Blog

Click on photo to access article

It’s good to see see Mahmoud Abbas turning away from violence even if a deal can’t be achieved in the Middle East. He knows that threats of violence have absolutely no impact on Israel and only serve to harden Israeli attitudes.

At the same time going to the UN for a unilateral resolution is not the answer either. Any solution needs the buy-in of all stakeholders, so imposing a solution will not achieve anything. What is needed is time for all relevant parties to realise that peace serves their interests better than war. For that reason it is silly for the Obama administration to set a deadline for September. This conflict has been going on for 3000 years, so it is not going to respond to a US short-term deadline that coincides nicely with their election cycle.

The split with Hamas that is apparently encouraged by Iran shows how difficult it is to get all sides to the table with a common aim of creating peace, and only serves to emphasise the long-term nature of the project.

Expert negotiator Stuart Diamond suggests that maybe giving the two sides some common economic goals to work on would be a great way of moving forward? This would be a way of focusing on common interests which are potentially more powerful than the competing interests which currently divide the two sides.

A response to article (Associated Press)

As the NFL annual draft begins, due to the ongoing labour dispute between team owners and the NFL players, it is still unclear as to whether the new players will even have games to play in come the start of the new season. So far the players have failed to negotiate a new pay deal via their union and have been ‘locked out’ by the owners.

I’m not sure mediation stands much chance of success whilst all parties are more focused on outside-litigious processes to try and give themselves an edge in the negotiation. Mediation requires both sides to want to reach a deal through discussion, rather than continuing to be preoccupied with getting a grip on the other through legal process.

As reported by the New York Times here, there could soon be more parties involved. Some of the players, including New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, have suggested they will hire a law firm to represent their interests in the negotiations.

I’m not convinced it will be helpful to have a law firm in the middle of the mediation. Lawyers often find it difficult to avoid being partisan and confrontational on behalf of their clients. Not a great position from which to mediate, which requires a willingness to suspend hostilities and work collaboratively towards settlement with the other parties.

I’ll be watching this one closely…

Negotiating a settlement seems overwhelmingly the right thing to do in Libya, but it will only work if the Coalition is prepared to meet Gaddafi’s needs for some sort of dignity and security in his exit.

The problem at the moment is that the Coalition doesn’t want to meet any of his needs, and that is why we currently seem to have no option other than to seek a depressing military solution which will require increasing violence and bloodshed to get anywhere. The Coalition’s highly aggressive attitude and public ruling-out of any compromise, has only served to harden Gaddafi’s attitude and resolve to fight to the end.

If necessary I would negotiate with anyone who can persuade Gaddafi to go quietly – including his son, Saif. This would be a far more effective way of ensuring regime change and a much better way of protecting Libya’s citizens, which is what the UN Mandate is meant to be about.

If only it was as simple to envisage a negotiated solution in Afghanistan. The problem here is that the Taliban know that the Coalition forces are going to leave anyway, so they have no reason to negotiate; they can just sit tight and wait for the UK and the US to meet their self-imposed deadlines for withdrawal. Perhaps if we had started talking earlier instead of militarily occupying their country for years we might have got somewhere, but I fear it may be too late now.

In response to two articles here (spectator.co.uk) and here (CNN)

It’s one of the problems of a negotiation where the bargaining phase is drawn out over time that the value of what you are negotiating over can change. If there is a gap between the bargaining phase and the closure phase then the value may go up or down. This can be because of economic factors, changes in personnel, or, as in the case of BSkyB’s potential deal with News Corp, a change in the underlying value of one party or the other.

Normally it’s advisable to get to closure quickly once it looks like there is a deal to be done in principle, for precisely this reason.

It’s difficult to see how this could have been done in the instance of the BSkyB deal though. There was always going to be a big gap before closure was possible because of the need for the competition law issues to be resolved.

Sky’s recent announcement of increased profits and customer numbers (see article here) will inevitably raise the value of the company. The consolation for Murdoch is that as Sky’s value increases so does the value of the percentage of Sky that Newscorp already owns…

Last week it was rumoured in Music Week (here) that deals may be in the pipeline for both Apple (signing licensing deals with the Major labels for their Cloud-based iTunes service) and Google (forming an alliance with Spotify to provide their own music streaming service).

Looking at the motivations which may underlie these potential deals, it’s easy to see why Spotify might want an ally to effect rapid entry into the US. Utilising Google’s negotiating strength might help lower the cost of licensing deals which must be a pressing (reassurance) negotiating need.

