The Negotiators Paradox

Published: Oct 12 , 2012
Author: Alan Smith

I read a fascinating report that suggested that for many consumers adding more features to products actually has the opposite effect that the producer intended. It actually devalues the product.

A piece of research published in the Journal Of Consumer Research, suggests that consumers adopt an averaging approach when validating the value of a product or service.

The research asked consumers how much they would be prepared to pay for an iPod touch. They were subsequently asked how much they would be prepared to pay for an iPod touch when bundled with a series of apps. They appeared to be prepared to pay less for the product with more features.

A similar survey asked customers how much they would be prepared to pay to stay in a five star hotel, and then again asked how much for the same hotel bundled with a three star pool complex. The same results occurred.

The research concluded that adding lower value items to the core product actually meant that the consumer averages out the value thereby cheapening the proposition rather than improving it.

This comes as no real surprise to the negotiator.

There is usually a very good reason why we want to do, or indeed not do something. We tell the other party what that reason is. We are tempted however to add more reasons, usually weaker ones, to substantiate our original powerful thought.

In the classic western way of thinking, more is always better. The paradox is often it is not.

The issue is two fold.

First our backing up with weaker arguments tends to devalue the original good one thus having the exact opposite effect we intended. Much worse we allow ourselves to be picked off on the weaker feeble reasons. If the other side are able to answer or rebuke the less good reason we may find ourselves on the back foot.

Stick to your guns. State your best reason clearly and appreciate the value of silence.

Alan Smith, Partner


SHARE

blogAuthor

About the author:

Alan Smith
No bio is currently avaliable

Latest Blog:

Muck Shift

Just when is a deal not a deal…? I heard this story from a friend of mine the other week; there are some lessons to be learned! So, my pal is a developer and is building some houses on what is essentially a square site. Two sides of the square can be accessed from the road in a neighboring housing estate and the other two are beside a field owned by another developer. There is a huge pile of muck to shift before the actual building project; this phase is known in the trade – and not unreasonably - as a "muck-shift"! As there will be 80 -100 lorries coming in and out each day for 6 weeks, it was considered more convenient to access the site over the field, so an approach was made to the developer to discuss the terms under which he would allow access. This is a standard arrangement and the deal typically is that the field would be returned to the owner in its original condition. Developer makes a bit of money, where otherwise he wouldn’t; homeowners in the adjoining estate are less inconvenienced; builder does not need to spend money cleaning the streets and getting them back to a usable state at the end of the project. Win-win.

Latest Tweet:





United States
973.428.1991
usa@scotwork.com
Follow us
cpd.png
voty2016_sign_gold.png