Chapter 44 Chapter Two Speaking Strategies During Negotiations

Negotiators' minimum goals are based on an objective analysis of the best options.In the negotiation scene, generally, the minimum goal of one party will not be changed easily unless the objective situation changes. If Lake wants to use 150,000 yuan to buy a car released last year, then 150,000 yuan is his ultimate goal.After two weeks of investigation, Lake found that the car was worth up to 164,000 yuan including comfort, warranty, and durability.That is to say, in the fierce bargaining with the shopping guide, if the price is higher than this figure under any circumstances, Lake will choose to give up without hesitation. This price is the worst choice for Lake to negotiate, and it is the most basic line of defense for interests.However, if he learns some information that affects his minimum goal during the negotiation process, for example, the car has been sold or the price has been reduced, then this goal will change.How to stick to the bottom line of one's own interests, and then obtain more benefits on this basis?

Lake had to be wary of a common trading tactic used by salespeople.Many cunning negotiators will deliberately steer you away from your lowest goals.If you are not well prepared for this negotiation, or if your minimum goals are not based on objective but imaginary, you are likely to be led into the trap.For example, the shopping guide is likely to say to Lake: "It's hard for me to imagine that a person with an imagination like you should drive an outdated car on the street, how much this will damage your image in the heart of your girlfriend. If You see your co-workers driving this year's new car, and you're sitting in last year's old car, and you're bound to regret your choice.” Then Lake might be tempted to think To adjust his minimum goal, consider buying a car that costs more than he can afford.This means that he was unknowingly persuaded by the shopping guide and gave up his bottom line of interests.

Smart negotiators always put on a face that they are all for the other party, but in fact they are full of their own interests.This is normal.In negotiations, if a person insists on changing the other party's mind to gain more benefits, he should be the most unsuccessful persuader, because few people will fall into his trap repeatedly.Therefore, before the negotiation begins, it is very important to determine a minimum line of defense and stick to it throughout the negotiation process.If you find it hard to do, try writing your minimum goals on paper and pocketing them before negotiating.Once you feel that you are about to deviate from the negotiation defense line, take out that piece of paper, apply for a temporary suspension of the negotiation, and then carefully study the actual situation and make a more objective assessment.

Why do so many people fail to determine the minimum goal of the negotiation well before the negotiation, so that the negotiation fails in the end?Mainly because they will often focus on some value masquerading as a minimum goal.These values ​​are easy to attract people's eyes and become the focus due to their charming external form.These focus values ​​may be some very prominent data, values, etc., which appear to be well-founded on the surface, but actually have no objective basis.Maybe it's some discount, maybe it's a cheap car with the same style but less functions, these may make you tempted and give up your initial insistence.Practice has proved that negotiators are easily attracted by fancy focus value in negotiations.

There was once a survey, an experiment of how much superficial matter influenced people's judgments. People stood in front of a roulette wheel indicating different amounts of money, and the roulette wheel was spinning continuously. At the same time, those people were asked to estimate the number of African countries in the United Nations. .When the wheel stops and the needle points to a number, ask him to guess whether there are more or fewer African countries in the United Nations than that number, and to state the estimated total.The test result is: when the pointer stops on a larger number, people always predict much more than when it stops on a smaller number.It may sound absurd that people's judgments should be based on a roulette wheel indicating amounts, but it is a fact.

The strategy in the closing stage often tends to be a pressure strategy, because the negotiation agreement in this stage is becoming more and more mature, and the final form of the transaction is gradually becoming clear.Here, deliberate negotiators reap the benefits of careful pressure and make their opponents pay in the final stages. There are often signs of deadlines being approached when adopting a no-make-up closing strategy.This sign becomes more pronounced when you are deadlocked on certain issues.If all issues are deadlocked, the outdated and unrepaired strategy becomes an ultimatum, and its effectiveness will be greatly reduced.This strategy works best when it is an implicit implication of "naturally" terminating a negotiation, especially where the deadline has obvious (albeit false) credibility.

Clearly, the intent of the Do Not Replenish strategy is to exert pressure.This strategy works when you are under time pressure and worry that continuing to seek better terms may jeopardize the deal even though you are not happy with some aspect of the other party’s terms.Deadlines are often unreliable.Certain deadlines are serious and many are suspect, making it difficult to determine in advance.If the deadline is just a bluff, the problem is easier; if it is not, then you will end up with a lost deal. You can tell if a deadline is real or not by waiting for it to arrive and watching what happens then.You can also respond to the deadline setter by declaring to the deadline setter, "I did my best considering the deadline..."Deadlines are like threats, and in most people's negotiating experience, they are best ignored.Responding to it, or pretending to accept it, is often self-defeating.

