I think it’s something else. If you sell me a thing and we both agree the price is fair, then I have no problem with that. It’s when you then try to exert ongoing control or establish an ongoing revenue stream from me that I have a problem with.
Can you elaborate on this? If you bought something from me then I think you paid too much and you think that you paid too little. That's, like, how buying things works. I wouldn't sell it to you if I thought you were paying too little and you wouldn't buy it from me if you thought you were paying too much.
If I'm meeting with you to sell you something, it's because we agreed on a price already. If you try to bargain with me after the fact, I'll just say "No," and leave. You've violated my trust and broken the deal.
If I buy something from you for $10 and then sell it to someone else for $15, I haven't taken anything away from you. You have your price and I have mine.
I believe not giving you a fair price is the goal there. A fair price would mean leaving money on the table. Your money, which you probably should not have, especially when it's something they're helping you make.
Some businesses think of you from the perspective of partners. Others think of you from the perspective of farmers or ranchers, where they try to pen you in and extract what they want, but understand the necessity of at least some investment on their part. And then there are those who are more like poachers.
I understand that must be frustrating as a seller, and perhaps the balance has shifted too far, but consumer history has taught us that having this relationship tilted in favour of the buyer is a good thing.
gosh I agree so much, I feel like sellers that expect customers to negotiate often would inflate the price to account for any potential negotiation, (So they can meet the customer in the middle). This means I have to spend time and energy to negotiate the price just to get a fair price, which I'm not really good at.
Not OP, but I feel similarly and for me it's because the information assymmetry is a deliberate way to give advantage to the seller. I also perceive deliberate lack of transparency as dishonest and exploitative. If you can't give me a price upfront, I probably don't want to do business with you.
That may not be entirely fair, but that is my perception
I also don't like doing business with people I can't trust on a handshake.
Contracts IMO should really only formalize the implicit understanding of expected boundaries to be followed by both parties. If you're the type of person to seek advantage when an unexpected situation comes up, I don't really want to do business with you.
I don’t think that’s crazy. I think most people think it’s fair that the plumbing between their decision and the action shouldn’t be used to profit from them. Of course it happens in tons of ways. But that’s the general feeling. They want to see an order book, and if the book quotes X price, the seller won’t change it when they click the Buy button, etc.
The interesting thing is: One fundamental concept in my head is: If you don't negotiate the price of your service early on, I'm growing suspicious.
In a buisness context, people are either excited enough to be scary, or they have a material reason to do things. This tends to boil down to complicated reasons, or money. So if someone is upfront about just wanting money, I suppose he is fine, as long as I pay him well or he has little ability to backstab me.
Thus, I like this attitude, I have to say. Get clear about what you give me and what I give you, so this roadblock is out of the way.
If a store’s prices are too high, do you feel entitled to shoplift because it sends them a message?
The world operates on contracts, and we are all free to decline to do business with companies we dislike or who ask more than we think their product is worth.
Agree to terms or don’t, but I have a hard time seeing “I’m going to take what they’re offering but not pay what they’re asking” as some kind of noble stand.
I agree. Trying to think of why, I think I often see it as a reflection of dishonesty on the part of the seller, or aggressive behavior on the part of the buyer.
If a seller can't set a fair honest nominal price, in the expectation of haggling, it reduces my trust of them in other ways.
There are situations where negotiating makes sense, but often sellers should assume their list price is what they've negotiated.
This is completely backward. Your perceived worth is tied to your price. You will literally get better treatment and more respect by negotiating a better price.
Not negotiating just makes you look like you don't understand business and shouldn't be trusted with any business decisions.
I think it could work out as long as you know what you are willing to accept. If somebody demands a discount from you, just tell them no. If somebody you up demanding that you drop everything to work on their problem right then, just let them know that you are concerned about their problem, when you except to try and deal with it, and quickly cut the conversation short.
As long as you deal with them in a way that is acceptable to you, you have lost almost nothing selling them a product once if they treat you badly. And you have gained some money, and as PG said if you treat them fairly and very nicely, they might change.
reply