Latest / Closing the Deal with Fexingo: Sales, Negotiation, and Revenue Conversations for Operators / Why Less Is More in Sales Negotiation
Transcript
- Lucas: I want to talk about something that sounds like bad advice at first but actually works — deliberately withholding information during a negotiation. Luna: Withholding? As in, not being transparent? Lucas: Exactly. I know it feels counterintuitive because we're taught that good sales is about building trust through openness. But there's a specific scenario where giving the buyer too much information backfires — and it's more common than you'd think. Luna: Give me an example. Lucas: I was talking to a founder of a SaaS company last week. They lost a five-hundred-thousand-dollar deal because the sales rep sent over a detailed pricing sheet with three tiers — bronze, silver, gold — including every feature comparison and add-on cost. The buyer took two weeks, came back, and said 'we need to go with the bronze tier at a twenty percent discount.' The rep had no room to negotiate because the buyer already knew the full cost structure. Luna: So sharing everything upfront actually weakened their position. Lucas: Exactly. The buyer anchored on the lowest option and then pushed for a discount. If the rep had only presented one option — say, a custom package at the five-hundred-thousand-dollar level — the buyer would have had nothing to compare it to. They might have negotiated, but they wouldn't have started from the bottom. Luna: But isn't that manipulative? I mean, if the buyer later finds out there was a cheaper option, they'd feel tricked. Lucas: That's the key distinction. It's not about hiding material information. It's about controlling the sequence and scope of what you reveal. In the SaaS case, the rep could have said, 'Based on your needs, I recommend this custom package. Let me walk you through what's included.' If the buyer later asks, 'Do you have a lower tier?' you can introduce it then — but now you're framing it as a concession, not the starting point. Luna: So you're not lying, you're just managing the order in which information appears. Lucas: Right. And there's actually some solid research behind this. A study from Harvard Business School a few years ago looked at how many options you should present in a negotiation. They found that when buyers were given two options, they were more likely to choose the cheaper one. When given just one option, they negotiated harder but ended up paying closer to the asking price. Luna: So less choice leads to better outcomes for the seller. Lucas: Yes, but with a caveat. The one option has to be well-justified. You can't just drop a number and say 'take it or leave it.' You need to walk through the value — why this particular scope, why this price. If you do that well, the buyer's focus shifts from 'which option should I pick?' to 'is this worth it?' Luna: That reminds me of something Amazon does. When you're checking out, they don't show you multiple shipping options upfront. They just show you the default — usually free shipping if you're a Prime member. You have to click a button to see faster, paid options. Lucas: Great example. Amazon is masterful at this. The default path is frictionless and presents one option. Only if you specifically seek alternatives do you get them. That's not deceptive — it's design. And it works because most people just go with the default. Luna: But isn't this more about e-commerce than B2B sales? In B2B, you have procurement teams that demand full transparency. Lucas: That's a fair pushback. Procurement processes often require an RFP with full pricing. But even then, you can control the framing. Instead of listing ten line items, you can bundle them into three logical packages. Or you can include a 'recommended' option that's clearly the best value. You're still being transparent — you're just guiding the narrative. Luna: What about salary negotiations? I've heard advice that you should never be the first to throw out a number. Lucas: That's a related concept. The anchoring effect is powerful. If you state a number first, it anchors the conversation. But there's a twist — if you're well-prepared and your number is ambitious but defensible, going first can actually work in your favor. A study from Columbia Business School showed that when job candidates stated a salary range first, they ended up with higher offers than those who waited. Luna: So it's not about withholding information per se, it's about strategically disclosing it. Lucas: Exactly. And the key is to know what information to hold back and when to release it. In the SaaS deal I mentioned, the rep could have withheld the lower tiers until after the buyer had already agreed on the value of the premium package. Instead, they gave the buyer a menu to choose from, and the buyer chose the cheapest item. Luna: I've also seen cases where salespeople share too