The jittery strategy is a figurative term. It actually means that when a negotiation agreement is about to be signed, one suddenly puts down the pen and asks to amend a certain clause so as to make the opponent make concessions.This strategy is generally used when an agreement is about to be reached, both parties are in high spirits, have spent a lot of time and energy, and are ready to return.With this strategy, more concessions can be extracted from the opponent. When the eager expectation of reaching an agreement blinds the rationality of one negotiating party, the other side can take advantage of it.When the transaction was about to be concluded and the two parties were ready to sign the contract, suddenly, one of the negotiating parties put down the pen in fear and said: "I think we are not very satisfied with the eighth article, because this article may make us suffer. The effect of price fluctuations. If you are willing to address this in the contract, we can sign the contract now.” If the other party in the negotiation is eager to reach an agreement, and can accept concessions, they may make enough concessions to allow The other party's pen returns to the contract.However, it is not difficult to imagine that the other party may repeat the same tricks to force the negotiating opponent to make continuous concessions.

Similar to the above strategy, the trade-off strategy is also a closing strategy with ultimatum pressure.It has an antithetical relationship with negotiation. The earlier it is used in negotiation, the lower its credibility; the later it is used, the higher its credibility.Because people will think that the other party is likely to be serious at this time.Your choice is to do what they ask you to take (if you feel it's the best option) or leave it (if nothing they offer matters to you).Of course, this is not just your problem, the other party also needs to bear the consequences of your withdrawal.

Despite your indifference in your ultimatum, the other party may still expect you to accept the terms.If you are the recipient of the strategy, this will be an important factor in how you respond.You can only judge the possibility of bluffing based on the actual situation, although you can often choose to reject deals that you are not satisfied with. Going an inch is a more aggressive strategy than trembling.It means that in the negotiation, the other party always puts forward one or another small problem, which hinders the whole negotiation process and makes one's own side continue to solve the problem, but just after one problem is solved, another one follows, and the solution of these small problems It is also our own concession.

The solution to this strategy is to ask the negotiating party to raise all the remaining "little problems" at once before the own party responds; or insist that only the terms included in the current negotiation scope be discussed, otherwise the negotiation must be re-examined scope, and make corresponding adjustments to other terms involved.In this way, the users of the "increase an inch" strategy will be in an awkward position.Therefore, the problems raised by the negotiating opponent must not be solved one by one, otherwise the more you appear willing to satisfy the opponent, the more greedy the opponent will be. "Splitting the difference" is a very tempting closing strategy, disguised as a fair and sensible compromise.It seems so reasonable and fair.Differences have proven difficult to iron out, so this strategy suggests that both parties divide their differences.This proposal is very attractive, sometimes enough to make negotiators agree.In this way, the negotiator has crossed the 50% gap between the parties.It is of course better if one party can afford the price of such behavior.However, even with this proposal, the opponent has already shown a difference of at least 50%.This will make it easy for the other party to face a dilemma.One side may now admit that unilateral efforts by the other side have halved the differences between the two sides. Most closing-stage strategies are obvious, yet they can work if negotiators are left defenseless at the table.Negotiators can fall into the trap of these tactics when negotiating in long distances or when their schedules force them to leave early for other social engagements.Therefore, negotiators must be careful not to become impatient and withdraw from the negotiation simply because of the pace of the negotiation.In a time-conscious culture, expecting strict adherence to time can lead to serious consequences unless negotiators can pace themselves. Many people may not know the detailed inside story of China's WTO accession negotiations.Ultimatum tactics were used on two occasions in this difficult negotiation.The first time was in 1994. Because the GATT was to be