Blog

If rumours of a potential deal between Facebook and Spotify are true then it’s easy to see the attractions on both sides.

Facebook gets to bolt on a ready-made populist music service. Spotify suddenly has access to a major global platform as an incentive to tip the Majors into allowing it into the US. One issue that could arise is that the Majors seem keen to ensure that any US version of the service is paid for.

However, Facebook users will expect the service to be free – after all they don’t have to pay for anything else on Facebook. They are though, used to seeing adverts. Spotify of course became successful very quickly by launching primarily as a free service (with adverts).

Spotify has seemingly been torn between keeping the free element and migrating the service to a premium one – it can’t really afford the Major’s advances/guarantees and royalties unless it does. On the other hand a deal with Facebook could turn that logic on its head, and Spotify may argue that if it is going to deliver potential access to hundreds of millions of users then the free model is the way to go.

In response to article here (techland.time.com)

The Palestinian stated aim of going to the UN in September to seek a resolution in favour of statehood is classic pressure tactic. It puts the US somewhat on the horns of a dilemma. Back such a resolution and they would be accused of endorsing terrorism (as things stand Hamas is back in the fold as a participant in the Palestinian Authority). Veto any such resolution and the US will be accused of being insincere about finding a resolution that addresses Palestinian needs. It’s small wonder that the US is currently spending a lot of energy trying to move Middle East negotiations forward.

This kind of pressure tactic has its dangers though. First the US may not like being put under pressure – few of us do. This may undo some US goodwill that presently exists towards the Palestinian cause.

Secondly going to the UN may not secure the Palestinians the kind of decisive resolution they want. Once the UN is debating the issue all sorts of political self-interest and horse trading between countries will influence the outcome – none of which the Palestinians can control.

Thirdly, Israel is unlikely to be moved by any such resolution – quite the reverse. Ultimately this conflict can only be resolved by the parties themselves wanting peace. In order to achieve that all concerned, including the US and the Palestinians should be working on incentivising that state of mind rather than using pressure tactics.

In response to article here (thespec.com)

Often pressure tactics can create more problems than they solve. That applies here too, whether it’s the players and their Association taking matters through the Courts or the owners staging lockouts. Use of pressure is a legitimate negotiating tactic but you have to be careful in its use.

Firstly it always risks de-railing the climate of the negotiation as this is “push” behaviour and nobody likes being pushed around, so it raises the temperature.

Secondly, if you are going to exert this kind of pressure, you have to be prepared to see it all the way through. If you start and then back off, the other side will think you are not serious and your negotiation authority is undermined.

So, in this case the players have to be prepared potentially to run actions all the way through the Courts, at enormous cost and risk, and the owners have to be prepared to proceed with lockouts for as long as it takes. Whilst all that is going on, energy is diverted away from the real task at hand, namely to find a negotiated or mediated solution that meets everybody’s needs.

In response to article here (nashvillecitypaper.com)

The latest problems concerning the Greek bail-out are not a surprise.

From a negotiating point of view it’s critical the other side believes what you say. This is an ongoing negotiation between the Financial Markets and the Eurozone countries in which the Markets do not believe what the Eurozone countries and their financial institutions are saying. They do not believe that struggling countries like Greece will meet their debt reduction targets. Nor do they believe that the Eurozone will keep pumping in money indefinitely to support these failing economies.

So, the Markets will keep putting on pressure to raise interest rates in these countries until their debt becomes completely unsustainable. The only answer is surely to:

1) Negotiate a restructuring of the debt for countries like Greece so that it actually reduce in size
2) Tackle a reform of the Euro currency head-on, possibly including releasing countries like Greece from the currency.

This might trigger a short term panic as the current debt holders have to take a haircut on their loans, but if it’s part of a believable reform package going forward, it might just work. Once the pretense is dropped that struggling economies like Greece and Portugal are sufficiently aligned to that of Euro giants such as Germany that they can form part of the same currency, then the markets may start believing in the Euro again.

It looks as though preliminary talks are taking place between US representatives and the Taliban to try to initiate a negotiated peace agreement or ‘power-sharing’ deal in Afghanistan. It would be great to believe that these peace talks could get somewhere but it seems unlikely at the moment.

The Taliban have no need to negotiate given that the allies have made clear they will be exiting Afghanistan soon in any event. They can just sit it out. The Taliban also don’t have a coherent leadership structure – how can you negotiate when you don’t really know who is leading the other team?

The Allied team is also likely to be highly disunited as there is luke-warm commitment to Karzai’s somewhat unreliable regime, and yet its involvement in any negotiations is pretty essential. In addition, the climate of the negotiation must be awful after 10 years of military action by the US and UK. This kind of “hostile” climate cannot be re-set just like that.

Miracles can happen in negotiations but the set-up here is far from ideal.

The key comment in the excellent article “Dealing with kidnappers” by Hazel Davis (ft.com) comes when hostage negotiator, Dr James Alvarez, remarks that “people’s behaviour isn’t random. There’s a psycho-logic usually, but finding this out comes from listening and having a quick mind”.

Everybody has certain filters through which they interpret the world which become ingrained as patterns of thought or “Meta-Programmes”, and it’s these patterns of thought which determine our behaviour.

