Written by Marijn Overvest | Reviewed by Sjoed Goedhart | Fact Checked by Ruud Emonds | Our editorial policy

12 Real-Life Negotiation Examples That Will Inspire You to Negotiate Better

1. Deal Termination Between Kraft Foods and Starbucks

Starbucks and Kraft formed a partnership in 1998 to distribute Starbucks packaged coffee in grocery stores. However, as the coffee industry landscape evolved, particularly with the surging popularity of single-serve coffee pods, Starbucks sought greater flexibility to adapt to market trends.

In 2010, Starbucks proposed buying out Kraft’s contract for $750 million to terminate the agreement Kraft objected to the deal termination, Kraft raised objections, but Starbucks proceeded with the termination nonetheless.

Subsequently, Starbucks witnessed significant growth in its share of the single-serving coffee pod market and grocery-store product sales. To resolve their dispute over this contract termination, the two companies resorted to arbitration after failing to settle independently.

In 2013, the three-year dispute between Kraft Foods and Starbucks regarding the distribution of the latter’s packaged coffee in grocery stores reached its conclusion.

In November of 2013, an arbitrator ruled that Starbucks had breached the agreement, ordering the coffee giant to pay Kraft Foods $2.75 billion to settle the dispute.

What can you learn from this negotiation example?

This business between Starbucks and Kraft Foods demonstrates how the ever-changing dynamics of marketplace trends can render the previously negotiated business agreements unsuitable over time.

A valuable lesson to learn from this dispute is the importance of creating flexible business contracts. In their initial agreement, Kraft and Starbucks might have benefited from including provisions for scheduled renegotiations.

However, Kraft and Starbucks could have made their initial agreement better by adding a plan to review and change the terms as the market changed.

They could have also agreed on what would happen if they wanted to end the deal early, like paying penalties or compensation. In short, being flexible and thinking ahead in contracts is essential when dealing with changing markets.

What is the negotiation style used in this example?

The negotiation style used here is Compromising Negotiation Style because both parties made sacrifices—Starbucks paid a large settlement, and Kraft gave up its exclusive rights—to resolve the dispute through arbitration.

For more information about this style, you can read our article about Compromising Negotiation.

2. Warner vs CBS

In October 2013, Time Warner Cable faced a significant crisis when it reported an unprecedented quarterly loss of television subscribers, with 306,000 customers out of its 11.7 million-strong base choosing to cancel their subscriptions. This problem was due to its dispute with the television network CBS over programming fees.

This dispute was so bad that Time Warner Cable temporarily stopped showing CBS in some big cities like New York and Los Angeles. In the end, CBS got to be victorious in this dispute. CBS secured a substantial increase in fees for its programming in the affected blackout areas, raising the fee per subscriber from about $1 to $2.

Additionally, CBS gained the digital rights to distribute its content through online platforms like Netflix. Time Warner Cable conceded largely due to its fear of losing a significant portion of its subscriber base if the dispute disrupted the broadcast of Monday night football on CBS.

What can you learn from this negotiation example?

This dispute highlights that trying to be tough in negotiations, like what Time Warner Cable did, can often make things worse. Instead of helping, it can backfire on you. It’s better to find a solution that works for both sides.

Winning at the other person’s expense usually doesn’t work out well in the long run. Thus, seeking mutually beneficial solutions is usually what makes negotiation successful.

What is the negotiation style used in this example?

The negotiation style used here is Competitive Negotiation Style because CBS aggressively pursued higher programming fees and digital rights, prioritizing its gains over Warner’s losses.

For more information about this style, you can read our article about Competitive/Distributive Negotiation.

3. Talks Between North and South Korea

In June 2013, there was an opportunity for North and South Korea to come together in Seoul for high-level government talks aimed at improving their strained relationship.

However, before the talks even began, a dispute arose over the rank of each side’s chief delegate.