changed into the WTO in 1995, it was called re-customs before 1994, and it was called WTO access after 1994. China hoped to resume the customs at the end of 1994. Let's not talk about it, so as to issue an ultimatum, but due to various reasons, the talk did not come down in the end. The second time was the negotiation between China and the United States. At the last critical moment, Premier Zhu Rongji came forward to negotiate with the US delegation, asking the US delegation to make demands on the Chinese side first, and China agreed to these demands.But he also pointed out that if the United States wants to negotiate, it should be within the framework of these requirements. If the United States is not satisfied, it can return to the United States immediately. After consultations, the US delegation weighed it carefully. If they go back, all the results of the past negotiations will be in vain. If they accept the Chinese request, they will be at a loss.Finally, with the consent of President Clinton, he finally agreed.Both of these negotiations belong to the use of the deadline in the ultimatum strategy, which refers to setting a deadline for negotiations in order to exert pressure on the other party to achieve their own goals. In the WTO accession negotiations, although the ultimatum strategy was used for the first time without success, China also reserved a way out for itself, that is, not to talk about resuming customs clearance, but it did not say that it would not join the WTO, and thus smoothly transitioned to a new starting point .The second time it was used very successfully, the Chinese side also achieved the goal of the negotiation and broke through a difficulty for China's accession to the WTO. In the above cases, China used the ultimatum strategy, which fundamentally changed the situation. It can be seen that the ultimatum strategy is an effective means to force the other party to make concessions and break the deadlock.The successful use of strategies such as "using competition to force the other party to make concessions" and "ultimatums" has a good effect, making the negotiation stressful and efficient.In particular, the content of the ultimatum is relatively accurate, which is very suitable for use in competitive negotiations.One thing to note is that the negotiator must keep his word and convince the other party that it is really the "last time", otherwise the strategy will fail and eventually lead to a passive situation. When using an ultimatum strategy, you must pay attention to the following: Generally, before sending an ultimatum, try to get the other party to make some investment in you first.For example, first reach an agreement on other minor proposals, let the other party spend some time, energy, etc., and when the other party's "investment" reaches a certain level, you can throw out an ultimatum, making it difficult for the other party to withdraw. An ultimatum that is too "hard" can easily hurt the self-esteem of the other party, so it is mostly asking for failure.For example, "This is the price, otherwise there is nothing to talk about!" "Accept this condition or it's over here!" The "soft" ultimatum is not.For example, "Your reasoning is completely correct, but it's a pity that we can only make this condition. You can see if you can accommodate." This kind of statement leaves room for negotiation and reserves a retreat for the other party. A "soft" ultimatum is easily accepted by the other party. If you can come up with some document or rationale to support your position, that is the smartest ultimatum.For example, "Your request is not excessive. I hope to agree to you, but our unit's financial system does not allow it." An ultimatum should not drive the other party into a corner with no other way to go, but try to make the other party choose a path in your ultimatum.At least in the eyes of the other party, it is the lesser of two evils.For example, an enterprise hires a retired technician to take up a certain position.He asked for a monthly salary of 3,000 yuan. If you don't have that much power, you can only agree to 1,400 yuan.A blunt rejection of this question would be too aggressive.It should be said like this: "Based on your ability, your request is not too much. The problem is that our ability is only so great. According to our salary standard, it is only 800 to 1400 yuan. What do you mean?" Candidate After weighing it, he said: "Okay, it's only 1,400 yuan." In negotiations, a strategy of playing both soft and hard is often used, that is, both soft and hard methods are used together, and two-pronged approach is taken. During the Spring and Autumn Period, Nephew Lu's envoy to Qin used this kind of strategy, and finally successfully completed his mission. At that time, Qin Mugong sent troops to attack the state of Jin, the