Winning the Number Doesn’t Always Mean Winning the Deal
I remember one of the first pieces of negotiation advice I heard early in my career, more than 40 years ago. I know many of you have heard it too:
Never make the first offer.
The reasoning sounds perfectly logical. Let the other person go first. Maybe they’ll reveal something. Maybe they’ll offer more than you expected. Why show your cards before you know what they’re holding?
The problem is that decades of negotiation research suggest that making the first offer can actually give you a significant advantage.
But that advantage comes with a price.
Recent research has helped clarify something professionals should understand about negotiation:
The person who puts the first number on the table can influence where the negotiation ends. But the more aggressively they use that advantage, the greater the possibility that they damage the negotiation itself.
That matters in real estate because we’re negotiating all the time: price, commission, repairs, concessions, possession, closing dates and inspection issues.
And it isn’t limited to transactions. We’re also negotiating employment agreements, recruiting packages, compensation, training fees, vendor contracts and dozens of other things.
So it helps to understand what is actually happening when somebody puts the first number on the table.
THE FIRST NUMBER ISN’T JUST A NUMBER
Suppose you’re negotiating the purchase of something. Before anyone mentions price, there is an enormous range of possibilities.
Then somebody says:
$750,000.
The negotiation now has an anchor.
Even when we know that an opening number is simply an opening position, our thinking tends to adjust around it. That’s the anchoring effect.
Research going back decades has demonstrated it, and newer research continues to support it. The first offer tends to pull the eventual settlement toward the person who made it.
That means the old advice to never go first deserves another look. Sometimes going first is exactly what you should do.
The question is when.
THE NEWER RESEARCH MAKES THIS MORE INTERESTING
A major 2025 study published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes examined 374 effects from 90 studies involving 16,334 people.
The researchers found a meaningful first-mover advantage. More ambitious first offers also tended to produce better economic outcomes when an agreement was reached.
At first glance, the lesson seems obvious: go first, start aggressively and improve your outcome.
But there was another side to the research.
More ambitious opening offers were also associated with more negotiations ending without an agreement and worse subjective experiences for the person receiving the offer.
Two additional preregistered experiments involving another 2,121 participants reproduced both sides of the finding. The researchers also found anger helped explain the increase in impasses and poorer subjective outcomes.
That is the part I find most useful.
A strategy that improves your economic outcome can also increase the probability that there is no outcome at all.
And even when the deal gets done, the other person may feel worse about the way it got done.
For a professional, that changes the objective. The question isn’t simply, “How do I get the most?”
It is, “What am I trying to accomplish with this negotiation?”
EVERY NEGOTIATION DOESN’T HAVE THE SAME OBJECTIVE
Imagine I’m buying a used piece of equipment from somebody I’ll never see again. That negotiation may be almost entirely transactional. If I can negotiate another $500 in my favor without losing the deal, that may be a perfectly rational objective.
Now put that same thinking into a real estate transaction.
The seller and buyer may have to cooperate for the next 30 or 45 days. There may be inspections, an appraisal, repairs, loan conditions, possession questions and unexpected problems. There may be several more negotiations before the transaction ever closes.
Now the objective isn’t simply to extract the maximum value from the other side.
I may need cooperation just as much as I need a favorable number.
The same thing happens when we’re negotiating with a client.
If I “win” a commission negotiation but leave the seller feeling that I bullied them into it, did I really win?
Maybe I got the listing and maybe I got my fee, but I’ve also got to work with that seller when the inspection becomes difficult, when we receive a disappointing offer, or when I need them to listen to advice they may not want to hear.
And eventually somebody is going to ask them, “Would you recommend your agent?”
The closing may end the transaction. It doesn’t necessarily end the relationship.
THERE ARE TWO THINGS TO MEASURE
Professionals naturally measure the economic result of a negotiation.
What did I get? What did I give up? Where did we settle, and how did that compare with the result I was trying to achieve?
But there is another result that matters, especially in relationship businesses.
How does the other person feel about the agreement? Did the process seem fair? Did we preserve enough goodwill to continue working together? Would that person negotiate with me again or recommend me to somebody else?
You can win economically and lose relationally.
The 2025 meta-analysis found exactly that tension. Ambitious first offers improved agreement value while also reducing deal likelihood and the recipient’s subjective value.
So getting more isn’t automatically the same thing as creating a better outcome.
YOUR FIRST OFFER ALSO TELLS THEM SOMETHING
There’s another problem with the advice to always make the first offer.
The first number doesn’t only influence the other person’s thinking. It can also tell them something about yours.
Researchers David Loschelder and his colleagues developed what they call the Information-Anchoring Model of First Offers. Their work suggests a first offer can do two things at once: create an anchor that moves the negotiation in your direction while also revealing information about your priorities that the other party may be able to use.
So “always go first” isn’t much better advice than “never go first.”
If I know the market well and understand the likely bargaining range, establishing the anchor may be extremely useful.
If I don’t know enough, I can end up negotiating against myself.
Imagine a buyer who would happily pay $800,000 saying:
“I’ll give you $775,000.”
