Checklist
Agree what counts as a fair comparison before choosing the benchmark
Independent data can still be selected very dependently on what you want.
When it fits
- Each side cites a convenient number to justify a price, rate or allocation.
When to avoid it
- A market benchmark can reflect existing inequities and does not override minimum protections or personal constraints. Data quality and local context still matter.
Checklist
- Define the features that make another arrangement genuinely comparable.
- Use a traceable source and disclose important differences.
- Discuss why the chosen criterion is relevant to both parties before bargaining over its result.
Why it matters
Agree which comparison would be relevant before selecting favorable examples. Check scope, responsibilities, timing and conditions. Use the resulting range to justify a proposal while keeping exceptions visible, rather than treating one convenient figure as an objective verdict.
An example
A consulting-rate comparison separates short urgent work from a long predictable engagement instead of mixing every quoted rate.
Check your result
The comparison remains defensible when the same selection rule produces an inconvenient example.
Keep this limit in mind
- A market benchmark can reflect existing inequities and does not override minimum protections or personal constraints. Data quality and local context still matter.
Connected ideas
Useful withCompare the offer with an alternative you can actually take
Evidence and sources
Principled negotiation uses mutually accepted independent criteria, such as relevant market comparisons, to justify proposals.
The relevance and fairness of a benchmark remain contestable; selective comparisons can reproduce rather than remove bias.
Principled Negotiation: Focus on Interests to Create Value · Element 4