Jin army was defeated, and Jin Huigong was captured.More than three months later, Qin Mugong allowed Jin to make peace.So the captured Jin Huigong sent someone back to the country to order Lu nephew to envoy Qin to meet him. Lu nephew was ordered to Qin.In view of his own country's defeat on the battlefield and the monarch's being in the hands of the enemy, his every word and deed in the negotiation is related to the safety of the country. This is a decisive diplomatic struggle.Duke Mu of Qin met Nephew Lu in the royal city. After the guests and hosts were seated, Duke Mu of Qin asked, "Have the people of Jin been united recently?" "Not united." Nephew Lu's answer was unexpected. "Why?" Qin Mugong was eager to understand the reality of the other party, in order to find a reason to stir up trouble. "The common people are ashamed of the king being captured, and mourning for their loved ones who died in the war. They are not afraid of taxation and military training. They clamor that they must take revenge. Those who are officials love their king, and they know their crimes of defeat and humiliation, so they don't want to collect taxes. Train the soldiers in order to wait for Qin to return to the king as soon as possible. They must repay Qin's kindness, even if they die, they are unwilling to have two hearts. Therefore, the people of Jin are not united." When Lu Nephew answered Qin Mugong's question, he asked He secretly threw two "knives".One is a "hard knife": through the mouths of the people, express the determination of the people of Jin to take revenge without fear of violence.He threatened Qin Mugong as an enemy of Qin, forcing him to make an early plan to release Jin Huigong.The other is "soft knife": through the mouth of an official, he expresses the people of Jin's expectation for Qin Mugong to return to Jin Huigong in obedient words. Under the coercion and lure of Lv Nephew's soft and hard knives, although Qin Mugong was not an idle person, he wanted to get angry but couldn't, so he had no choice but to change the subject: "How do you Jin people think of your own monarch?" Qin Mugong The purpose of changing the topic is to test the attitude of Jin Huigong in the state of Jin.After hearing this, Nephew Lu immediately seized the opportunity and said softly and forcefully again: "Little people don't know reason, only worry, and think that our monarch must be executed by you; gentlemen use their own hearts to speculate on other people's hearts, thinking that you will definitely return him." Our king. The villains said: "We are sorry for Qin, and Qin will definitely not release our king." Gentlemen said: "We have confessed our crimes, and Qin will definitely release our king." It is more generous to release the Lord of our country, and the punishment is not more dignified than to capture the Lord of our country. Those who commit crimes cherish kindness, and those who are single-minded fear punishment. With this act, Qin can dominate the world. If it is not released, it will repay virtue with grievances. , Qin Guojun would not do that." Duke Mu of Qin listened to these words, weighed the pros and cons between a gentleman and a villain, and finally said: "It is my original intention to release Duke Hui of Jin!" From this example, we can see that at the negotiating table, the power of language is related to the scale and the strength of the negotiators.If the strength is strong, the negotiators must be bold and magnificent; on the contrary, they need to be cautious and compromise.Lu Nei, the ambassador of the State of Jin, served as a diplomatic envoy under the harsh situation of his country's defeat and the monarch's capture. Obviously, he could not justly reprimand Qin Mugong's brutality to prevent side effects;In a very difficult situation, he was neither humble nor overbearing, and adopted a negotiating strategy of both soft and hard, and finally turned passive into active, won what he lost on the battlefield, and won the negotiation. Good face and black face, soft policy and tough attitude are two completely opposite positions in the negotiation strategy.However, tactful negotiators can often combine these two aspects perfectly to produce the best negotiation results.When this tactic is used at the negotiating table, usually one of the representatives of one party takes a strong position and makes the lion's mouth to demand, while his assistant takes a friendly attitude and keeps silent at the beginning of the negotiation. , the main negotiator kept silent and asked his assistant to take over, and the conditions proposed by the assistant seemed reasonable compared with those with a tough attitude. The tough guy deals much more happily, so the negotiation goes on as a matter of course. Through the above examples, it is not difficult to see that in order