[bmcleod]

Learning particular techniques is a fun part of negotiating, but it's actually not a particularly important part of it. In the long run you'll be better off if you use these a little bit (any more and your start pissing people off), but the focus needs to still be on simple things like leverage, BATNA etc.

A lot of these ploys are becoming far too well known as well. For instance, nibbling seems to be in every negotiation book ever and it's really obvious when someone pulls it.

As a side note I continue to not understand people who don't like making the first offer, the evidence against it is very flimsy and it lets you frame the conversation. It only fails miserably if you accidentally come in under what the other party was expecting. Research should allow you to avoid that and in all other cases you'll get a slightly better deal.

Possibly the most important part of looking at lists like this is working out how to counter them rather than how to utilize them yourself.

[skmurphy]

I agree, you have to distinguish between situations where the negotiation is a prelude to a longer term relationship (e.g. selling someone a SaaS subscription) and where it's more likely a one time transaction (e.g. selling a used car). If you are negotiating with another experienced party then Nibbling, Higher authority, Flinch, Play dumb, adding details not agreed to, Red herring, Reluctant buyer, and Want it all are likely to slow things down or convince them that they don't want a long term business relationship with you.

[bdclimber14]

I strongly disagree with the first offer remark. Generally most negotiations start with some sort of frame, but it can be vague. Consider a salary negotiation for a entry-level software engineering position. Both parties know generally what the range could be. In Arizona, it is roughly $40k to $100k. That's a fairly big range. The first offer always narrows this range. If the applicant said he was looking for at least $50k, then the employer would magically be right inline with that (assuming their willingness was at least that) when they may have well had an expected range of up to $80k.

If the first offer is wildly favorable for the receiving party, you generally hear "that's about what I was thinking too." I've used that phrase plenty of times when in reality I was thinking a fraction of what they said.

[bmcleod]

If you do your research you should know that range already. In which case open with 80-100 or more depending on the company and the arguments you can make to back up your value. If you do this then you've fixed the entire discussion at the high end. If the other party opens with say 50k then it's going to be very hard to argue it up to 80k.

As I said, you do have to research things first and if you really don't know then you just have to wait for the other guy to name something first. Since you don't know they can name whatever they like.

[tomjen3]

I too would have done that a few months ago but after that article on HN about how it hurts developers to not talk about their salary I would have found the range and demanded 130k, then accepted 110k which would have been better than the offer I would have gotten under if I had them saying 80k.

[cookiecaper]

Pretty sad that you would screw your employees like that.

Also, if you have two people who both know this rule to never make the first offer, you aren't going to get anywhere. Someone has to man up and produce a number that's at least vaguely realistic.

[bdclimber14]

I'm not sure why you think I'm screwing over employees; I don't have any, I am one. This is true that someone has to make the first offer, but I stand by my argument that it's always to your advantage to nudge the other party to go first. If they ask what you need or are expecting, just say "above market rate."

[cookiecaper]

You're exploiting the naivety of your candidates by pretending that their initial offer is "about what you were thinking", even though it was really much lower. You should pay a fair salary even if your candidates are naive about what actually constitutes a fair salary. You're screwing over the people whose salaries you control by encouraging/allowing them to take a much worse offer just because they didn't know any better. Why is this good?

[bdclimber14]

I see what you're saying, but let me reiterate, I've only done this on the receiving end as an applicant, candidate, potential employee. Saying "about what I was thinking" is something I say when I would take a job for $500, but they offer $2,000. Am I screwing over an employer by encouraging and allowing them to pay me that much?