When a buyer requests to reduce deal scope late in a negotiation (e.g., halving the user count), don't just cut the price in half. Explain that your pricing is based on volume. Frame the change as a fundamental shift in the deal's economics, which will increase the per-unit cost, making the smaller deal less attractive and protecting your original proposal.

Related Insights

When a prospect says your price is too high, reframe the conversation away from cost. Ask them, 'Independent of price, are we the vendor of choice?' This forces them to recommit to you as the best solution or admit they're still evaluating, strengthening your negotiation leverage.

When you easily concede on seemingly small items like payment terms, you inadvertently tell the customer that your pricing isn't firm. This encourages them to push for more discounts, slowing down the deal. Instead, trade every concession for something of value to your business.

Frame every negotiation around four core business drivers. Offer discounts not as concessions, but as payments for the customer giving you something valuable: more volume, faster cash payments, a longer contract commitment, or a predictable closing date. This shifts the conversation from haggling to a structured, collaborative process.

When a customer objects to your terms (like upfront annual billing), reframe the conversation around their own operational costs. Question if their organization truly enjoys the administrative burden of monthly purchase orders and invoices. This shifts the focus from your preference to their benefit, positioning your terms as a way to simplify their internal processes.

Instead of offering a fake, expiring discount to create urgency, frame it as a payment for predictability. Tell the prospect you will pay them a discount in exchange for mutually aligning on a specific close date, which helps you forecast accurately. This turns a sales tactic into a valuable business exchange.

For complex legal requests that increase your business risk or costs (e.g., unlimited liability, extensive insurance requirements), treat them as an additional negotiation lever. Explain that your standard pricing is based on a reasonable, collaborative risk profile. Accepting their terms changes that profile and will require adjusting the price accordingly.

Proposing an outcome-based pricing model next to a high fixed-fee option forces the negotiation to focus on value, not cost. Even if the customer chooses the fixed fee, they're anchored on a much higher number and are less likely to negotiate it down significantly.

Price objections don't stem from the buyer's ignorance, but from the seller's failure to establish clear economic value. Before revealing the cost, you must build a business case. If the prospect balks at the price, the fault lies with your value proposition, not their budget.

Shift adversarial negotiations to collaborative problem-solving by transparently explaining your pricing model is based on four levers: volume, timing of cash, length of commitment, and timing of the deal. When a customer asks for a concession, you can explore which of the other levers they can adjust, making it a mutual exchange of value rather than a zero-sum haggle.

Instead of hiding information, Todd Capone's "transparent negotiation" advises telling buyers the four levers they can pull for a better price: contract term, volume, timing of cash, and predictability (signing by a certain date). This builds trust and turns negotiation into a collaborative process.

Reframe Scope Reductions as a Per-Unit Price Increase | RiffOn