to achieve the expected goal by adopting both soft and hard strategies in negotiations, we must pay attention to the following two points: When a person plays a role, he must be flexible and flexible. , Leave room for yourself when you speak hard words.When two or more people perform a performance, they should cooperate closely, and the fake show should be done for real. The "hard" ones should be tough and not give in an inch, but they should be reasonable, polite in their toughness, and affectionate in their strength. A domineering impression; "soft" people should be good at grasping the situation, judging the situation, appearing in time, and asking the other party to submit. Of course, on the other hand, to deal with this kind of hard and soft negotiating tactics, you can also take two extreme positions: You can also perform a double-reed play, and when the other party sings bad face, you also send a person to blow his beard and stare at him. This is definitely not tit for tat, because when the opponent's fair face comes out, you will find that the person sitting opposite him is not only a waste who has been paled in the fight, but on the contrary, is an uncompromising tough guy.So, it's time to turn things around.At this time, not only do you not have to calmly reason with your opponent, but you can be tougher, and your opponent will find that they have encountered someone who is really difficult to deal with.At this juncture, your white face can also appear on the stage. This bad face can be your boss or behind-the-scenes planner, and end this negotiation according to favorable conditions for you. If you are not interested in the strategy of black face and white face, you can face your opponent's acting in a very direct way. When after a long verbal battle, you find that the other party is not discussing the issue with you logically, you can ask them to talk to you with another person.If the other party rejects your request, simply say, "It appears that you have no intention of reaching an agreement. If you change your mind in the future, please let me know." Then you stand up and bid farewell.At this point you will most likely hear the other person say they have changed their minds. The interests of both sides of the negotiation are the key points that determine the success or failure of the negotiation.How can we clarify the interests of both parties in the negotiation process?We must first clarify our own interests, and then try to describe the interests of the other party. Negotiation is a process of exchanging interests. During this process, the buyer and the seller must carefully analyze the pressure that the bargaining chips in their hands will bring to the other party.There are many interest factors behind the position of a negotiation, and negotiators must thoroughly analyze the interests of both parties to the transaction.This includes both a clear awareness and description of common interests, as well as awareness of one's own interests.In other words, we must recognize which interests are very important to us and must not be compromised; which interests can be compromised and can be exchanged for the other party's conditions.Blindly pursuing positions and principles without distinguishing between interest factors often lead to a stalemate in the negotiations or a complete failure of the negotiations. One of the situations we often see is that the negotiating parties have different expectations on the same issue, which hinders the negotiation process.In fact, more often than not, we need to compromise. If you cannot clearly describe the common interest, then the common interest will not significantly help your negotiation.Negotiation is a process of mutual cooperation and compromise. If one sticks to one's own principles blindly, the negotiation will often fail.However, the purpose of compromise is not to give up one's own interests, but to satisfy the interests of the other party through compromise, and at the same time win the core interests expected by the other party.Therefore, we must distinguish which of our interests are crucial in the negotiation and which can be used as a bargaining chip in the exchange of interests. Only in this way can our negotiation work be effective. In every negotiation, whether you are yourself or the other party, you may have many interests, but some interests can be exchanged, and some interests are not.When you can clearly know your exchangeable interests, and this interest is indeed the interest that the other party needs, this interest is your bargaining chip to win the negotiation. The definition of your own negotiating interests is usually reflected in the negotiating objectives. In layman's terms, it is the negotiating interests you expect to obtain.The interest objective of the negotiation is the