Tag Archives: ego nickel

Patching Up Negotiations Redux

[Ed. Note: This is a reprint of my 10/31/09 post.] Last year, procrastination got the best of me and by the time I got around to the annual pumpkin purchase on October 30th, the supermarkets were out of all but the most damaged pumpkins. I was left with no alternative than to deal with the local Pumpkin Patch Guy (a/k/a the Christmas Tree Lot Guy).

Some might say I was merely on the wrong side of supply and demand. But sitting on his throne of hay bales, Pumpkin Patch Guy went beyond aggressive deal making. He was ripping me off.

I should of walked away but it was late and the kids were tired. Feeling like a rube, I pulled out my wallet and gave him forty bucks for a couple of sad looking pumpkins plus another ten for the carving kit. This year, I got smart and didn’t go back. I planned ahead and procured my pumpkins at a substantial discount.

Like Pumpkin Patch Guy, a rep has a fiduciary duty to maximize value. But does that always result in doing what’s best for the client? Maybe so if it’s about short term value (it’s about the upfront money, stupid!).

But what about over the long term? Pumpkin Patch Guy lost me as a repeat customer by gouging me simply because he could.

Effective negotiation and deal making often require more than selling to the highest bidder. In many cases, the parties involved have to be able to work together over the long haul (e.g., SAG and the AMPTP).

Good will and occasional restraint by the stronger party can go a long way to salve the pain of accepting unpopular deal points by the weaker player. You’re not looking for a love fest here; merely a path towards building trust over subsequent negotiations.

Pumpkin Patch Guy might have earned my continued business if he’d thrown in the carving kit or a coupon for future discounts; something, anything to make me feel better about being gouged. SAG and the studios might have been able to change the discordant tone of their negotiations by simply finding more common ground through the exchange of ego nickels. Now, months after SAG sealed its deal with the studios, there continues to be profound polarization between the two camps and their supporters.

Does negotiating an arguably more fair deal really create momentum and good will for the next or does it betray weakness in your position? Does aggressive negotiation help, hinder or have no effect on the next deal? Whatever your approach, it pays to consider whose ox is ultimately getting gourd.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[Update: Whether it was the recession or bad business practices, Pumpkin Patch Guy was replaced by Pumpkin Patch Guy 2.0.
This year's pumpkin purchase went without a hitch.
They even threw in the carving kit!]

Patching Up Negotiations

Last year, procrastination got the best of me and by the time I got around to the annual pumpkin purchase on October 30th, the supermarkets were out of all but the most damaged pumpkins. I was left with no alternative than to deal with the local Pumpkin Patch Guy (a/k/a the Christmas Tree Lot Guy).

Some might say I was merely on the wrong side of supply and demand. But sitting on his throne of hay bales, Pumpkin Patch Guy went beyond aggressive deal making. He was ripping me off.

I should of walked away but it was late and the kids were tired. Feeling like a rube, I pulled out my wallet and gave him forty bucks for a couple of sad looking pumpkins plus another ten for the carving kit. This year, I got smart and didn’t go back. I planned ahead and procured my pumpkins at a substantial discount.

Like Pumpkin Patch Guy, a rep has a fiduciary duty to maximize value. But does that always result in doing what’s best for the client? Maybe so if it’s about short term value (it’s about the upfront money, stupid!).

But what about over the long term? Pumpkin Patch Guy lost me as a repeat customer by gouging me simply because he could.

Effective negotiation and deal making often require more than selling to the highest bidder. In many cases, the parties involved have to be able to work together over the long haul (e.g., SAG and the AMPTP).

Good will and occasional restraint by the stronger party can go a long way to salve the pain of accepting unpopular deal points by the weaker player. You’re not looking for a love fest here; merely a path towards building trust over subsequent negotiations.

