The bogey consists in pretending that a point of no real importance to you is absolutely crucial, so that you can later « concede » it in exchange for a genuine counterpart. You artificially create a bargaining chip in order to protect what truly matters to you.
Grounding in the source schoolSchool grounded in research and field practice
Indicative profile: it situates the “Framing & justification” family as the Methods & tactics school practises it, not this technique taken in isolation. Techniques from the same family and school therefore share the same profile. NEGOCOACH editorial rating out of 10, non-experimental · the higher the “relational risk” value, the more costly the technique is to the relationship.
NEGOCOACH assessment
How to read this rating
Tactical potential 6.3/10 (effectiveness, impact, discretion) and vigilance moderate (relational and ethical risk): two distinct readings, deliberately never merged into a single score that would reward risk. NEGOCOACH editorial rating calibrated from the “Framing & justification” family and the “Methods & tactics” school. Each criterion is rated out of 10; click to understand what it measures.
Effectiveness7/10 · High
How far the technique can carry the negotiation in the intended direction when it is well executed.
Psychological impact6/10 · High
Strength of the effect produced on the counterpart's perceptions, emotions and decisions.
Discretion6/10 · High
How hard it is for the other party to notice the technique is being used. A high value = very discreet.
Preparation5/10 · Moderate
The information, analysis and rehearsal required upfront to use it effectively.
Relational risk3/10 · Low
Potential cost to the relationship and to trust if the technique is spotted, refused or fails. A high value = riskier.
Ethics6/10 · High
Moral acceptability: fairness, transparency and respect for the counterpart's autonomy. A high value = more defensible.
Level of evidence
School grounded in research and field practice
The school this technique stems from combines academic work with long field practice. This indicator qualifies the school, not this technique taken in isolation.
Indicative NEGOCOACH editorial rating, for teaching purposes. For “Relational risk”, a high value signals a cost to the relationship, not a quality.
The BOGEY in brief
Origin & history
The « bogey » was formalised by the American negotiation theorists of the 1960s and 1970s, notably Chester Karrass, a pioneer of corporate negotiation training with Give and Take, and Herb Cohen. Their insight: in any negotiation, information about each party's real priorities is asymmetrical, and that asymmetry can be manufactured. By overplaying attachment to a secondary point, you equip yourself with a spectacular yet painless concession. The technique illustrates a founding principle of modern negotiation: what costs one party little may be worth a great deal to the other, and trading these differences creates value.
Definition and principle
A great classic of strategic bargaining, the technique rests on information asymmetry: the other side is unaware of your real priorities. By overplaying attachment to a detail, you engineer a spectacular yet painless concession, which you then trade for a genuinely decisive advantage.
Concrete examples of application
Application by context
The same technique, across several negotiation settings
A seller insists heavily on the payment terms (which matter little to them), only to soften them « reluctantly » in exchange for a volume commitment which, for its part, changes everything for their margin.
Context 2 / 6
Labour negotiation
Management pretends to be dead set on a secondary working-hours clause, then gives it up with great fanfare in order to obtain in return the wage restraint it was really aiming for.
Context 3 / 6
Crisis management
A negotiator forcefully demands a symbolic point of no consequence, so as to be able to abandon it visibly and wring out in exchange the real concession they were after.
Context 4 / 6
Political negotiation
A party dramatises its opposition to a minor measure, then « sacrifices » it in the media in order to win its case on the central point of the agreement.
Context 5 / 6
Real-estate negotiation
A buyer turns taking over the furniture into a feigned sticking point, then generously drops it in order to secure a genuine reduction in price.
Context 6 / 6
Family negotiation
In a division of assets, one party fights tooth and nail over an object of no sentimental value to them, in order to then give it up for an asset that really matters.
Counter-techniques
Spot and neutralise this technique
Negotiation is also played on defence. Here is how to recognise this technique when it is used against you, and turn it around.
Detect
The signals that give it away
A figure presented as obvious
"That's just how the market is"
A slanted comparison
Neutralise
The counters that defuse it
Reframe with another reference
Ask for the source
Change the unit of measure
Turn around
Turn it into an advantage
Impose your own frame of reference before the other side sets theirs.
The trap to avoid
Accepting the implicit frame without naming it.
Strengths and weaknesses
The bogey manufactures material for concession and protects your essential interests while giving the other side the feeling of having won. Its danger: if the bluff is uncovered, credibility collapses; the other party may also « accept » your bogey, trapping you at your own game.
When to use this technique?
To be used when your real priorities differ markedly from what the other side imagines, and when you need a bargaining chip. To be avoided when facing an interlocutor who knows your interests well, or in a relationship demanding total transparency.
Objectives of the technique
Create an artificial bargaining chip: have a low-real-cost concession available that you can give up in exchange for a valuable counterpart.
Divert the other party's attention from the true priority stake by focusing the discussion on a manufactured secondary point.
Trigger reciprocity: by loudly 'giving up' the bogey, get the other side to feel indebted and to yield on the real point.
Conceal your real priority to prevent your opponent from hardening their position on the point that truly matters.
Test the other party's room for manoeuvre and reactions on risk-free ground before tackling the essentials.
Famous cases
Commercial · The lead-time clause one 'sacrifices': A buyer wants above all to obtain an 8% discount on a supply contract. At the start of the negotiation, they insist at length and firmly on a 48-hour delivery lead time, presented as a non-negotiable requirement from their logistics department, whereas their stock levels in fact leave them ample margin. After several tense exchanges over this lead time, they finally 'concede' a 72-hour lead time with reluctance. The seller, relieved to have preserved their industrial constraint and feeling indebted, grants the price discount in return, which had been the buyer's true objective from the outset.
