one offer.
I’ve found that I get no pleasure, or sense of victory, if I “win” a negotiation. That’s why I rarely buy anything on ebay. One doesn’t win anything when they buy something there. But that’s the first message to pop up when the bidding closes. Almost makes me wanna :rolleyes:.
I’ve negotiated dozens of legal settlements, and have never seen this done. I would probably get a kick out of it if the other party did it that way. I’d definitely play along.
I’ve had mediators try to get a feel for where each party wanted to be/was willing to end up, but I’ve never had one ask us to write down a figure. I can see how it might be useful if the parties were willing to be honest about their bottom line, but I can’t imagine ever being honest about my client’s bottom line, nor would I ever trust that the other side was at their end.
You can usually tell when the other party is at their bottom line, and it’s not because they told you.
Sure it is, if Tommy James is the one who’s spelling it. 
The only time I’ve seen this, it was done by the WORST, most INEPT car salesman ever.
So insensitive and cliché (“OK, now, what would it take to get you into this car right now?”), that I started…
I wrote it down on a piece of paper, but it didn’t show up, so I ended up typing it in…