The seller was prepared to accept $750,000.
That buyer didn’t establish an advantageous anchor. He gave away $25,000 before the negotiation even started.
There are times when letting the other person speak first gives you information that is worth more than the anchor you gave up.
NOT ALL FIRST OFFERS ARE CREATED EQUAL
The research has also become more sophisticated about what makes a first offer effective.
An August 2026 review in Current Opinion in Psychology points out that first offers are influenced by more than simply who goes first or how aggressive the number is.
Researchers are also looking at precision, framing, ranges and rationales—all of which can influence the effectiveness of the first offer.
Think about two conversations with a seller.
The first agent says:
“I think we should list at $725,000.”
The second says:
“Based on the competing inventory, the last three sales in this price band, current buyer activity, and what happened to the homes that started above $750,000, I recommend we enter the market at $725,000.”
Same number. Very different conversation.
The second number comes with a reason.
A number creates an anchor. A rationale creates credibility.
A professional needs both.
THE ANCHOR DOESN’T HAVE TO CONTROL YOU
This is especially important when the other person gets the number out first.
A seller says, “I won’t take less than $850,000.”
A buyer says, “There’s no way I’m paying more than $725,000.”
A prospective client says, “I’ll never pay a 3% commission.”
The easy mistake is to start negotiating around their number.
We don’t have to.
Sometimes the better move is to challenge the frame instead of immediately countering the anchor.
Suppose the seller says, “I want to list at $850,000.”
I could respond, “I think $799,000 is more realistic.”
Now I’m negotiating $850,000 versus $799,000, which may not even be the right conversation.
Instead I might say:
“Before we settle on a number, let’s separate two questions. What might the property ultimately sell for, and what starting strategy gives us the best opportunity to create buyer competition?”
Now we’re talking about strategy rather than defending two numbers.
We’re asking what gives the seller the best probability of accomplishing the objective.
To me, that’s professional negotiation.
COMPLEXITY CHANGES THINGS TOO
Most real estate negotiations aren’t single-variable negotiations.
Price matters, but it isn’t the only thing that matters.
The recent research found that as negotiations became more complex, with more issues and different kinds of issues, the effects of first offers became smaller and some of the psychology changed.
That makes sense in a real estate transaction.
A $750,000 offer with strong financing, no sale contingency, limited inspection requests and flexible possession may be a better offer for a particular seller than a $765,000 offer carrying substantially more uncertainty.
If all we negotiate is the headline number, we can miss where the real value is.
Sometimes our job is to expand the negotiation.
Instead of only asking, “How do we get them to increase the price?” we need to find out what else matters to our client.
Certainty. Timing. Possession. Repairs. Financing. Risk. Convenience.
Once you understand more of the variables, you have more ways to build an agreement instead of simply splitting the difference.
SO WHO SHOULD GO FIRST?
The research doesn’t give us a universal rule, and that’s probably the most useful conclusion.
Before making the first offer, I think there are a handful of things worth considering.
How well do I understand the market, the alternatives, the bargaining range and the likely value?
How important is the relationship? Is this a one-time transaction or somebody I may need to work with for months or years?
How complicated is the negotiation? Are we really negotiating one number, or are there several things that have value?
How aggressive can I reasonably be without losing credibility or creating resentment?
And can I explain why my number makes sense?
Most importantly, what am I trying to optimize for?
Maximum economic value may be the objective in one negotiation. In another, probability of agreement, certainty, speed, future business or the relationship may matter more.
There isn’t one correct answer.
That’s why negotiation requires judgment rather than a memorized rule.
DON’T JUST WIN THE NUMBER
I’ve spent more than 40 years in sales and real estate, and one thing experience teaches you is that getting your way and getting a good outcome are not necessarily the same thing.
There are times when you should go first and times when you should wait.
There are times when an aggressive anchor makes sense and times when protecting the relationship matters more.
And there are times when the smartest thing you can do is stop negotiating the number altogether and find out what else matters.
So I don’t think the best question in negotiation is:
How do I win?
I think it’s:
What outcome am I trying to create—and what will it cost to create it?
RESEARCH & FURTHER READING
Petrowsky, H. M., et al. (2025). “The Power and Peril of First Offers in Negotiations: A Conceptual, Meta-Analytic, and Experimental Synthesis.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 191, Article 104448. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104448.
Loschelder, D. D., & Petrowsky, H. M. (2026). “The Influential First Offer: How to Advance a Negotiation Classic by Integrating Features, Mechanisms, and Outcomes.” Current Opinion in Psychology, Article 102417. DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2026.102417.
Loschelder, D. D., Trötschel, R., Swaab, R. I., Friese, M., & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). “The Information-Anchoring Model of First Offers: When Moving First Helps Versus Hurts Negotiators.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(7), 995–1012. DOI: 10.1037/apl0000096.
Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School (2026). “The First-Offer Dilemma in Negotiations: Should You Make the First Offer?”
Winning the number doesn’t always mean winning the deal.
The best negotiation may not be the one where the other person finally gives in.
It may be the one where both sides understand why saying yes makes sense.
That’s Time Tested Mastery.