Everyday life · The colour of the car: A buyer of a second-hand vehicle appears very preoccupied by a minor paintwork defect, keeps coming back to it and threatens to walk away from the purchase on that account. The seller, convinced this is the sticking point, offers a touch-up or a small gesture on the paintwork. The buyer 'agrees to let the defect go' on condition of obtaining in exchange a reduction in price or the addition of a set of new tyres, their real objective, which they had never put forward.
Common mistakes
Choosing an implausible or disproportionate bogey: if the point seems fabricated or inconsistent with the context, the other party smells the manoeuvre and loses trust.
Defending the decoy too well: by dint of insisting, you risk the other party genuinely yielding on the bogey... and then expecting a counterpart on the real point, reversing the balance of power.
Forgetting to explicitly link the concession of the bogey to a counterpart on the real point: giving up the decoy 'for free' destroys the whole reciprocity effect.
Stacking several bogeys: multiplying artificial demands makes your stance illegible and makes the negotiator look like a bad-faith manipulator.
Using the technique in a long-term relationship without weighing the reputational risk: if the manoeuvre is uncovered afterwards, trust and future negotiations suffer lastingly.
Limits and ethics
The thing must be named exactly: the bogey does not consist in keeping your priorities quiet, it consists in simulating a false one. The distinction is decisive, for reticence is legitimate whereas simulation is not. You are in no way obliged to reveal what matters to you, and information asymmetry is the ordinary stuff of any negotiation. But overplaying attachment to a point you do not care about is to manufacture worthless currency and have it paid for in real currency: the other side believes they are buying a painful concession, they are buying nothing, and their sense of having negotiated well rests on a piece of theatre. A practical limit tempers the matter and deserves to be known: the bogey frequently backfires. By dint of defending an unimportant point, you expose yourself to the other side granting it straight away in order to lock down what truly matters, and you end up having won exactly what you did not want. Keeping your priorities quiet is reticence; simulating attachment in order to sell a hollow concession is the forging of false currency.
Scientific foundations
Robert B. Cialdini (2021) Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (New and Expanded) Harper Business
Roger Fisher, William Ury & Bruce Patton (2011) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In Penguin Books
G. Richard Shell (2006) Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People Penguin Books
Quick exercise
Test yourself before answering
Answer in your head, then reveal the solution. Memory is built through active recall.
1Quels signaux doivent vous alerter ?
A figure presented as obvious
"That's just how the market is"
A slanted comparison
2Quelles parades appliquer ?
Reframe with another reference
Ask for the source
Change the unit of measure
Frequently asked questions
The questions we get most
What is the "The False Stake Technique" technique?
The bogey consists in pretending that a point of no real importance to you is absolutely crucial, so that you can later « concede » it in exchange for a genuine counterpart. You artificially create a bargaining chip in order to protect what truly matters to you.
Is the "The False Stake Technique" technique ethical?
It sits on the line: effective, but it can tip into manipulation if it exploits an information asymmetry. Use it with measure and without deliberate deceit.
How do you defend against "The False Stake Technique"?
Accepting the implicit frame without naming it. The right reflex: reframe with another reference.
What is the "The False Stake Technique" technique based on?
NEGOCOACH does not assess the experimental validation of this technique in isolation. What we document is the grounding of its source school (Methods & tactics): school grounded in research and field practice. Full detail is in the "At a glance" section of this page.
Practise with AI
Three ready-to-use prompts
Copy, paste into your assistant, replace the [brackets]. Works with ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Mistral, Perplexity.
Prepare
Build your plan before the meeting
You are an expert negotiation coach. Help me prepare to use the "The False Stake Technique" technique in the following situation: [describe your situation]. Give me: the conditions for success, a 3-step script, my counterpart's likely objections and how to answer them.
Play the role of my counterpart in a negotiation. I am going to test the "The False Stake Technique" technique. React realistically and with resistance, do not give in too quickly, then at the end analyse my performance and suggest 3 concrete improvements.
Here is how my negotiation went: [paste the exchanges]. Analyse whether the "The False Stake Technique" technique was used well, what worked, the mistakes made, and spell out precisely what I could have done better.
Founding works of the 🛠️ Methods & tactics school this technique belongs to.
SPIN Selling
Book
N. Rackham · 1988
Grounded in the analysis of thousands of sales calls, the SPIN method structures customer discovery through four types of question (Situation, Problem, Implication, Need-payoff) for complex sales.
The Negotiating Game
Book
C. L. Karrass · 1970
A pragmatic classic of business negotiation: tactics, power balance and preparation. Karrass sums up his motto, you get what you negotiate, not what you deserve.
Secrets of Power Negotiating
Book
R. Dawson · 1987
An arsenal of opening, middle and closing "gambits" to gain the upper hand in commercial negotiation, explained step by step.
C. Karrass, R. Dawson, H. Cohen, N. Rackham (SPIN), T. Gordon (DESC / active listening).
The author
Author
On video
See the technique in action
Videos to picture The False Stake Technique and anchor it through examples.
The bogey consists in pretending that a point of no real importance to you is absolutely crucial, so that you can later « concede » it in exchange for a genuine counterpart. You artificially create a bargaining chip in order to protect what truly matters to you.
The right reflex
Impose your own frame of reference before the other side sets theirs.
Never do this
Accepting the implicit frame without naming it.
6.3/10 tactical potential Moderate vigilance School grounded in research and field practice
Master this technique in real situations?
Our programmes turn theory into a concrete advantage.
