Comments On Blue Buggy and Week Two

Comments On Blue Buggy and Week Two

It was interesting listening to the live event and realizing that Blue Buggy is a negative buying zone event. Often I have visited traditional markets and bazzars where the product quality and price varies little from one seller to another and suspect that many individuals might provoke a failure on the part of Buyers through tactics illustrated by the price comparisons among airlines as illustrated in Week One.

In such cases a Buyer's "walk away" "hopes" and "alternatives" might be less effected by an understanding of value for a product such as a Persian carpet and more on simply having the cash to meet a particular asking price. As cheap as possible under such cases is limited by knowledge and planning for example having some ability to distinguish quality of carpet versus Seller's estimation of what might be in your pocket which is often uncannily accurate.

Irrational Choices often appear in the cases of impulse buying decisions. I often suspect that the drive to consumerism in many developing and developed economies might be simply explained by more carefully planned and crafted marketing and sales techniques on the part of Sellers which easily override what are described as rational selection processes. For example did I really need a digital camera, MP3, latest gadget or gizmo or did such purchases represent irrational choices? Do fixed prices in a majority of selling venues in the developed world also possibly implicate that mass production requires a fixed rate of sale because for some reason people perhaps become less adept at negotiating as their patterns of choices are encouraged to become less rational and scale of production made more profitable?

The review of economic success, relational success, durability, efficency and tendancy to fixate on one or few factors appears to have correlation with strategic positioning on a business leadership framework concerning competitiveness, risk, and uncertainty which is complimentary.

The aspects of creating and claiming value is incredibly interesting as it appears a balancing of scales of sorts and would suggest the push and pull of agreement and serves a good opener to the concept of developing greater efforts in planning, and focus. Living in Asia I do see differences in opening strategies as contrasted with North Americans.

However I am concerned regarding globalizing effects of business whether or not local context terms of engagement globally are becoming more American or western in pattern. For example, Koreans often like to have a nice big meal and lots of drinks prior to negotiation however such terms are often dispensed when dealing with western educated negotiators. On one hand it would appear the bias was originally to put an opponent at ease ( or make lethargic) prior to agreement but on the other hand I would often like more lunch prior to the reading of the final bill.

Justification would appear to be a reasonable expectation of argument construction. The more often one were to source outside information the more likely information bias might be avoided to enhance the opportunity for finding new best effective winning situations such as the orange juice versus rind scenario. The more commonly one were to source reputbale justifications for opponents positioning also the more likely one could develop the perspective taking you recommend.

Enthusiasm might also be substituted for being considered a hard worker? Many buying and selling situations are considered incomplete without argument, debate, justification and might actually constitute some of the actual enjoyment possibly derived from such interaction? While you describe the negative implications of assuming recapture of value elsewhere would not repeated and regular negotiations offer the opportunity for repeated and mutual concessions taking through which everyone acquires greater juice and rinds?