basis and standard for testing the effectiveness and results of the negotiation.Furthermore, negotiators can effectively set their own action plans, including negotiating ideas, strategies, and guidelines, only when they have clarified their own interests and goals. There is a simple way to clearly define our negotiating interests, that is, from the perspective of negotiating strategies, we can divide the expected interests into: the most ideal negotiating objectives, acceptable negotiating objectives and unacceptable negotiating objectives. The most ideal negotiating target.Usually, after negotiators understand their own basic interests, they will add an additional value on the basis of this basic interest. If this additional value can be realized, the negotiation result will be the most ideal.The goal of basic interests plus additional interests is the most ideal negotiation goal.Generally speaking, the most ideal negotiating goals are often unattainable, but clarifying the ideal negotiating goals can enable us to adopt more effective strategies, make us work harder, and the results are often more positive. Acceptable negotiating objectives.If the benefit obtained in a certain negotiation is lower than the minimum expected benefit, then the negotiation is a failure, and such a negotiation is usually meaningless.Defining acceptable negotiation goals aims to clearly understand where one's bottom line is in the negotiation, and flexibly adopt various strategies on the basis of sticking to the bottom line.The acceptable goal usually means the "critical point" of the transaction, and breaking the "critical point" usually leads to the failure of the negotiation. However, the most common situation is that most successful negotiations are reached within the scope of the acceptable goal.In other words, when you set an acceptable goal, the result of the negotiation will often appear here-this is not a law, but it is a summary of the experience of all negotiators. Negotiation target is not acceptable.Many people will wonder why it is necessary to figure out the unacceptable goals when negotiating?The actual situation is that the interests of negotiations are complicated and messy. The real preparation should be to clarify one's ideal goals and acceptable goals, and then present one's unacceptable goals on key issues.More often, due to the tense negotiation atmosphere and unpredictable negotiation situation, negotiators often lose their judgment on various interests in the negotiation process, and thus make wrong decisions.And when we can list our unacceptable goals one by one, we can know at a glance whether we have violated the minimum interest requirements of the negotiation, which is a guarantee for negotiators to obtain the most basic negotiation interests. When the famous American McKay Company was in the start-up stage, in order to expand the company's scale, it decided to build a modern new factory building.The budget for the expansion of the factory came out, and it needed 250,000 US dollars, but at that time the company only had 175,000 US dollars on hand, because the company did not issue a reliable guarantee, and the bank rejected the loan request of McKay Company. The company manager Harvey?McKay was devastated by this.He thought hard and finally came up with a solution. McKay found a very powerful builder in the local area and said to him: "I promise, if you build the factory for me with 175,000 US dollars, I will become your best salesman. In the next 5 years I will use my network to find at least 5 great deals for you. I have a lot of friends who are at a stage of development similar to mine, and I am the first of them to take action while they are doing it. Standing on the sidelines, I hope I can find out a feasible way for them, so as to save their energy and get ready-made experience. So, once my factory can be successfully built, they will obey me. Think about it, 5 businesses can be compared to profit I'm much better off." After careful weighing, the builder couldn't help being moved, but he still bargained with McKay.First, he wanted $200,000, and second, he wanted McKay to find two deals for him.The builder's offer was easier than raising $250,000, so McKay readily agreed to his request.The agreement was successfully reached.With the help of the builder, Mackay not only saved a lot of money, but also successfully built a new modern factory building.McKay's company has been thriving since then, and he himself has become a world-renowned entrepreneur. In the same way, you can define the other party's expected benefits in the same way as you define your own expected benefits, and the significance of doing so is obvious.For example, a product supplier negotiates with a buyer on the purchase of a certain product. The cost of the product is $10,000, and the other party asks for $15,000. If the buyer proposes to make a deal at $6,000, unless natural disasters or Other emergencies, otherwise it is almost impossible.As a result of doing so, it is likely not only that the transaction cannot be achieved, but it is more likely that the supplier will be irritated and interrupt the negotiation, which is extremely unwise. If you want your negotiation strategy to be closer to reality and hit the opponent's vitals more effectively, then understanding the interests and needs of the negotiating partner is indispensable. Effectively defining the interests of the other party can avoid this situation and at the same time provide a basis for our choice of negotiation strategy.For example, the purchaser of the other party purchases parts and components of a commodity in Japan at a relatively cheap price. However, due to the complexity of international transportation, it takes a lot of trouble in the middle, and often causes interruptions in the supply of parts and components, so that the company often faces production crises. In order to solve this problem problem, the other side negotiated with us. Since we are a local company, the quality of our products is comparable to parts imported from Japan, and the transportation is more convenient, and we can also save a lot of transportation costs. After understanding these situations, how should we define the interests of the other party?There are at least three expected benefits: first, to ensure stable and timely supply, which is the most important; second, the product quality meets the expected requirements, otherwise the other party will import from Japan; third, the price is reasonable, which is almost Interest requirements involved in any business negotiation.Now, we can further analyze, what strategy we should adopt.Objectively speaking, the second and third items of the other party's expected interests are just a basis, and they are not the focus of the other party's negotiation interests.When we meet the other party's product quality requirements, we can highlight the stability and timeliness of our supply and provide convenient services to the other party. From this point, we can meet the core interests and expectations of the other party.Then, we can increase the price appropriately - which is obviously a core interest on our side.Of course, in this case, as long as the price is reasonable, the other party will usually not refuse to make a deal. In this way, the negotiation will be easy and smooth.In short, negotiators must recognize the interests expected by the negotiating party, which is the basis for us to carry out effective negotiation work. Negotiation is to exchange the interests of the negotiating parties to a certain extent and in a certain way, and at the same time, the giving and taking of both parties are corresponding.The buyer has to take out a certain bargaining chip from his own side to attract the seller; correspondingly, the seller must clearly state his own conditions to ensure that it is attractive to the buyer.Each party uses some chips or conditions to exchange, and when both parties are mutually satisfied with each other's chips or conditions, the negotiation will reach an agreement. Whether it is in sales or marketing, there is a saying, that is, don't give too much benefit to customers, you must extract the best one, and then use it to attract your customers.Does our negotiation have the same reason?The answer is yes.Let's look at common marketing practices first. There is a saying in marketing: the more good products there are, the less customers know how to choose; the more benefits a product has, the more it confuses customers, and finally they don’t know what to choose.The result of this hesitation will disappoint you.The customer will tell you: I have to think about it, let’s talk about it next time, then push open the door and disappear in front of your eyes forever. No one has to struggle to buy a product.Brainstorming is what happens in the office, and that means nervousness.Correspondingly, there is only one way to reassure customers of all doubts: Give your product a unique benefit—a benefit so compelling that the customer has to buy it. The benefit of Colgate instilling in consumers is: "Our goal is to have no tooth decay". This simple and clear concept has helped Colgate a lot.For another example, Procter & Gamble's promotion is "no dandruff". Procter & Gamble conducted a survey among primary school students, asking "what is the most embarrassing", and 90% of the answers were "dandruff". This concept became the best selling point at that time. .Zhang Ruimin, president of Haier Group, said that in modern enterprise competition, the most important thing is to create a belief or "concept". If there is no "concept" to convey, how