South Korea had appointed its vice unification minister as its chief delegate, which offended North Korea, leading them to demand a more senior representative from the South.

This escalated into a face-saving battle, with both sides refusing to back down on the delegate selection issue.

Eventually, North Korea canceled the talks, accusing the South of insulting them. This situation highlights a critical aspect of negotiations which is the importance of saving face.

In this case, South Korea missed an opportunity to engage with North Korea by not conceding on the relatively minor matter of delegate status, which would have allowed North Korea to save face.

What can you learn from this negotiation example?

The lesson that you can learn from here is that in negotiations, it’s not just about the deal itself, it’s also about treating each other with respect and saving face.

Sometimes, negotiators get so caught up in looking good themselves that they forget to help the other side feel good too.

If you criticize or doubt someone too much during negotiations, it can make them feel bad and act in a way that’s not helpful. This is especially true for people who are sensitive to criticism.

So, it’s smart to understand that saving face is important, and giving in on smaller issues can make negotiations go better and keep a good relationship with the other side.

What is the negotiation style used in this example?

The negotiation style used here is Eastern Negotiation Style because the focus on saving face, hierarchy, and mutual respect was central to the conflict over delegate rank.

For more information about this style, you can read our article about Negotiation Styles or check our Cultural Impact on Negotiations Course.

4. The Sino-British Joint Declaration

A critical negotiation that occurred more than three decades ago is gaining significance in today’s Hong Kong, which has been in a state of unrest since the introduction of an extradition bill in 2019. 

This bill could have allowed Hong Kong criminal suspects to be sent to mainland China for trial. While the bill has been withdrawn, widespread protests continue.

The negotiation in question is the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984. Back then, China’s leader and the UK’s Prime Minister discussed what would happen to Hong Kong.

The UK, which had control of Hong Kong for a long time, agreed to give it back to China on July 1, 1997. This agreement states that China’s rules for Hong Kong would stay the same for 50 years, including its legal system, until 2047.

However, China now says this deal only counted until 1997, and the UK doesn’t have rights concerning Hong Kong since then. The UK disagrees and insists that it’s still a valid deal.

This issue makes it more complicated because of recent elections in Hong Kong where pro-democracy people won, and because the US made a law supporting Hong Kong, which made China mad.

The UK is not as strong as the US, so it’s in a tough spot. However, the UK lacks the leverage the US possesses, especially with the support of the European Union.

Damaging the UK-China relationship over an issue with limited potential outcomes would be unwise, especially as the UK seeks to build alliances in a changing global landscape.

What can you learn from this negotiation example?

The lesson you can learn from here is that historical negotiations and agreements can have lasting repercussions, even decades later.

It also underscores the complex challenges of international diplomacy and the need for careful consideration of national interests and alliances when dealing with contentious issues.

In this case, the UK’s position is complicated by its limited leverage compared to major global players like the US, highlighting the importance of strategic diplomacy in international relations.

What is the negotiation style used in this example?

The negotiation style used here is the Collaborative Negotiation Style because both parties emphasized long-term commitments, patience, and relationship building for mutual benefits.

For more information about this style, you can read our article about Collaborative/Integrative Negotiation.

5. The Biggest Ponzi Scheme in the United States

Bernie Madoff, the stockbroker behind one of the largest Ponzi schemes in the United States, had the unwitting help of many investors who trusted his fraudulent fund despite having suspicions. 

Some investors questioned how his fund consistently outperformed the stock market for years, a feat that seemed statistically impossible. However, they chose not to investigate further and brushed aside their doubts.

Harvard Business School’s Max H. Bazerman explains that even individuals with strong ethical values can engage in unethical behavior without consciously realizing it.

This phenomenon is referred to as “bounded ethicality,” where people unknowingly act against their values, especially in high-stakes situations like negotiations.

During negotiations, “ethical fading” occurs as the desire to win overshadows ethical considerations, leading to unintentional deception.

What can you learn from this negotiation example?

