Closing the Deal with Fexingo · 2026-06-30 · 9 min
Key moments - from our scoring
Substance score
65 / 100
Five dimensions, 20 points each
Jenny Park's negotiation approach flipped conventional sales wisdom by introducing a higher price anchor instead of capitulating to discount pressure. Selling a mid-market CRM platform worth six hundred thousand dollars annually for one hundred fifty seats, she faced a procurement team demanding ten percent off after she'd already given five percent. Rather than continue down, she reframed the conversation around the buyer's stated uncertainty about advanced features. By proposing that removing the reporting module would actually increase the unit price by eight percent due to re-engineering costs, she created a contrast effect that made the original offer feel like a bargain. The tactic leverages Dan Ariely's anchoring research and commitment consistency principles - once the buyer articulates they don't need a feature, reconciling that position with a higher price creates psychological discomfort that drives them back to the original terms. Success depends entirely on relationship depth, internal stakeholder mapping, and legitimate cost structure. Harvard Business School research shows the frame works sixty to seventy percent of the time with high credibility, dropping to thirty percent without trust. Most applicable in B2B SaaS, professional services, and custom manufacturing - not in commoditized markets where price is the sole differentiator.
She reframed the conversation by proposing to remove the advanced reporting module - and stating that the unit price would actually increase by eight percent because the platform was configured to include it. This anchoring tactic made the original price feel like a bargain, and the buyer chose to keep the module and accept the original terms.
Dan Ariely's anchoring research shows people evaluate prices relative to the first number they see. Combined with commitment consistency, once buyers state they don't need a feature, hearing the price goes up without it creates discomfort that drives them back to the original offer.
You need high credibility built through multiple touchpoints (discovery, demos, proof of concept), knowledge of internal stakeholders and what they've promised, and a legitimate cost structure backing the higher price. Research shows the frame works sixty to seventy percent of the time with high credibility versus thirty percent without trust.
No - it requires some level of customization or integration to be credible. It works well in B2B SaaS, professional services, and custom manufacturing, but fails in commoditized markets like office supplies where buyers can simply shop elsewhere.
Jenny's approach was: 'I've been thinking about our last conversation. You mentioned the reporting module might not be critical. If we remove it, the unit price goes up by eight percent because the platform is configured to include it. Would you like me to send a revised quote with the module removed, or should we proceed with the original proposal?'
Our reviewer’s read on each dimension, with quotes from the episode.
The episode centers on one compelling negotiation tactic (price anchoring through feature removal) with moderate supporting detail, but lacks density across the full conversation. While the core insight - reframing scope rather than price to psychologically reset negotiations - is solid, the episode spends significant time on setup, self-promotion, and exploratory questions that don't yield new tactical depth. The addition of credibility-dependent success rates (60-70% vs. 30%) adds useful nuance, but the transcript largely elaborates on a single idea rather than packing multiple novel claims.
Dan Ariely's research on anchoring shows that people evaluate prices relative to the first number they see.
a negotiation researcher at Harvard Business School said that in controlled experiments, the 'price increase' frame works about sixty to seventy percent of the time when the rep has high credibility.
The episode presents a genuine inversion of standard discount-concession logic: instead of defending against price cuts, the rep introduces an anchor that makes the original price appear cheaper. This is genuinely counterintuitive for most sales reps and contrasts with typical negotiation playbooks. However, the underlying mechanism - anchoring and contrast effects - is well-established behavioral economics that Dan Ariely popularized; the originality lies primarily in the specific application and framing rather than the discovery of new principles.
Instead of conceding, you say, 'Actually, I need to raise the price by eight percent.'
She reframed the bundle, not the price. But the effect on the buyer's psychology was the same.
The primary source is Jenny Park, a sales rep who executed the tactic successfully - a legitimate practitioner at the right level. However, the episode relies heavily on Lucas as narrator/intermediary rather than speaking directly to Jenny at scale or depth, and the Harvard Business School reference is attributed only secondhand without naming or direct interview. For a B2B sales episode, direct access to the rep who closed a six-figure deal is valuable, but the framing as a retold story rather than primary testimony weakens caliber.
A rep named Jenny Park did exactly that - and she won the deal.
I talked to a negotiation researcher at Harvard Business School, and she said that in controlled experiments, the 'price increase' frame works about sixty to seventy percent of the time when the rep has high credibility.
The episode includes concrete details: named rep (Jenny Park), specific product type (mid-market CRM), exact seat count (150), precise contract value ($600K), specific discount request (10% countered, 5% already given), and the exact price increase anchor (8%). A specific script quote is provided, and the relevant variables (three discovery calls, PoC, two negotiation sessions) are enumerated. However, no data on other similar reps, failure cases, or industry-specific success rates beyond the 60-70% Harvard reference limits broader evidential weight.
