Own goal?

Interrupting the seemingly never-ending cycle of grim news last week came a story from Nottingham that offered a more cheerful view of the world. The Gelding Inn – a Nottingham pub not previously globally famous – crashed into all of our news and social media feeds after a promotional offer its landlady devised went somewhat wrong. Looking to drum up some lunchtime trade, the focus fell naturally onto the early televised kick-off in the Premier League that Saturday – Nottingham Forest vs Brighton. The offer? A free pint to accompany every goal that Forest scored in the game. Statisticians and pundits might have nodded approvingly – with Forest’s 33 goals in 23 premier league games and against a Brighton defence that was by no means generous (conceding 31 in their previous 23 matches), it would take an optimist wearing rose-tinted spectacles who had just found a four-leafed clover to predict a goal-fest. And yet that is what followed – Forest thrashed Brighton 7-0. Nobody, as they say, saw that coming – and it landed the Gelding Inn’s landlady a £1,500 bill.

Much of the tone of the coverage of this unique example of community-building was a little condescending, typically referring to “own goals” or “spectacular backfiring offer” – but the initial impact of an offer never intended to be so generous becoming so costly was soon mitigated, as explained by the landlady who came up with the idea. Customers recognised the difference between the intention and the actual outcome and spent money on food (and other drinks) – driving incremental income that almost certainly wouldn’t have been there in the absence of the offer. Customers stayed longer (as well they might after all those pints) to discharge their sense of indebtedness to the pub, spending yet more as they did so. The wave of publicity that engulfed the Gelding Inn in the following days is very likely to have had a positive effect on footfall. My best guess would be that the £1,500 cost of the offer has been more than covered since. So it’s a happy ending, right?

Well, yes and no. The context is important. Reciprocity is one of the most significant drivers of influence in the normal course of events, hence the pub got value in return for its offer. In a negotiation, however, that normality is suspended. Our counterparties with whom we negotiate are there to pursue their own interests, and in that sense, an unconditional offer – something freely given – is only ever damaging to the party that makes it. In the pub, the response to the landlady’s offer was to find other ways of spending and take more time – reciprocating the generosity. In a negotiation, the response we see when a concession is made with nothing being traded in return is invariably some version of “more, please”. Not “Thanks – now what can I give you in return?”

Always make your offer conditional (even the majority of consumer offers adhere to this principle – for example “buy one, get one free”). Be specific and precise. If the offer is predicated on future events, recognise that applying boundaries is entirely sensible. For the Gelding Inn, I don’t think the offer was the own goal it was painted as. In a negotiation, however, generosity without getting anything in return is only ever an own goal.