You can often pick these patterns up through the language people use. For example, some people interpret the world through their emotions or senses – they will say things like “It doesn’t feel right” or “Something smells fishy”. Some people filter the world through mental pictures, and will say things like “that looks great” or “I get the picture”. Some people interpret the world through auditory cues – they may say things like “I hear what you say” or “tell me more about…”.

There are many other such programmes. Some people think in big chunks, and some prefer to focus on detail. Some people are optimistic; some always think disaster is just around the corner. Some move towards outcomes; others like to avoid them.

As a negotiator it’s really important to pick up these cues. If you can interpret them correctly you can then model your own behaviour and language so that you match the “programme” being displayed on the other side. This will make it more likely that you are able to influence them, as you will be using the same cues that they use to interpret the world.

The stakes may be much higher in kidnap negotiations but the process of interpreting what makes the other side tick is the […]

It may or may not be true that the Libyan Government is negotiating with the rebels. In some ways it is hard to believe since the Government has adopted a classic “loser” stance in its battle with the rebels. It knows it cannot win so it becomes more important to inflict damage on the other side then to try and negotiate a solution that would suit both sides.

That attitude is the product of the allies view towards Libya, which now seems resolved that Gaddafi should be removed by military force. The adoption of this attitude really leaves the Libyan Government with nowhere to go, because even if it tries to broker a peace with the rebels, the allies couldn’t stand by and allow a deal to be created which would somehow leave Gaddafi in power of some or all of the country. That would contradict all the military effort and expense of trying to remove him, and their very public statements about the need for Gaddafi to go.

So, as in day-to-day deal-making, the adoption of a very public “no compromise” approach, as the allies have adopted here, makes it hard for either side to negotiate a compromise in which they both get something out of a deal…

The stalemate in the OPEC talks shows how important it is to address the negotiating needs of all the members of the team on the other side and not just one of them.

At one level OPEC negotiations are strictly between the member states. But of course there is another unspoken, political, negotiation going on with OPEC’s customers at the same time. Countries in the West are also very dependent on the outcome of this ongoing negotiation.

Much attention is spent by the West on trying to influence the largest supplier, Saudi Arabia. Yet OPEC appears to be a democracy where every member has an equal vote. Looking at the 7 countries who opposed an increase in production we have Iraq (previously invaded by the West), Libya (currently being assaulted by the West), and Iran (the subject of a hostile attitude from the West in relation to its nuclear programme). It’s not difficult to see why those countries would oppose an increase in output on political grounds. As for Ecuador, Venezuela, Algeria and Angola, I don’t know how much time we spend trying to influence them but I suspect they don’t come very high up the agenda of our International Diplomacy efforts.

If you want to negotiate a deal with a team on the other side and they all seem to have a stake in the outcome, then it’s important to identify the negotiation needs of all the members of that team and address those needs – otherwise they may see no requirement to address your needs in return…

There are some very good tips in this article (nytimes.com) about salary negotiation: the importance of preparation, making sure you ask for more than what you want in a deal, and not bluffing about walking away unless you mean it. However, I would question two of the points made:

1. It’s not always a good idea to take the lazy option and “meet in the middle” on price. There’s an old story about two sisters negotiating over who gets the last orange in the bowl. They ended up splitting it in half, but they could have ended up doing a much more creative deal if they had explored each other’s needs, as one of them wanted the rind of the orange to bake a cake, and the other wanted the juice to make a drink.

Next time someone says to you “let’s just split the difference” try saying “let’s not”! They will have given away half of the difference between your two positions without getting anything back, putting you firmly on the front foot in the negotiation.

2. I would also ask whether it is important to “seem fair” when trying to negotiate a compromise. The problem with this can be that there is no objective standard of fairness, so everyone usually thinks they are being “fair” in a negotiation, whatever their position is.

If I say “let’s agree this outcome because it’s fair” this implies that I think that you are being “unfair”. You are unlikely to agree with that judgment and it may irritate you to hear me make that inference. So, sometimes it’s better to avoid references to what is “fair” or “reasonable” when you support your position, as the other side […]

It is true that if you are feeling anxious about a negotiation you are unlikely to achieve your best outcome. Our behaviours are the product of our internal “state” of mind. This state of mind is usually the result of pre-programmed filters which determine how we experience the world. We know for example that if a fire is coming towards us then that represents danger and we should run away. If someone extends their hand by way of greeting we know we should reciprocate in order to shake hands.

These filters can be very helpful, as in the above examples, but they are also capable of giving us a distorted vision of reality which is not helpful at all. So, if we are running a programme which tells us that “negotiation is always difficult and I always do badly. I want it to be over as soon as possible”, then that anxious state will create problems for us. Our bidding will be tentative, our manner uncertain, we may stammer and sweat. The other side will pick up this “anxious” state (consciously or otherwise) and start to push us around. It’s all downhill from there.

If there is a “Nervous Nellie”, as the third article here puts it (knowledge@wharton) in the team then that can affect the attitude of everybody in the team. It depends who has the strongest state. If the Nervous Nellie has the strongest state then they will influence everyone around them. So it’s important to pair such people with those who have a stronger, more assured state of mind…

The good thing is that we can choose to change our state. This is because the brain doesn’t recognise the difference between a “real” programme […]