This example highlights that ethical lapses can happen without you realizing it, especially in high-pressure situations like negotiations.

It’s important to be aware of this tendency and strive to make ethical decisions even when you’re focused on achieving your goals. This helps maintain trust and integrity in your personal and business relationships.

What is the negotiation style used in this example?

The negotiation style used here is the Competitive Negotiation Style because Madoff exploited a win-at-all-costs approach, prioritizing his gain at the expense of others.

For more information about this style, you can read our article about Competitive/Distributive Negotiation.

6. Michael Bloomberg vs. New York Teachers’ Union

In 2010, New York State passed a law that aimed to overhaul the outdated teacher evaluation systems across its school districts, requiring more stringent standards. Each district, along with its union, had until January 17, 2013, to finalize the details of the new evaluation system.

New York City was poised to benefit significantly from a new system: it stood to gain about $250 million in aid and an additional $200 million in grants, totaling a 4% increase in state aid. However, negotiations between the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and then-mayor Michael Bloomberg reached an impasse as the deadline loomed. On the day of the deadline, both sides announced that a last-minute negotiation session had fallen apart, and no agreement was reached. Consequently, the state governor, Andrew Cuomo, stepped in and imposed an evaluation system on New York City.

Despite both Bloomberg and the UFT having much to gain from the new system, such as improved teacher quality and significant state funding, their inability to find common ground led to a stalemate.

What can you learn from this negotiation example?

This case demonstrates the importance of recognizing when a negotiation has reached an impasse and considering alternative solutions. When parties find themselves deadlocked, it may be time to evaluate whether they are negotiating with the right counterparts.

In Bloomberg’s case, engaging other stakeholders or influencers who could break the deadlock might have been a more strategic move. Understanding the broader context and involving additional perspectives can open up new paths for resolution, helping to avoid a stalemate and achieve mutual goals.

What is the negotiation style used in this example?

The negotiation style used here is the Avoidance Negotiation Style because neither side resolved the negotiation in time, leading to external intervention by the state government.

For more information about this style, you can read our article about Avoidance Negotiation.

7. Building Trust in Negotiations

In 2012, Disney made a bold move by acquiring Lucasfilm, the company behind the iconic Star Wars franchise, for $4 billion. This acquisition further solidified Disney’s position as a leader in animation and blockbuster content. Prior to this, Disney had already acquired Marvel Entertainment for $4 billion in 2009 and Pixar Animation Studios for $7.4 billion in 2006, marking its strategy to expand beyond its traditional market of animated films and theme parks.

The deal not only gave Disney control over the Star Wars universe but also included rights to the Indiana Jones franchise and Industrial Light & Magic, a renowned special-effects company. The key focus of Disney’s financial calculations, however, revolved around the future earnings potential of the Star Wars franchise, already well-represented in Disney’s theme parks.

Behind this significant deal was Disney’s CEO, Robert Iger, who personally led the negotiations with George Lucas, founder of Lucasfilm. Iger, who had been expanding Disney’s horizons since becoming CEO in 2005, knew that gaining Lucas’s trust was crucial to sealing the deal. The negotiations between Iger and Lucas spanned over a year and a half, illustrating the patience and trust-building required in such high-stakes negotiations. By asking Lucas to include treatments for future Star Wars films as part of the deal, Disney showed its intent to honor and build upon his creative vision, rather than merely taking over.

What can you learn from this negotiation example?

This acquisition illustrates the importance of building trust when negotiating with powerful counterparts. Iger personally managing the negotiations signaled how seriously Disney took Lucas’s legacy, demonstrating that sending in the “big guns” can establish credibility. The lengthy negotiation process emphasized Disney’s patience, showcasing a commitment to building trust over time and proving their reliability to Lucas. By involving Lucas in the creative process, Disney acknowledged his vision, reinforcing trust and collaboration. The Disney-Lucasfilm negotiation is a prime example of how trust, patience, and strategic involvement of the other party’s interests can lead to successful business outcomes.

