The document discusses the evolution of B2B e-negotiations and the importance of adapting influence tactics in email communications compared to face-to-face interactions. It highlights the effectiveness of specific combinations of tactics, such as information sharing with recommendations, and the need for salespeople to track and measure their influence strategies. Additionally, it addresses the challenges of ambiguity in using mixed tactics and offers insights into managing buyer attention during negotiations.

1. From:
How to Use Influence Tactics
During B2B E-Negotiations to
Win B2B Contracts:
Guidelines for B2B
Sales Managers and Salespeople
Singh, Marinova, and Singh (2020)

2. From:
Email Use for B2B Sales Negotiations
Daily Business Email traffic in 2018
(Radicati Group)
Increase in email negotiations in the last
decade (Bulow 2011)
Negotiations conducted through emails
in North America (IACCM)
125
Billion
85%
60-70%77%
Customers prefer
email negotiations
Sales cycle complete before buyer and
salesperson meet face-to-face extensively
75%
Singh, Marinova, and Singh (2020)

3. From:From:
 E-Communication is different from Face-to-Face communication
 More Flexible: E-Mails are accessible 24/7
 More Transparent: E-Mails are digitally stored and retrievable anytime
 More Varied: E-Mails allow diverse attachments to substantiate sales arguments
 More Flat: E-Mails are constrained in length and limited in emotional expression
 Sellers need to adapt their use of influence tactics to E-Communication.
E-Mail vs Face-to-Face Communication
Singh, Marinova, and Singh (2020)

4. From:From:
 Salespeople are known to use multiple influence tactics in a message.
E-Negotiations allow for easier tracking and measurement of such
tactics.
 Information sharing, recommendations, promise, and assertiveness are commonly used influence
tactics in B2B Negotiations.
 What combinations of influence tactics are effective and why?
B2B E-Negotiations and Use of Influence Tactics
Singh, Marinova, and Singh (2020)

5. From:From:
Internal Analyzing Tactics:
 Information Sharing + Recommendation
 Effective because both tactics persuade the receiver to focus on the merit of the argument.
Combinations of only complementary influence
tactics are effective
Singh, Marinova, and Singh (2020)
Risk Shifting Tactics
 Promise + Assertiveness
 Effective because both the tactics mitigate decision risk, simplify information processing, and/or reduce uncertainty
Internal Analyzing and Risk Shifting Tactics
 Information Sharing + Promise; Information Sharing + Assertiveness; Recommendation + Promise; Recommendation
+ Assertiveness
 Ineffective because using them together sends mixed signals thereby resulting in ambiguity

6. From:
Promise
Recommendation
Assertiveness
Information Sharing
Buyer Attention
The degree to which a
buyer displays
heightened interest and
behavioral engagement
in response to
salesperson’s e-
communications
Managing Buyer Attention
+
+
-
Sale
Contract
Award
Singh, Marinova, and Singh (2020)
Compliance
Risk-shifting by
committing or
suggesting an action
Internalization
Internal analyzing of
counter arguments or
expert knowledge

7. From:
Promise
Example: “We will deliver by next month”
Sample words/phrases: Action verbs (e.g., perform,
deliver, respond) with modals (e.g., will, can)
Recommendation
Example: “We strongly recommend…”
Sample words/phrases: Action verbs (recommend,
advice) with proposition quality (e.g., strongly, highest)
Assertiveness
Example: “We need you to perform the inspection today”
Sample words/phrases: Pronouns (e.g., we, I) with action
verbs (e.g., need, would, want)
Information Sharing
Example: “Find attached the product specs”
Sample words/phrases: Verbs (e.g., attach, forward) with
informational nouns (e.g., product specs)
Compliance
Risk-shifting by committing
or suggesting an action
Internalization
Internal analyzing of counter
arguments or expert
knowledge
Salesperson Communication Tactics
Singh, Marinova, and Singh (2020)