This task seems to promote the idea that negotiation is about ruthlessly bending the other party to your will with no regard for their position and then being admired and rewarded for it. The other party seemed resigned to accept a near-loss in some cases, perhaps partly because of having no appetite for a testosterone competition on camera. But isn’t business in the real world about building mutually beneficial relationships over time, not self-aggrandisement at the expense of your trading partners? As the old saying goes, you can trade with someone a thousand times but screw them only once.
Real negotiation is about win-win
It's is a very clear message in James Caan's autobiography that even when you know your trading-partners' costs and margins, you still make the trade sufficiently profitable for them, rather than go for a stitch-up. People deal with people and lying traders who get caught out are not people that you want to deal with - lying to you shows disrespect for your instincts and business skills.
it's OK to haggle and make up stories when both treat it as a game, but if only one is a 'player' - it is obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception.
as the OP said - you can do a good deal many times, but one stitch up and you have lost that opportunity.
it's OK to haggle and make up stories when both treat it as a game, but if only one is a 'player' - it is obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception.
as the OP said - you can do a good deal many times, but one stitch up and you have lost that opportunity.
Totally agree with your observations O.P
Having worked as a buyer, I was primarily interested in building working relationships with other company representatives. Occasionally I'd be approached by a supplier who offered to undercut one of my regular suppliers, but rather than go with them, I'd just use their offer to apply a little bit of leverage to my existing suppliers.
If the margins weren't tremendous, I'd tend to leave things be....but I would also let my regular suppliers know whenever I had just been 'courted' by their competitor.
I used the free market spirit to help maintain continuous good deals from a stable group of suppliers, but the currency I traded in was 'loyalty.'
I didn't want my suppliers to take their contracts for granted, but nor did I want to continuously make them feel insecure.
Ideally, I wanted it to be profitable for them to deal with me and profitable for me to deal with them.
There were occasions when it might have been more profitable to abandon certain suppliers, but usually just hinting at this resulted in a sudden price-review.
That's the 'game' and it's one that can usually be conducted courteously and openly so long as two businesses have eachother's welfare at heart.
When you really stop and think about it, there's never any justifiable reason why any of the parties involved in the [often complex] process of supply and demand should ever walk away from a deal feeling like they've been shafted.
Win/Win....should always be the aim..IMHO
Quote:
“Insight 4- The Struggle For Power:
"Too often humans cut themselves off form the greater source of this energy and so feel weak and insecure. To gain energy we tend to manipulate or force others to give us attention and thus energy. When we successfully dominate others in this way, we feel more powerful, but they are left weakened and often fight back. Competition for scarce human energy is the cause of all conflict between people..."
The Sugarstine Prophecy”
“Insight 4- The Struggle For Power:
"Too often humans cut themselves off form the greater source of this energy and so feel weak and insecure. To gain energy we tend to manipulate or force others to give us attention and thus energy. When we successfully dominate others in this way, we feel more powerful, but they are left weakened and often fight back. Competition for scarce human energy is the cause of all conflict between people..."
The Sugarstine Prophecy”
Having worked as a buyer, I was primarily interested in building working relationships with other company representatives. Occasionally I'd be approached by a supplier who offered to undercut one of my regular suppliers, but rather than go with them, I'd just use their offer to apply a little bit of leverage to my existing suppliers.
If the margins weren't tremendous, I'd tend to leave things be....but I would also let my regular suppliers know whenever I had just been 'courted' by their competitor.
I used the free market spirit to help maintain continuous good deals from a stable group of suppliers, but the currency I traded in was 'loyalty.'
I didn't want my suppliers to take their contracts for granted, but nor did I want to continuously make them feel insecure.
Ideally, I wanted it to be profitable for them to deal with me and profitable for me to deal with them.
There were occasions when it might have been more profitable to abandon certain suppliers, but usually just hinting at this resulted in a sudden price-review.
That's the 'game' and it's one that can usually be conducted courteously and openly so long as two businesses have eachother's welfare at heart.
When you really stop and think about it, there's never any justifiable reason why any of the parties involved in the [often complex] process of supply and demand should ever walk away from a deal feeling like they've been shafted.
Win/Win....should always be the aim..IMHO
Did you not hear what Sugar said in the boardroom when he admonished the women for not being ruthless enough. He said something like "its ok to screw people over you'll never see again".
