Concessions are an inevitable part of every negotiation. However, moving a negotiation to a satisfactory close will almost always require a series of concessions.
Ultimately, your ability to make concessions—deliberate, planned trades you offer in exchange for something of equal or greater value—will determine whether all of your hard work, guided by RED BEAR negotiation principles, delivers the results you need. However, knowing when to concede can be a conundrum for many people. On one hand, you may feel as if you’re being too firm or rigid in your demands or trades, and that the ensuing impasses are difficult to navigate. On the other hand, you may fear that every concession means less of a win for you in the end.
Going into a negotiation without a concession plan to achieve the best possible outcome is like going into a sword fight blindfolded. The most skilled negotiators not only recognize the need for a concession plan but are also intimately aware of the five concession patterns that come about in negotiations.
Some concession patterns work better than and are inherently more effective than others, but you must know all of them to be able to successfully navigate the majority of negotiations requiring strategic concessions.
Most negotiators repeat the same unproductive concession patterns without realizing it. Use these Wrong Turn vs. Right Turn comparisons as a quick reference to recognize and replace habits that weaken your position.
Wrong Turn: Conceding quickly and early to “build goodwill,” hoping the other side will reciprocate later.
Right Turn: Concede deliberately and slowly, trading every movement for something of equal or greater value.
Wrong Turn: Dropping price first because it is easiest to move, then scrambling to protect other terms.
Right Turn: Start with low-cost, high-value variables and protect price until you have maximized the total package.
Wrong Turn: Matching or “splitting the difference” with every counteroffer, signaling that you will always move.
Right Turn: Vary the size and timing of concessions to signal limits and reinforce your value story.
Wrong Turn: Giving one-way concessions to rescue momentum when the negotiation feels stuck.
Right Turn: Use trades, not gifts—tie every concession to a specific ask that advances your objectives.
Wrong Turn: Making large, late-stage concessions to “close the deal” under time pressure.
Right Turn: Plan your concession path in advance and stay disciplined under pressure, even near the finish line.
You are trying to “win the business” in one try.
After that, you will frustrate the other party.
Now, let’s assume we make the same concession, but with a much different impact. In Pattern #1, we give it all away at the beginning and concede nothing after that. We affectionately refer to this as “The Sucker” pattern because it looks like a sucker or a lollipop.
However, it still sends the wrong signal. A big concession upfront, and then nothing? This can be incredibly frustrating for the other party. Imagine an enterprise software seller immediately slashing license fees by 20%, but refusing to discuss implementation support, SLAs, or renewal terms—or a supplier agreeing to a major price drop on day one, then stonewalling on payment terms, delivery windows, or exclusivity. In B2B deals, this pattern leaves buyers wondering what else might have been on the table, and leaves procurement teams feeling boxed in. Unfortunately, this is a pattern many negotiators still use to close deals.
No “give and take.”
Hardball negotiator.
This negotiation could break down.
Now, this pattern is the exact opposite of Pattern #1. For example, let’s say I state my opening demand but make no concession. Then, a while later, when the other party offers a concession, I do reiterate my opening demand and offer nothing in return. Then again, at a later point, I repeat my opening demand and concede nothing. In an enterprise deal, that might look like insisting on full list price with no flexibility on payment terms, even after the customer agrees to a multi-year commitment or broader license scope, and then doing the same again when they offer to be a reference customer or standardize on your platform. Then, finally, at the very end, I concede everything all at once—dropping price dramatically, adding free services, or granting broad legal concessions in a single sweeping move just to get the contract signed. This pattern is referred to as “The Wrecking Ball”.
Doing this may fulfill the other party’s initial concession requests, but you run the risk of angering and confusing the other negotiator, who would conclude that you were inflexible and not willing to negotiate.
Motivates the other party to keep pushing.
Even if he/she gets a lot from you, the other party may still feel unhappy that he/she didn’t get more.
He/She may wonder if it’s some kind of game.
He/She will certainly want to drag you into round 5.
Now, let’s continue to assume the concessions add up to the same amount as the previous examples. Pattern #3 differs in the message being sent.
We call Pattern #3 “The Avalanche” because it keeps getting bigger and bigger as it rolls along. In an enterprise deal, this might look like a prospect who, after you agree to a small discount, starts asking for extra seats, premium support, free integrations, and extended payment terms—each “yes” triggering a new request. On the supplier side, it could be a vendor who, once you accept a minor price increase, begins adding rush fees, implementation charges, and change-order costs. With this pattern, another negotiator will inevitably conclude, “If I just hang in there, I’m going to get everything I want for free.” This pattern encourages the other party to keep pushing for more, which would prolong the negotiation and reduce my chances of making a good deal.
Give enough of a concession to show good faith.
Send the message that you’re getting to the limits of your flexibility by diminishing concessions as you approach closure.
Signal that you’re nearing the edge of your flexibility by front‑loading a larger concession, then steadily shrinking each one as you get closer to agreement.