She was selling a mid-market CRM platform, about a hundred and fifty seats, annual contract value around six hundred thousand dollars.
she'd already given them five percent
Luna asks sharp, natural follow-up questions ('Where did the idea to raise the price come from?' 'What about the risk?' 'Give me a specific script') that uncover the tactical layers and test the tactic's limits. She appropriately challenges the reframing ('That's not really a price increase') and identifies boundary conditions (commoditized markets, unbundled products). However, neither host pushes back on potential ethical concerns, doesn't cross-examine credibility claims, and doesn't challenge Lucas on selection bias (did he only hear success stories?). The self-promotion breaks interrupt substantive flow without clear necessity.
So where did the idea to raise the price come from?
So she never actually charged more. She just created a scenario where the original price felt like a win. That's classic anchoring, right?
Computed from the transcript - who did the talking, and the words that came up most.
In episode 84 of Closing the Deal with Fexingo, Lucas and Luna unpack a counterintuitive sales tactic: a rep who won a six-figure deal by proactively asking for a price increase mid-negotiation. They walk through how Jenny Park, a SaaS account executive at a mid-market CRM company, turned a stalled deal around by reframing value, not discounting. The hosts break down the psychology behind the move - anchoring, scarcity, and commitment consistency - and share a specific script that any salesperson can adapt. They also discuss when this tactic backfires and how to gauge buyer trust before pulling the trigger. If you're tired of race-to-the-bottom pricing, this episode offers a fresh, research-backed alternative. Sales, negotiation, and revenue conversations for operators who want to close better, not cheaper. #Sales #Negotiation #Revenue #Business #ClosingTheDeal #FexingoBusiness #BusinessPodcast #JennyPark #PriceIncrease #SaaS #CRM #ValueSelling #Anchoring #Scarcity #CommitmentConsistency #SalesTactics #NoDiscount #RevenueGrowth Keep every episode free: buymeacoffee.com/fexingo
Transcribed and scored by The B2B Podcast Index.
Lucas: So picture this: you're a sales rep, you've been in negotiations for three months, the buyer loves the product, but they keep pushing for a discount. You're down to the final call. And instead of conceding, you say, 'Actually, I need to raise the price by eight percent.' Luna: Wait, you're serious?
That sounds like a surefire way to lose the deal. Lucas: That's exactly what most people think. But a rep named Jenny Park did exactly that - and she won the deal. She was selling a mid-market CRM platform, about a hundred and fifty seats, annual contract value around six hundred thousand dollars.
And she was stuck. The procurement team kept asking for ten percent off, and she'd already given them five percent. Luna: So where did the idea to raise the price come from? Lucas: She told me that she realised the buyer's main objection wasn't really price - it was uncertainty about whether they needed all the features.
Every time they asked for a discount, they also said, 'We're not sure we'll use the advanced reporting module.' So she flipped the script. She said, 'If we drop the reporting module, the base price is actually eight percent higher because the platform is configured for it - we'd have to re-engineer the deployment.' Luna: That's clever.
She reframed the bundle, not the price. But that's not really a price increase - it's a restructuring. Lucas: Right, but the effect on the buyer's psychology was the same. She introduced a new anchor - a higher number - and made the original price look like a deal.
The buyer ended up saying, 'No, no, keep the reporting module. We'll take the original price.' They stopped pushing for a discount. Luna: So she never actually charged more.
She just created a scenario where the original price felt like a win. That's classic anchoring, right? Lucas: Exactly. And it works because of something called commitment consistency.
Once the buyer says, 'We don't need that feature,' and you say, 'Great, then the price goes up by eight percent,' they have to reconcile their desire for a discount with their stated need. It's uncomfortable. So they revert to the original offer. Luna: I love that.
And before we dive deeper, I want to mention something. We're able to dig into stories like this because we keep the show ad-free. No sponsors, no mid-roll interruptions. If that matters to you and you want to support it, you can find us at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo.
Lucas: Yeah, we really appreciate the listeners who chip in. It's what lets us keep the conversation honest and focused on tactics that actually work. Now, back to Jenny - she told me the key was that she had already built enough trust to pull off that move. If the relationship is purely transactional, raising the price feels manipulative.
But if you've spent time understanding their business, it feels consultative. Luna: So timing matters. You couldn't do this on the first call. Lucas: Definitely not.
She had done three discovery calls, a demo, a proof of concept, and two negotiation sessions. By the time she used the price-increase frame, she had earned the right to challenge them. And she framed it as, 'I want to make sure you're not paying for something you won't use.' That's a buyer-centric move.
Luna: I can see how that works when you have a modular product. What if you're selling something that can't be unbundled? Lucas: That's the million-dollar question. You can still use a version of the tactic.