Says a lot for his ethics .
Says a lot for his ethics .
The OP is thinking about negotiating within a long term business relationship, but this task was nothing to do with that. The girls missed to point too, by thinking they were on a treasure hunt.
The task was about buying 10 randomly selected items from people who you would never meet again, and doing it for less money than the competition.
The task was about buying 10 randomly selected items from people who you would never meet again, and doing it for less money than the competition.
Originally Posted by Henry Price:
“The OP is thinking about negotiating within a long term business relationship, but this task was nothing to do with that. The girls missed to point too, by thinking they were on a treasure hunt.”
“The OP is thinking about negotiating within a long term business relationship, but this task was nothing to do with that. The girls missed to point too, by thinking they were on a treasure hunt.”
Had the cameras not been there the boys would not have got those completely unrealistic discounts and the girls would have won - even if their negotiating skills were not top notch.
In reality the task turned out to be won on the basis of who could tell the most lies in front of some cameras and provide some comedy moments.
A fine result if you want to bury your head in the sand and say: 'it's just a game' but completely unrepresentative of acceptable business behaviour.
Quote:
“The task was about buying 10 randomly selected items”
“The task was about buying 10 randomly selected items”
Quite ten. Not seven.
The boys failed to even complete the task but won because of the way the penalties were set.
In this task it might have shown more strength of character and business sense to have deliberately lost. The test was to find out if they were prepared to trample over anyone in their path to get what they wanted, which, of course, they were. Jamie begged and threatened while Chris lied through his teeth, and I think the girls would’ve had no qualms about doing the same if they’d had more imagination. It was all about the dirty haggle. But beware of mean streaks and short-sighted self-interest since they will turn into liabilities when other, more important, business opportunities strike.
Originally Posted by angel44:
“
Win/Win....should always be the aim..IMHO
”
“
Win/Win....should always be the aim..IMHO
”
Very good post and I agree with the other posters above. The way the task is set up is with the aim of measuring the teams resourcefulness in locating the sellers and then testing them on their ability to strike a good deal, but the short-term nature of the task leaves it open to abuse by those who use a street hagglers approach.
I find it hard though, to think of a way to test a candidates in a more appropriate manner. The show just isn't long enough.
Real negotiation would also involve more than likely buying in bulk, buying regularly and being aware and knowledgeable of what you are buying.
As we saw with this task, none of this was true of the teams.
They were on the instant disadvantage because for example Jamie had no idea how much a Single Tikka should cost, were the taxi office really 100% against discounts?
This task was NOT about being corporate or business-like. In that environment of course OP is right, but in this task Sugar knew those left could put on the corporate face when needs be, it was a simple, basic "Can you negotiate?" at it's most very basic, that was all he was looking for, and thus the boys won because they can negotiate, very well it seemed.
As we saw with this task, none of this was true of the teams.
They were on the instant disadvantage because for example Jamie had no idea how much a Single Tikka should cost, were the taxi office really 100% against discounts?
This task was NOT about being corporate or business-like. In that environment of course OP is right, but in this task Sugar knew those left could put on the corporate face when needs be, it was a simple, basic "Can you negotiate?" at it's most very basic, that was all he was looking for, and thus the boys won because they can negotiate, very well it seemed.
I have a customer who negotiates like that. He does not often come top of my priorities, and I think the whole relationship could be so much more productive for his business if he could treat it as a partnership rather than constantly trying to cuts costs/corners and be confrontational.
In some cultures, 'ruthless' negotiation is the norm and whilst it isn't the case here so much, it is becoming more so as cultures and global markets converge. The sellers will have accounted for this in a heavily marked-up asking price...which bears no relationship to the realistic price.
At the end of the day, noone will sell you something at a loss or to their detriment. Seriously, you can't over-negotiate. People who think negotiating hard is 'rude' or 'aggressive' clearly haven't travelled widely. If you take that view you'll be ripped off mercilessly in certain geographies!
At the end of the day, noone will sell you something at a loss or to their detriment. Seriously, you can't over-negotiate. People who think negotiating hard is 'rude' or 'aggressive' clearly haven't travelled widely. If you take that view you'll be ripped off mercilessly in certain geographies!