What is the negotiation style used in this example?

The negotiation style used here is the Collaborative Negotiation Style because Disney focused on trust-building and honoring George Lucas’s vision, achieving a long-term win-win deal.

For more information about this style, you can read our article about Collaborative/Integrative Negotiation.

8. E-Book Pricing Dispute: Apple, Amazon, and Major U.S. Publishers

Back in 2007, dissatisfaction with Amazon’s flat price of $9.99 for e-books led five major U.S. publishers to seek a new business model. As Apple prepared to launch the iPad, the publishers saw an opportunity to change the way e-books were priced. Under the existing wholesaling model, publishers sold their books to retailers, such as Amazon, which then set their own prices. In negotiations with Apple, the publishers pushed for a switch to an agency model, allowing them to set their own e-book prices while giving Apple a 30% sales commission.

The situation intensified when at least one of the publishers threatened to delay its digital editions on Amazon unless the retailer adopted the agency model. Reluctantly, Amazon agreed to the change, leading to a price increase for e-books across the industry to approximately $14.99. The publishers and Apple claimed that this shift aimed to increase competition in the e-book market by providing an alternative to Amazon’s Kindle reader.

However, the U.S. Department of Justice accused both Apple and the publishers of colluding to artificially inflate e-book prices. While the five publishers settled with the government, Apple decided to fight the charges. In court, Apple and the publishers argued that their negotiations were typical business dealings, with each side pushing for concessions. However, the Department of Justice maintained that these discussions amounted to a price-fixing conspiracy. On July 10, 2013, a U.S. district judge ruled that Apple and the publishers had indeed engaged in such a conspiracy, resulting in higher e-book prices for consumers.

What can you learn from this negotiation example?

This case serves as a reminder that in their drive to reach a mutually beneficial agreement, negotiators often overlook how their deal will impact those not directly involved—in this case, consumers. It highlights the importance of considering the broader effects of a negotiation’s outcome and ensuring that all relevant legal and ethical boundaries are respected.

What is the negotiation style used in this example?

The negotiation style used here is Competitive Negotiation Style because the parties prioritized power dynamics and profit, resulting in higher e-book prices and legal disputes.

For more information about this style, you can read our article about Competitive/Distributive Negotiation.

9.  Apple vs. Samsung: Patent Dispute and Sunk Costs in Negotiations

In August 2012, a significant legal battle unfolded between tech giants Apple and Samsung. A California jury ruled that Samsung would have to pay Apple more than $1 billion in damages for patent violations related to Apple’s iPhone. However, the judge later reduced this payout to $600 million. In a subsequent ruling in November 2013, another jury ordered Samsung to pay $290 million of the initially overruled amount from the 2012 case.

The conflict between Apple and Samsung centered on Apple’s claim that it had lost substantial profits to its primary competitor due to Samsung allegedly copying key features of the iPhone. On the other hand, Samsung argued that its success was driven by other factors, such as larger screens and more affordable pricing, not by the features Apple claimed were copied.

Despite the intense rivalry, Samsung remains one of Apple’s largest suppliers, giving both companies strong reasons to move past their disputes and focus on their ongoing partnership. In 2012, court-ordered mediation between the CEOs of both companies aimed to resolve the issue, but it ended in an impasse. As a result, the battle continued across courts worldwide, with Apple maintaining an upper hand in the United States.

What can you learn from this negotiation example?

This case underscores the challenges of negotiations when sunk costs come into play. When negotiators invest significant time and resources into a dispute, they may become increasingly reluctant to back down, feeling they have too much at stake to quit. Moreover, prolonged battles often escalate tensions, making cooperation even harder. It serves as a reminder of the importance of working diligently in negotiation and mediation to avoid costly court disputes and preserve valuable partnerships.

What is the negotiation style used in this example?

