Win-win-situation! Who's the loser?

[Fan Of Arabian Horses]

Hi!

Recently, in a reply at this site, I read about a win-win-situation regarding the modern economy. I wonder who the loser is!

Last Saturday, commenting a box-fight, the TV-commentator G?nther-Peter Ploog spoke about a win-win-situation, too. Now, what diid he speak about?

The situation: A world-championship-fight between Zsoltan Erdei and Thomas Ullrich had been claimed. Both fighters had been promoted by the Sauerland-Box-promotion-company. So the Sauerland-Box-promotion-company couldn?t lose anything since Zsoltan Erdei had been the World-champion before that fight and who of the two fighters ever would win the match, the Sauerland-company would stay the Promoter of a world-champion. That is what a win-win-situation means?

Everything is fine after the fight? Wasn?t there any loser? and what does that mean for the economy?

Michael

[Yankee]

Hi Michael

"Win-win" is a very popular buzzword in business nowadays.

In your story, the only one who has a "win-win" situation is the Sauerland Boxing Promotion Company.

Of course one of the boxers will win and the other will lose. That's a "win-lose" situation for the boxers. However, if neither one cares who actually wins the fight and both get paid the same amount of money, maybe then you could also see that as a win-win situation.

I didn't understand your question about the economy. What exactly are you referring to? Or did you mean the "prize money" for the fight?

Amy

[Fan Of Arabian Horses]

Hi Amy!

I intentionally gave you a look just to the surface of that box-fight. In fact, for Thomas Ullrich that fight had been the last chance for becomming world-champion and he lost. Of course, Zsolt Erdei had been the better one and correctly won. I haven?t heard about the rates of pay for the boxers, but do you think that they fought for money only? Do you think there wasn?t any other reason (to have the honor of the world champion for example)?

Now, Zsolt Erdei is a habitant from Bulgaria and certainly got an amount of half a million Euros. Since that fight was his fifth or sixth defending the champions title he surely had earned about 3 Million Euros and had earned a life for his children, too. Do you think that his intention is to get money when boxing?

On the other hand, what amount of money did the Sauerland-stable (commonly called) earn caused by that fight without having any risk? win-win-situation What value would the Sauerland-stable have without the fighters (workers)?

Can you understand my question better now?

Michael

[Spencer]

Hi Michael,

How's everything?
I just want to say there is no name as Zsoltan.
His name is Zsolt, and there is another name Zoltan in Hungary, you you must have confused them a bit.
His nickname is madar, that means bird.
Michael, you desribed this win-win situation, and made an explanation. So what's the question exactly?

Spencer

[Spencer]

Damn, I was too slow, you corrected yourself.
Erdei Zsolt is Hungarian though.

[Yankee]

Hi Michael

The fight itself was a "win-win situation" for the promotional company since both boxers are in their "stable". No matter which fighter wins, the "stable" still has a win.

If the promotional company didn't have any fighters, then we wouldn't be talking about a win-win, win-lose, or even lose-lose situation since there wouldn't be anything to win or lose at all in that respect. In order to talk about win-win, etc., you'd have to talk about some other aspect of the company's business.

Do the fighters fight for money? Sure, they do. But definitely not only for money. What I wrote in my first post was only a theoretical situation in which you might be able to look at the fight itself as a so-called "win-win" situation. Of course, I don't think you're likely to actually find such a situation.

I take it you don't like the term "win-win". Am I right?

Amy

[Fan Of Arabian Horses]

[Yankee]

Hi Michael

I like the general concept of "win-win". But I think it's a very difficult thing to achieve. I think when companies use the term, they mean (for example) that a negotiation ends with positive aspects for both sides. But that doesn't mean that there aren't any compromises in win-win.

Of course, some people and companies understand win-win to mean "I win and I don't care what happens to you." And some people only know that it's a buzzword that has to be used whenever possible (but don't really get what it might actually mean).