For example, you might say, 'I can offer a longer payment term, but that would require a three percent premium because of our financing costs.' Or, 'We can include premium support, but that adds five percent.' The principle is the same: you introduce a new option with a higher price that makes the original offer look better. Luna: So it's not about actually raising the price - it's about creating a contrast effect.
Lucas: Exactly. Dan Ariely's research on anchoring shows that people evaluate prices relative to the first number they see. Jenny's first number was the higher price. Everything after that looked cheaper.
And because she framed the higher price as the consequence of the buyer's own request - 'you said you don't need reporting, so here's the adjusted price' - it felt logical, not aggressive. Luna: What about the risk? If the buyer calls your bluff and says, 'Fine, take out the module and give me the higher price.' Lucas: Jenny said she was prepared for that.
She had a legitimate cost structure. If they had agreed to the higher price, she would have actually removed the module and the company would have made more money on a stripped-down deal. But she also knew that the buyer's internal champion had already sold the advanced reporting to their team. So there was social pressure to keep it.
Luna: So she had done her homework on the internal dynamics. That's the real lesson: the tactic works only if you understand the buyer's stakeholders. Lucas: Absolutely. If you try this without knowing who the champion is, what they've promised internally, and what the budget constraints are, it can backfire.
But if you know that the champion has already bragged about the reporting module in a steering committee meeting, you have leverage. Luna: Give me a specific script. How would you actually say this on a call? Lucas: Jenny's actual words were something like: 'I've been thinking about our last conversation.
You mentioned that the reporting module might not be critical for your team right now. If we remove it, I can adjust the scope, but the unit price actually goes up by eight percent because the platform is configured to include it. Would you like me to send a revised quote with the module removed, or should we proceed with the original proposal?' Luna: So the question forces a binary choice: either accept the higher price or stick with the original.
That's powerful. Lucas: Exactly. And notice she didn't say 'discount' - she said 'adjust the scope.' She kept the conversation about value, not price.
The buyer chose the original, and they signed the next day. Luna: I wonder if this works better in certain industries. I could see it being effective in SaaS, professional services, maybe custom manufacturing. But in commoditised markets, where price is the only differentiator, it might fall flat.
Lucas: You're right. If you're selling office supplies, raising the price for removing a feature doesn't make sense - the buyer can just go to Staples. The tactic requires that your product has some level of customisation or integration. That's why it works in B2B tech, consulting, and any services where the implementation is tailored.
Luna: Have you seen any data on how often this works? Lucas: I talked to a negotiation researcher at Harvard Business School, and she said that in controlled experiments, the 'price increase' frame works about sixty to seventy percent of the time when the rep has high credibility. When credibility is low, it drops to about thirty percent. So the prerequisite is trust.
Luna: That's a good reality check. It's not a magic bullet. Lucas: No, it's not. But what I like about it is that it forces the rep to think differently about concessions.
Most reps think the only direction is down. Jenny showed that you can go up - or at least make the buyer think you can - and that changes the entire negotiation dynamic. Luna: So the takeaway for listeners: before you give a discount, consider creating a new option that makes your original offer look like a bargain. But only if you've earned the right to do so.
Lucas: Exactly. And one more thing: Jenny said that after the deal closed, the buyer told her, 'I'm glad you pushed back. It made me feel like you really believed in the product.' So there's a relationship upside too.
Luna: That's the kind of comment you don't get when you just slash your price. Alright, Lucas, great story. Thanks for sharing. Lucas: Thanks, Luna.
And thanks to everyone listening. If you've got a similar story about using a counterintuitive tactic in a negotiation, we'd love to hear it. You can find us at the show page. Luna: And if you value these ad-free conversations, you know where to find us: buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo.
See you next time. Lucas: Take care, everyone.
Other episodes covering the same guests and topics, from across The B2B Podcast Index.
ClickUp’s Jason Wooten on top sellers, procurement pressure, and leadership riskThe Sales Compensation Show · on Procurement negotiations76 / 100
Salary Negotiation Part 1: Why You're Afraid to Ask (And Why You Shouldn't Be)My Friend in HR · on Harvard Business School negotiation research61 / 100
Season 8 Episode 3 - What It Takes To Run a Top Supply Chain ProgramSupply Chain Central · on Procurement negotiations51 / 100
I Took A Team To Paris And Discovered The Brief Was In SpamEmbracing Marketing Mistakes · on Procurement negotiations
The Rep Who Won by Asking for a 20 Percent Price Cut69 / 100How a Rep Won by Negotiating Against Their Own Offer86 / 100How One Rep Closed by Asking the Buyer for a Competitor Comparison81 / 100The Sales Rep Who Won by Telling the Buyer He Was Wrong72 / 100How One Rep Closed by Asking the Buyer to Fire Their Vendor80 / 100