The negotiation style used here is Competitive Negotiation Style  because both parties aggressively pursued their interests in court, prioritizing market dominance over collaboration.

For more information about this style, you can read our article about Competitive/Distributive Negotiation.

10. The NHL Lockout: Overcoming Impasse through Tradeoffs

In January 2012, the National Hockey League (NHL) and the NHL Players’ Association (NHLPA) announced an agreement to end a 113-day lockout, allowing the players to return to the ice for a shortened 2012-2013 season. The negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement had begun back in July 2012, when the NHL proposed to cut players’ share of hockey-related revenue from 57% to 43%. The NHLPA responded a month later with an offer that slowed the growth of player salaries and allocated saved revenues to financially struggling teams.

However, the parties could not reach a consensus, and the existing contract expired on September 15, 2012, leading to a league-wide lockout. What followed were months of canceled games and stalled negotiations. The turning point came when federal mediator Scot L. Beckenbaugh stepped in, employing shuttle diplomacy. He kept the parties apart and visited each side individually to identify areas where they could be flexible.

The final agreement centered on player pensions, a critical issue for NHL players whose careers are often short. The deal allowed players to make concessions on salary in the short term in exchange for long-term financial security, showcasing how tradeoffs across different timeframes can lead to resolution.

What can you learn from this negotiation example?

This example illustrates that overcoming impasses in negotiations often requires expanding the focus and exploring tradeoffs that cut across time periods. By offering a long-term gain, such as improved pensions, in return for a short-term concession, like reduced salaries, the NHL and NHLPA were able to break through the deadlock. Looking beyond immediate interests can open up new sources of leverage and help resolve complex disputes, creating a win-win situation for both parties.

What is the negotiation style used in this example?

The negotiation style used here is the Collaborative Negotiation Style because both sides explored tradeoffs (short-term salary cuts for long-term pension security) to resolve the deadlock.

For more information about this style, you can read our article about Collaborative/Integrative Negotiation.

11. Salary Negotiations and the Impact of Past Salary Inquiries

In August 2016, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed into law a bill that would prevent employers from asking prospective employees about their past salary. This law, which took effect in 2018, also allows employees to discuss their salaries openly with colleagues without the risk of employer retribution. The aim was to address the gender pay gap, where women in Massachusetts were earning about 82% of what their male counterparts made for comparable work. Research by scholars like Harvard Kennedy School professor Hannah Riley Bowles highlighted that women who negotiate assertively are often perceived less favorably than those who do not, further reinforcing the gender disparity in pay.

This law’s implications go beyond gender equity, raising critical considerations for job candidates seeking to refine their salary negotiation skills. One key takeaway from the new Massachusetts law is its emphasis on the potential disadvantages job seekers face when disclosing their past salaries. Due to the anchoring effect—where the first number mentioned exerts significant influence on subsequent discussions—candidates, particularly women, may find themselves anchored to lower salary figures if past earnings are disclosed.

The evolving norm around salary transparency, fueled by platforms like Glassdoor.com and open discussions on social media, further changes the landscape of salary negotiations. Employers often fear that salary discussions may lower morale if employees discover discrepancies, even when these are due to differences in experience or responsibilities.

What can you learn from this negotiation example?

This example underscores the importance of strategic negotiation in salary discussions. If you learn that you are being paid less than colleagues, research objective industry standards and present evidence to your employer, emphasizing that any discrepancy is likely unintentional. When negotiating for a new job, consider playing up your experience if the job market is competitive, while being open to concessions like additional benefits in exchange for a lower salary.

Conversely, if your previous salary was low, you might acknowledge this while shifting the conversation to what you believe you’re worth. This case highlights the need for careful negotiation strategies that take into account both internal dynamics and external influences on salary discussions.

What is the negotiation style used in this example?

The negotiation style used here is the Accommodation Negotiation Style because the reforms focused on employee fairness and addressing systemic pay gaps, prioritizing relationships over conflict.