Pumpkin Patch Guy might have earned my continued business if he’d thrown in the carving kit or a coupon for future discounts; something, anything to make me feel better about being gouged. SAG and the studios might have been able to change the discordant tone of their negotiations by simply finding more common ground through the exchange of ego nickels. Now, months after SAG sealed its deal with the studios, there continues to be profound polarization between the two camps and their supporters.

Does negotiating an arguably more fair deal really create momentum and good will for the next or does it betray weakness in your position? Does aggressive negotiation help, hinder or have no effect on the next deal? Whatever your approach, it pays to consider whose ox is ultimately getting gourd.

Talking The Talk

822518337_97b972d6ff2.jpg

As in any business, there are terms of art that are commonly used in negotiations in the entertainment business. I’ve added a glossary that defines some of the words and phrases used, devised or overheard during these discussions.

I encourage my colleagues to email me any additions or corrections. You can click “Lingua Franca” on the gray strip above or here to get to the page.

This is a work in progress, so please check often for updates.

Cracks In The Veneer

wood1.jpg

The three month old writers strike dramatically reduced the number of produced programs for the 2007-08 television season and pilot season is now in jeopardy. Movie deals are on hold; term deals have been terminated for force majeure and thousands are either out of work or about to be let go (including several agents I know who are hard pressed to find any other form of meaningful work – go figure!).

Studios and guild reps are under a news blackout while they engage in back channel and informal discussions regarding the strike impasse with the goal of more formal talks in the next few days; the first since negotiations broke down on December 7th.

Guild leaders recently withdrew their animation and reality TV proposals. They also agreed not to picket the Grammys. The Guild’s actions could be viewed as good faith concessions to help restart negotiations. On the other hand, they could simply be signs of strike fatigue and capitulation. Whatever the motivation, the AMPTP’s perception (and that of the WGA membership) stand to profoundly affect the psychology of pending negotiations and ultimately, the outcome of any deal.

While the Guild’s alternatives are limited, their current tactics may weaken the leverage that only a complete shut-down could support. The Guild continues to enter into piecemeal agreements with independent production and distribution companies – most recently, Lions Gate, RKO, Marvel and The Weinstein Company – based on the WGA’s initial proposals in an attempt to gain additional leverage. The WGA is betting that these deals will put pressure on the studios and networks to settle. However, the AMPTP dismissed these pacts as meaningless “one-off” agreements since the terms will be superseded by any deal ultimately negotiated by the parties. The Guild also runs the risk that these deals will split the rank in file between those working and getting paid on waiver-projects and those that remain unpaid and on picket lines. The Guild is already contending with an erosion of support in some quarters.

Certain Guild members are already grumbling about the prospect of “going financial core.” Rumor has it that a number of writers continue to develop projects during the strike “without paper” (i.e., without a written agreement in place) to pay the bills. It’s obvious to anyone watching “The Daily Show” or “The Cobert Report” that staff writers continue to work for these shows despite strike rule prohibitions. Hey, but I could be wrong.

With those reservations, there are several good things going for this latest round of talks for all concerned.

The principals are now talking instead of their reps. To be sure, representatives for both sides are still involved with these discussions but direct communication by the principals can diffuse the current hostility between the parties and allow them to refocus their energies on material deal points instead of petulance and platitudes.

The Directors Guild pact can be used as precedent. Since the AMPTP closed their deal with the DGA, the parties can now use the material terms of that agreement as a template for their own negotiations and adjust their respective expectations to those deal points in which there is a real prospect for consensus.

Weakening resolve on both sides. The studios and networks are quickly running out of content; writers need to work. Both sides realize that given the strike’s enormous financial toll on individuals, the local economy and corporate profits, it is in everyone’s best interests to work a deal as soon as possible; ideally before the Oscar telecast on February 24th.

Lastly, both parties should offer the other an ego nickel; a deal point or two of minimal value to the giving party that validates the receiving party’s demands enough for them to save face with their constituencies. Sooner or later, the parties will be working together again and a few ego-nickels might expedite closure of a deal both parties can live with if not embrace.