We call this one the “Ice Cream Cone.” Pattern #4 starts wide and narrows quickly. The first, bigger concession shows genuine openness to negotiate; each smaller move after that communicates, “I’m getting close to my limit.” Picture an enterprise software deal where the seller opens with a substantial license discount to unlock the discussion, then restricts later moves to minor implementation credits or slightly better payment terms. Or a global supply agreement where the buyer initially eases volume commitments, then limits further concessions to tighter delivery windows or modest service upgrades. Unlike the steadier “Martini” pattern, the Ice Cream Cone is about testing the waters early, then rapidly tightening and refusing any new major concessions once the other side’s resolve has been probed.
These last two patterns – with shrinking concessions – send a very similar message. It says, “We’re getting to the limits of my flexibility, but I’m doing everything I can to make this work for you.”
Initially, hold firm to test the other party’s resolve.
Give a concession as necessary to keep making progress.
Pattern #5 is the most mature of the bunch. We refer to it as “The Martini.” This pattern means holding firm, then decreasing the size of your concessions as the negotiation progresses. This reminds the other party that “We’re getting to the limits of my flexibility.” In an enterprise deal, that might look like moving from a 15% to a 7% to a 3% discount on a multi‑year SaaS contract, or agreeing first to global support coverage, then only a limited number of custom integrations, and finally a capped amount of onboarding hours. In a large procurement negotiation, it could mean starting with broad regional exclusivity, then narrowing it to specific markets, and finally limiting it to a short launch window—each step smaller than the last—so the other side can clearly see you are approaching your hard stop.
Also, Pattern #5 differs from the other patterns in that it asks the other party to ante up as well, and if and when you make a concession, make sure you get something in return.
Finally, concede slowly and reluctantly, and remember to only make a concession if it is absolutely necessary to keep the deal moving. When you do concede, frame it conditionally with phrases like, “If we can align on X, then I can be flexible on Y,” or “I’d be willing to move on this, provided we can lock in that.” You might also say, “I can agree to this part as long as we finalize the rest today.” When you do these things, you accomplish the other goal of making the other party feel better about the agreement you’ve negotiated because they’ve had to work for it as well.
At the end of a negotiation, and this is particularly important in developing a long-term relationship that leads to more productive negotiations in the future, both parties must feel that something has been earned throughout the course of a negotiation.
Negotiators who rush the process and concede everything up front diminish the value of their position and may leave significant value on the table. Expert negotiators master the art of concession-making, and with each concession they make, they push the momentum toward finalizing the deal while also securing valuable concessions from the other party.
RED BEAR Negotiation Company is a global performance improvement firm dedicated to maximizing the profitability of the agreements negotiated with suppliers, customers, partners, and colleagues. If you’re interested in enhancing the performance of the negotiators in your organization, click here for more information on RED BEAR’s solutions.
Before you enter any negotiation, decide which concession pattern you will use, and under what conditions you will adjust it. Treat this as part of your Negotiation Application Plan so you are not improvising high-value moves in the moment.
Clarify your objectives and limits: Define your ideal outcome, realistic target, and walk-away point. Map the zone within which you are willing to concede, and where you will not.
Prioritize issues by value and tradability: Rank issues from most to least important. Identify low-cost/high-value issues you can trade and high-cost/low-value issues you should protect. Your pattern should reflect where you can afford to be flexible.
Select a default pattern: Choose one primary pattern (e.g., diminishing concessions) as your starting plan. Align it with the relationship context, deal complexity, and your leverage.
Pre-plan moves and signals: For each key issue, define your first, second, and third concession moves and what each is intended to signal. Decide in advance how “no” and “maybe” will sound so you stay consistent under pressure.
Define triggers to shift patterns: Identify clear triggers that justify changing your approach (e.g., discovery of new information, a major shift in scope, or a clear impasse). Document how you will move from one pattern to another without appearing reactive.
Align your team: Review the planned pattern with your internal stakeholders. Ensure everyone understands the sequence of concessions, messaging, and non-negotiables so no one undermines the strategy in side conversations.
Rehearse likely scenarios: Use short role-plays to test your planned pattern against aggressive, collaborative, and silent counterpart behaviors. Refine your pattern and language based on what does and does not hold up in practice.
Anchor preparation and planning in Interests-Based Bargaining by mapping your priorities, probing for the other side’s underlying needs, and crafting proposals that expand value before you divide it.
Use disciplined Issue and Option Management to separate must-haves from tradables, package issues together, and trade low-cost concessions for high-value gains.
Apply Strategic Questioning to uncover motivations, test assumptions, and guide the discussion toward joint problem-solving rather than positional back-and-forth.
Maintain Standards and Legitimacy by referencing data, benchmarks, and objective criteria so that agreements feel fair, defensible, and sustainable for both parties.
Practice Concession Management by planning your give-gets in advance, moving in small, purposeful steps, and always asking for something in return.
Lead with Relationship Management by managing tone, demonstrating respect, and separating people from the problem to preserve long-term trust even in hard bargaining.
Use Process Control to set clear agendas, define decision milestones, and manage time deliberately to maintain momentum without sacrificing deal quality.
Reinforce Internal Alignment by briefing stakeholders on interests, options, and walk-away parameters so your external behavior is consistent and credible at the table.
By explicitly choosing and rehearsing your concession pattern in advance, you reduce the risk of ad hoc giveaways and create a clear link between your Negotiation Application Plan and how you actually behave at the table.