much about their own constraints. Like, 'Our quarter ends next week, so I can give you a discount.' That's giving away leverage. Lucas: Classic mistake. Never reveal your deadlines or quotas. The buyer will use that against you. I've seen reps lose thousands because they mentioned they needed to close by Friday. Luna: So the rule of thumb might be: share only what strengthens your position, and let the buyer ask for what they need. Lucas: That's a good heuristic. And if they ask for something you're not ready to share, you can say, 'Let me think about that and get back to you.' That buys you time to frame it properly. Luna: You know, I've been thinking about this episode. If today's conversation was worth a coffee to you, there's a link — buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It's a small way to keep these episodes ad-free and coming. Lucas: Yeah, we really appreciate it. Every bit helps us keep the conversation going. Now, back to the negotiation tactics. Another technique I want to highlight is something called 'bracketing.' Luna: What's that? Lucas: It's when you strategically withhold your walk-away point and instead propose a range that's higher than what you expect. For example, if you want a hundred thousand dollars, you might say, 'I'm looking for something in the one-ten to one-twenty range.' The other side will likely counter lower, but you've already shifted their anchor upward. Luna: So you're essentially hiding your true bottom line and using a range to manipulate the starting point. Lucas: Exactly. And it's not deceptive because you're not lying — you genuinely would accept one-ten or one-twenty. You just prefer one-twenty. The key is that you never reveal your reservation price. The moment you do, the negotiation is over. Luna: What about when the buyer asks directly, 'What's your best price?' That happens all the time. Lucas: That's a tough one. If you give a number, you've disclosed your floor. If you deflect, you might seem evasive. One approach is to respond with, 'What are you looking to spend?' That shifts the burden back to them. Or you can say, 'Our best price depends on the scope and timeline. Let me understand your needs first.' Luna: So you're withholding until you have more information. Lucas: Right. And usually, if you press them for their budget, they'll give you a number — and that becomes your anchor. Now you know what they're willing to pay, and you can tailor your offer accordingly. Luna: But what if they won't give a number? Some buyers are trained to never reveal their budget. Lucas: Then you have to use other signals. Ask about their timeline, their decision criteria, their alternatives. Every piece of information helps you calibrate what to withhold and when to disclose. The goal is to always have more information than the other party. Luna: That sounds like a power dynamic. Is this ethical? Lucas: It's ethical as long as you're not misrepresenting facts. Information asymmetry is natural — you know your product and costs better than the buyer. They know their needs and budget better than you. The negotiation is about gradually aligning those two knowledge bases. You're not required to dump everything on the table at once. Luna: I think the line is crossed when you actively deceive. But if you're just choosing what to say and when, that's strategy. Lucas: Exactly. And the best negotiators I've seen are masters of timing. They know that information released too early loses its power. It's like a magician revealing a trick before the show — the magic is gone. Luna: So let's say I'm a sales rep listening to this. What's one concrete change I can make tomorrow? Lucas: Stop sending full pricing sheets in your first email. Instead, send a proposal with one recommended option and a brief explanation of why it's the best fit. If they ask for alternatives, then you can share them. But by then, you've already framed the conversation around value, not price. Luna: And in a salary negotiation? Lucas: If you're the candidate, don't disclose your current salary if you can avoid it. Instead, say, 'I'm looking for a role that compensates fairly for the value I bring. Based on market data, I'm targeting a range of X to Y.' And if you're the employer, don't reveal your budget too early. Ask the candidate what they're looking for first. Luna: So it's about holding your cards close until the right moment. Lucas: Exactly. And the best part is, this approach often leads to better outcomes for both sides. When you focus on value instead of options, the buyer feels more confident in their decision. They're not second-guessing whether they should have picked a different tier. Luna: That's a good note to end on. Less really can be more. Lucas: It can. And it's a skill you can practice. Start small — next time someone asks for a menu of options, try offering just one. See what happens. I think you'll be surprised.