It’s also clear that a Google/Spotify deal could suit Google, giving it instant clout in the subscription streaming market to help with its own (achievement-based) negotiating needs.

From Apple’s point of view a cloud-based streaming service would also give it a significant place at the subscription table, which might allay its concerns about the vulnerability of its itunes ‘a la carte’ downloads service as streaming services grow in importance (a reassurance negotiating need).

From the Majors’ point of view, streaming deals with mighty players such as Google and itunes may still be seen as the path to digital salvation (a survival need). However, it remains to be seen whether this is really the case. So far, take up of subscription services has been slow, and by focusing on deals with only the bigger players such as itunes, Google and Amazon, the Majors put themselves in negotiations with parties who are much bigger than they are, and wield a lot of negotiating clout. This has not always worked for them in the physical world (think for example of the tough terms a major player like Tesco is able to impose on them).

Maybe a better route […]

I tend to agree with the view of former US Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab here (foreignaffairs.com) that rather than trying to revive multilateral trade talks, world leaders should instead be focusing on salvaging smaller regional agreements.

One of the problems with multinational negotiations is that they involve so many countries, with many different negotiation needs, so it is very difficult for all the parties to reach a consensus on a common set of issues.

It may be easier to reach a set of regional agreements between countries with broadly similar issues, which could then be linked up in due course to try to achieve a global result. It might also give the process of reaching global accord some forward momentum, and narrow down the range of issues which need to be agreed at an international level…

This could be an interesting negotiation. I can see why News Corp might want to buy the rights – exclusive sports rights have been very helpful in driving TV subscriptions in relation to soccer, for example.

I can also see why Exor could be interested in getting involved as, apart from any other financial benefits, it could provide a way for Ferrari to influence negotiations over commercial revenue splits from the circuit, which currently go through Bernie Eccleston’s F1 Management Company. Those rights are due to be renegotiated within 18 months.

As for CVC Capital Partners, like any VC they might just be looking for a profitable return, having held the rights for some 7 years.

Bernie Ecclestone himself might well have a different view as is suggested by his early comments dismissing rumours of a sale. His motivation is different; Formula 1 provides a major part of his purpose in life and he won’t be keen to let that go. Would he be in a position to stop it though?

Add in the extra ingredients of a possible competition law referral if a sale progresses and a looming German court case over a bribery allegation from the last sale in 2005 and this could be a fascinating negotiation to watch. There could be plenty of car crashes ahead…

Source articles here (Eurosport) and here (autoracingdaily.com)

An understanding of non-verbal communication is a key element in effective negotiation – the statistic that only 7% of the meaning of what we say is conveyed by the words, is often quoted. People often don’t mean what they say in negotiation, so if you understand non-verbal cues you can work out what is going on behind the words being spoken.

Equally, non-verbal indicators are only clues as to what is going on; they are not determinative all by themselves. If someone leans forward that may mean they want to get the deal done or it may mean that they are “pushing” to get their own way. You have to put individual pieces of non-verbal behaviour into context to build up a picture of what may be going on.

Non-verbal cues are particularly important for spotting the way people are thinking. You can sometimes tell from their language and the way they move their eyes whether they work off visual cues, auditory cues, or emotional cues. People who look upwards a lot when they think may be working visually, people who look sideways may be working off auditory cues, and people who look down may use emotional triggers.

If you can work this out, you can utilise language which is likely to influence the other side in a negotiation because it triggers the cues which inform their thinking process.

In response to the article ‘Actions speak louder’ by Mike Utting (supplymanagement.com)

If you want to negotiate, it’s always important to “close the deal” when there is an opportunity to do so.

If you don’t you risk the possibility that you may lose the deal or receive less value than was initially on the table. There may be an element of this going on in the Fabregas transfer saga. If a deal drags on the other side can suffer buyer’s remorse, or come to value the asset they are negotiating for differently. Or economic factors may come to influence the other side’s thinking differently, or they may develop other deal priorities (Sanchez? Rossi?). Judging by the public statements coming from Barcelona it may be that they do now value the player differently than they did last year, when there was clearly an opportunity to close the deal which Arsenal rejected.

Of course last year Arsenal didn’t want to negotiate, but you have to think these stances through to the end. If a player really doesn’t want to stay at a club then that will be reflected in his performances, and arguably that happened with Fabregas last season. Now when it sounds like they might be prepared to consider a deal, Arsenal find that the ground has shifted and it may not be so easy to close the deal at a price that they want. Closure is a fluid moment – it’s generally best to bottle that moment and get the best deal done whilst you can.