Amy

[Fan Of Arabian Horses]

Hi Amy!

Do you think that the commentator in my example didn?t get the correct meaning of a win-win situation or do you think it was me, who missunderstood that?

Michael

[Yankee]

Hi Michael

Actually, I think the TV guy probably used it just as "correctly" as a lot of business people I know.

It doesn't really seem to be exactly the correct sense of win-win, though. Normally there are two different parties involved in win-win. What you described was just one promotional company that won --- no matter who lost.

Amy

[Tamara]

Hi

Yes, it’s known (even to me), that present-day business is not just a classic 'zero-game'.
In my (smatterer's) understanding , some situations could be better considered in terms of (classis) so-called 'star games' (that are, in some sense, opposite to 'zero-game', and a 'star' is NOT a positive or negative number. And nor a number at all.

A friend of mine is a (Moscow) businessman and, like Amy, he always says that win-win in business is, mostly, a point of negotiation and quite subjective, – when we consider long-term legal and true business, but not 'once-only dealing'.

Lets consider simple 'lose-lose' situation. My imaginary (and smatterer's ) example is simple (and not for B2C, but for direct B2B).

Let me be a representative of a company who is seeking a subcontractor to allocate some (small) job. So, I normally consider potential subcontractors in usual quality-time-cost terms.

If, for example, a small undertaker charges for doing the job a price ?12 500 I, knowing that it’s higher than a large (but very busy) company would charge, start strongly press him in negotiation and, finally, manage to reduce cost of the subcontract to, say, ?9 300

But as he perhaps feels being robbed by me he possibly will find a quite legal way (ways ) to 'compensate' the deficiency (and punish my greediness )

More likely, after the contract has finished, we both will feel us having a lose (in some sense), never will be able to do a reliable long-term business, etc., etc.

So it's not only a point of 'money today' as a 'win'.

But - again I agree with Amy – for promoters (or brokers) it’s doesn’t matter who is today’ ‘winner’, if they keep their own balance right.

Tamara
_________________
It’s impossible to learn swimming without entering the water…

[Fan Of Arabian Horses]

[Tamara]

Hi Michael

Generally I only meant that ‘money today’ ‘at all cost’ in modern (civilized ) economics is a strategy of a loser who has no chance to establish steady-and-successful long-term business.

‘Cheap Jack’, if we consider B2C. To foist off some low-quality goods and bundle away for new buyers.
I know that in B2B (business-to-business) it doesn’t work well. If you intend to set up successful business, you should cooperate and care for mutual (and common) interests. Keeping the ‘win-win’ ball up.

In the above example it’s obviously my (representative ) mistake – to press the subcontractor, twisting his arms, and try to reduce the cost of the job – lower than he feels, he would deserve.
I ‘won’ only about ?3 000, but lost the subcontractor for the future and perhaps had had some ‘hidden reefs’ in the outcome I finally got.

Despite the true reason that forced me (a representative) to seek a subcontractors -
(by the way, it’s might be not only the ‘less money’ point, but, for example, extra workload in my company’s department, that specializes in that kind of job. Or, maybe, my company doesn’t do this kind of job before) -
I’d say that unless I learnt the simple lesson that the interest of my subcontractor(s) have to be actually important for me (and I must ‘play defect’ and cooperate), I will generally lose. While they feel they lose (/ were deceived, dissatisfied) playing with me.

This is why right negotiations (and mutual concessions) are so important for... 'win-win'.

Tamara
_________________
It’s impossible to learn swimming without entering the water…

[Fan Of Arabian Horses]

Hi Tamara, hi Amy!

Hope I didn?t annoy you in the last few replies!

Since I?ve been working really hard the latest days, I dread I wasn?t the commander of my mind and possibly didn?t really understand what you wrote. And that doesn?t have to do with the English only.

Once again sorry if I would have annoyed or offended you with my recent replies.

Michael

[Yankee]

Hi Michael