If I may stick my foot in my mouth, as they say, I am assuming Darryl's (topic) question, 'How do you talk the price down?' stems from the belief that the (any) asking price is likely too high to begin with.
That may very well be the case and, if so, for me it begs the question, "Why"? Why must sellers be convinced they always risk being "talked down" in price, while buyers continue to believe list prices are always "too high"? Why is this culture supported? Why would this behavior be encouraged?
There is a truth that value is established through purchase (we can banter all day long about value proposition and market rates but, in the end, the value is set by what the buyer was willing to pay). As a result, some have suggested that price is *always* negotiable. I have found that not to be the case and have worked diligently to better understand the process.
Having some fun, consider the differences in the following buying scenarios:
I
need something you have...but you aren't selling...
I
want something you have...but you aren't selling...
a. I am willing to go to any lengths to procure what you have.
b. I am willing to go to any legal lengths to procure what you have.
c. I have my pride and there are certain depths to which I will not descend.
d. I am willing to not have what you have.
I need or want something you are selling, but I believe the asking price is too high...
a. I will only purchase it if I believe it is a "good deal".
b. I will only purchase it if it is "on sale".
c. I will only feel as though I have lived if I can talk you out of your unrighteous profit.
d. I cannot afford your price and ask you to make special consideration for me.
e. I buy what you are selling.
Prices are often artificially (dishonestly, anyone?) inflated with the full expectation that "negotiating" may well result in a sales price being lower that the asking price. This negotiation is elevated to art form status and is fodder for countless jokes, stories, movies, books and training seminars. Typically, the objective of the seller is to get as much as possible, with the buyer's objective being diametrically opposed. I say 'typically' as this is not always the case. It is the atypical story that fascinates and inspires me.
Throughout my life I have witnessed a seemingly "natural" adversarial relationship between buyers and sellers (labor and management, husbands and wives, cats and dogs, etc.
) where both parties begin their encounter with distrust. The seller has been ingrained with the maxim, 'Buyers are liars' and the buyer knows for certain the seller is trying to 'rip them off'. Thus begins the cage fight. Each combatant circles the other, bringing their negotiating skills to bear with the intent of walking away the winner. I have identified three types of "fighters":
1. The addict - they live for the fight
2. The hopeful - one day they may actually land a "win"
3. The unwilling - they are in attendance because that is how everybody says the game must be played
I would propose the notion of a winner at the expense of a loser is ultimately counter-productive (personally, socially, economically) and realize I may have a bit of a minority view.
Some have suggested a sales / purchasing strategy known as "win / win", where both parties walk away believing they have achieved their objectives. All too often, the operative word in this scenario is 'believing', and results in more training in techniques intended to convince (deceive?) the other party that the deal is going to work to their advantage.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" makes for an interesting maxim with regards to buying and selling. If you are looking forward to always being treated as though you are a predator (whether buyer or seller), then prey on.
Christopher