Last quarter, BASF entered into a complex negotiation with ChemCo, a mid-sized distributor looking to expand its market reach in Southern Europe. From the start, both sides acknowledged the importance of reaching a [1]—a deal that would allow both companies to grow without compromising too much on their interests.

The BASF representative began by [2] a starting price that was deliberately high, knowing it would give them room to manoeuvre later in the negotiation. This is a common tactic known as [3], where the initial number set can significantly influence the final outcome.

Throughout the talks, ChemCo pushed hard for lower prices and longer payment terms. BASF was willing to [4] on payment terms but remained firm on the pricing. Their representative reminded ChemCo of their global logistics network and high-quality control standards, using these advantages as [5] to justify their position.

When ChemCo started applying pressure by threatening to go with a competitor, BASF avoided reacting emotionally. Instead, they [6] by suggesting a delay in the decision-making process until additional market data became available.

As discussions continued, BASF suggested bundling an additional product line into the deal to [7]. This added value for ChemCo without lowering the price, and helped maintain BASF’s profit margin.

At one point, ChemCo’s representative began using [8]—firm deadlines and ultimatums—to try and speed up the process. BASF noted this but remained composed, identifying these tactics as part of the game.

To test whether the current proposal was acceptable, BASF initiated a [9], asking: “If we were to deliver within your new timeline, would you be ready to sign next week?” This gave them insight into how close the deal was to being finalized.

In the end, the two companies agreed on clear terms with shared benefits and responsibilities. The BASF negotiator even kept a few perks in reserve as a [10], to potentially use in future discussions.