For more information about this style, you can read our article about Accommodation Negotiation.

12. My negotiation as Procurement Manager at Ahold Delhaize

During my time as a procurement manager, I had the opportunity to engage in numerous negotiations. One particular negotiation that stands out is the one I had with a major international manufacturer who was among the top 5 suppliers for Ahold Delhaize. 

This negotiation spanned multiple countries, categories, and formats and involved up to 10 buyers and at least 20 category managers. It was a complex deal, highly significant for both Ahold Delhaize and the supplier.

Up until two years ago, our relationship with this supplier was strained, lacking in trust, and negotiations often resulted in situations where one party won at the expense of the other, which eventually led to mutual losses. 

Consequently, we experienced a decline in joint revenue, market share, and margins. As a result of customers turning away, we decided to change course by taking the following steps:

• Strategic Sessions: Throughout the year, we organized strategic sessions per country, category, and format to understand each other’s interests and build trust, to win back customers.
• Preparation for the Negotiation: Preparation has two crucial points:

➢ Internal Alignment: I set up a session to gain internal alignment on my sourcing plan and gather input. Internal negotiations are sometimes more challenging than external ones, as colleagues do not always understand why a supplier cannot meet their specific requirements.

➢Negotiation Planning: We decided to lock ourselves away for two days at an external location. It was crucial that the right people were at the table and that everyone in the office was available if needed.

• The Negotiation Itself: Because there was trust, we knew each other’s interests and the right people were present, the negotiation went smoothly. Instead of convincing each other, we made proposals to meet halfway. The result was a win-win deal within two days. We gave each other what was important, instead of taking it away.

Throughout the year, we saw the results: revenue grew, we gained market share, and margins increased significantly.

What can you learn from this negotiation example?

Most of the negotiation takes place throughout the year. By organizing the right sessions, trust and understanding are built.

A ‘deal a day’ approach works effectively; by locking ourselves away for the negotiation, we closed a deal in two days that normally would have taken weeks or months.

Carrots work better than sticks. Giving each other something and trading for something important is more valuable than working with sticks, where you take things away. I have always tried to maintain this mindset thereafter.

What is the negotiation style used in this example?

The negotiation style used here is the Collaborative Negotiation Style because the negotiation prioritizes trust-building, mutual understanding, and long-term benefits for both parties.

For more information about this style, you can read our article about Collaborative/Integrative Negotiations.

Procurement Expert’s Advice on Negotiation Examples

For this article, we asked an experienced procurement expert to share her insights to help answer common questions about negotiation examples.

Negotiation Experience is the Key

To a professional negotiator or procurement manager, experience is always the best teacher to become a good negotiator. You take those moments of victory and relish it while you hold on to those moments of defeat and you learn from each painful memory. 

I can still vividly remember my first negotiations. With sweaty hands, I entered the negotiation room, and while stuttering, I made my first proposal. It was immediately dismissed by the person across from me, and I didn’t know how to handle it. 

Now, 15 years later, I regularly sit down with CCOs and CEOs of large international companies. I approach the table with a plan and only feel a healthy level of nervousness before a negotiation, but I no longer get intimidated by anyone. That is what experience does to you.

Of course, while experience is just one of the many facets of becoming an expert negotiator, it is easy to learn because the most important negotiations are memorable for everyone involved.

And even if a person is not involved, stories of successful negotiations are now available for people to read thanks to the Internet!

Conclusion

The stories that we’ve shared with you can teach you how you can be adaptable and a forward-thinker in negotiations.

In negotiations, you must always strive for a win-win situation for you to build a strong relationship with the other party. The lessons that you learned hold relevance not just in business but also in your everyday interactions and relationships with your family, friends, and co-workers.

Now that you’re done reading this article, I have created a free-to-download editable in-negotiation toolkit template. It’s a PowerPoint file that can help you create the best approach when negotiating with other parties. I even created a video where I’ll explain how you can use this template.