much money is spent is meaningless. Sales activities need to better refine and use the unique "benefits" of the products being promoted, and use this as a breakthrough to launch product introductions. Of course, an attractive concept is only one of the means of sales, and it is far from enough to rely on a certain advantage to gain the approval of customers.It is necessary to organically combine the basic elements of product promotion, price, and quality to make it a whole, to realize the integration and complementarity of advantages, to meet the requirements of customers in all aspects, and to fully influence customers' concepts and cultivate their sense of identity with products. All of the above actually illustrate a point of view: Giving customers only one of the most attractive benefits is far more convincing than saying a lot of discounts and functions. The same principle exists in negotiation: you may say, I have the lowest price, so you better accept me - if you are negotiating with someone who is particularly price-conscious. You can also say: my product is of good quality, and it can solve all the doubts the other party has ever had in terms of quality.This statement is so attractive to the other party that you don't even need to consider how expensive the price is. Think about it, the quality is good, of course the price is expensive.If the other party has indeed had quality troubles, then your formulation will also give you a dominant position in the negotiation. The other party enters into a transaction with you, the purpose of which is to solve their own problems.You should focus on the other party's problem and highlight your advantages. There are many other aspects, such as services, technology transfer and so on.You never need to satisfy your negotiating counterparty in every way, in fact, you can't!All you need to do is to use a certain unique benefit to meet the greatest needs of the other party. 但是，你必须记住，你不可以擅自决断你的“好处”，你必须进行充分的调查论证。当你提出某一项好处时，这个好处必须是符合对方的需求的，而且正好可以解决对方最大的问题。否则这个问题将是无效的，它不仅不会给你带来帮助，反而会给你带来阻碍——这不是什么大道理，而是常识。 20世纪40年代中期，霍华.休斯制作了一部电影，请美国电影明星珍.拉塞尔主演，并签订了一个一年100万美元的合约。12个月后，拉塞尔找到休斯：“我想依照合约规定得到我的钱。”而休斯却说，他现在没有现金，只能拿不动产做抵押。拉塞尔根本不听休斯的任何借口，她只要属于自己的钱。休斯一再对她说明目前资金短缺，要她再等一等。而拉塞尔则指出合约上清楚地说明一年后付款，她的要求合理合法。双方的要求无法和解，争执越来越大。 于是在一种咄咄逼人的敌对状况下，各自找来了律师，看来似乎只有诉诸公堂才能解决问题。但是后来拉塞尔改变了主意，她对休斯说：“你我是不同的人，有不同的奋斗目标，让我们看看能不能在互相信任的气氛下分享信息、情感和需要呢？”休斯表示同意这一提议。双方彼此合作，创造性地提出了一个能满足双方需要的方案。他们将原来的合约改为以20年为期，每年付款5万美元。合约上的总金额不变，但付款的时间变了，结果是休斯解决了资金周转困难的问题，并获得了本金的利息。拉塞尔的所得税逐年分期交纳，减轻了税额，因而也获利。双方不仅保住了面子，而且也摆脱了诉讼纠纷。真可谓双方合作，满足了不同利益的需要，都是大赢家。 这就是双赢的结局。这种结局是谈判双方都希望得到的一种结局。 谈判的奥妙在于人们的需要。 唇枪舌剑、不屈不挠是为了需要，满面春风、携手共庆也是为了需要；故布疑阵、暗渡陈仓是为了需要，开诚布公、坦率直叙也是为了需要；委曲求全、言辞谦恭是为了需要，义无反顾、据理力争更是为了需要。需要是旋转的魔方；需要是谈判运作的答案；需要是人们谈判的目的；需要是一种谈判的策略。不明对方的需要，也就不能更好地满足自己的需要；探明对方的需要，才能更好地满足自己的需要。 满足需要的谈判策略所强调的是以信任为基础，使双方建立起真诚的关系，从而使自己的需要都能得到满足。在这方面，美国着名谈判大师荷伯.科恩可以说更是技高一筹。 利用荷伯.科恩出差之际，其家人几经讨论，决定再购买一台RCA的VHS自由选放功能的录像机和一台新力牌的21英寸遥控电视机，并一致推举荷伯为代表去购买。荷伯回家后听说此事，当然不反对，并欣然前往商店选购。 然而，最大的困难是时间。因为大多数商店是在9时才开始营业，而荷伯已答应小儿子，11时带他去看足球赛。这就是说，必须在11时前完成购买录像机和电视机的任务。时间太紧，来不及搜集更多的资料。不过不要紧，荷伯知道自己该怎么办：要用合理的价钱买到质量好的录像机和电视机，更重要的是要送货到家安装好，随时可以使用。前往商店的途中，荷伯对自己说：“荷伯，你并不需要一项非常漂亮的交易，只要不被吉尼斯记录上记载你是世界上花最多的钱买一套录像机的人就可以了。所以你必须冷静地行事。” 装着是闲逛的人，荷伯在早晨9点20分进入商店大门，对老板笑着打招呼：“嗨，早啊！”“你早！”老板回答，“可以为您效劳吗？”“噢，我只是随便逛逛。”因为荷伯是店里唯一的顾客，所以，他以友善的态度和老板交谈。荷伯向老板询问附近新开业的购物中心对他的生意是否有影响。老板肯定地说：“生意是清淡了些，因为这家购物中心刚刚开业。但我认为生意迟早会来——你知道，人们对新的事物总是好奇的，去了之后就没有什么吸引力了，你不这样认为吗？” 荷伯点头同意。在看到电视机及录像机时，荷伯也透露出对录像机有些兴趣，并借着询问的机会，建立起一点关系。 老板谈到他的一些问题：“我不懂这儿的人为什么喜欢用信用卡，好像政府印的钞票不够用似的，他们使用一次，我就等于多一次损失。”在友好的对话中，荷伯用手指着一台录像机问道：“嗯，这东西怎么用啊？我最怕电子产品，交流电与直流电有什么不同我都不太清楚。”接着，老板教荷伯如何使用它。 “这就是个现成的例子，”他说，“在隔壁的那个购物中心开业之前，常有大公司的高级职员到这儿，一买就是两三台。开业之后，就没有这样的主顾了。”接着老板的话题，荷伯问：“如果他们一次买两三台，你也和大公司一样另外再给折扣吗？”“是啊！”他答道：“只要买的东西多，我总会优惠些的。”老板在花了整整15分钟教荷伯怎样使用录像机后，荷伯问：“哪种牌子的录像机最好啊？”“当然是这台，RCA的，我自己家里用的就是这种型号，很不错。”老板毫不迟疑地回答。当时时间为9点45分，他们已经进入了直呼名字的阶段：约翰和荷伯。他们已建立了一层关系，荷伯还知道了老板的问题及需求。 此时，荷伯觉得已奠定了谈判的基础，于是，他以谦卑的口吻说：“嗯，我不知道这玩艺儿要花多少钱，我一点儿概念都没有。但是，约翰，我希望能多少支持一点你的生意，这玩艺儿多少钱你最清楚。这样吧，就像我信任你所推荐的牌子，我也相信你会给我一个公道的价钱，我不跟你还价。告诉我一个合理的数字，我现在就付钱。” “谢谢你，荷伯。”约翰说道，既愉快又客气。荷伯继续用随和的口吻说：“别客气啦，我知道我可以信任你，约翰，感觉上我好像早就认识你了。我对你开的价钱绝无疑问，虽然别的大商店可能有较便宜的价钱，但我喜欢和你做生意。”这时，约翰写了一个数字，虽然他的左手挡住了荷伯的视线。“我希望你有合理的利润，约翰。当然，我也希望得到合理的价钱。”此时，荷伯继续透露更多的信息：“等一等，如果我连这台新力牌21英寸电视机一块儿买的话，总价会不会便宜一些？”“你说是两套一起买？”“是啊，我记得你提过一次买多一些，可以有一些优惠的。”荷伯温和地回答。“当然啦！”约翰说：“请稍等一下，让我把两个价钱加一加。” 正当约翰要告诉荷伯价钱时，荷伯说：“还有件事我要确定一下，我希望付你公平的价钱——对彼此都公平的价钱。并且，如果3个月后我再到公司购买同样的东西，你会按照同样的价钱给我，对吗？”当荷伯说话时，他已觉察到约翰正把刚写好的数字划掉了。“但是，如果价钱不合理，另外两套东西我只好换个地方买了。”“当然啦！”约翰答道：“我到后面去一下，马上回来。”一会儿，约翰回来了，手上写着另外一个数字。按照先前约翰告诉荷伯的情况，荷伯问道：“我在想你刚才所说的话，关于你急需现金的问题。我突然想到，原先我准备使用信用卡的，但是……付你现金的话，对你是不是比较方便？”“是啊！”他答道：“尤其是现在，可以帮我大忙。” 约翰一边说着，一边又涂改了一次数字。“你会替我安装吗？你知道，我马上就要出差了”，荷伯说。“没问题，都交给我吧！”“谢谢啦，多少钱啊？”约翰报了价：1528.3元。稍后，荷伯得知，这是最合理的价钱。荷伯去银行提了款，回来将钱交给约翰。此时的时间为10点5分。任务圆满完成。 后来，约翰为荷伯装好了设备，还免费赠送了一个放录像带的架子，2个月以后，荷伯也为自己的公司在该店买了相同的产品。从此，两人成了很好的朋友。