Negotiating with a Monopolist
- ukrsedo
- Dec 26, 2024
- 3 min read
Updated: Jan 28
The Minimax Theorem and Monopolist Negotiations
Negotiating with monopolistic suppliers often focuses on survival strategies. The Minimax Theorem, a key concept in game theory, offers a decision-making framework in such cases.
We will demonstrate how the Minimax strategy helps both sides reduce risk and achieve the best possible results.
The Minimax Theorem: A Brief Overview
John von Neumann introduced the Minimax Theorem in 1928. It states that each player can minimize their maximum possible loss in zero-sum games by adopting an optimal strategy.
This principle applies to procurement negotiations where:
Buyers aim to minimize maximum risk—avoiding excessive costs or unfavorable terms. Suppliers seek to maximize minimum guaranteed profit—ensuring stable revenue streams.
Minimax strategies guide rational decisions by focusing on worst-case outcomes instead of optimistic forecasts.
Case Study: Hospital vs. MRI Supplier
Scenario
A hospital needs 5 MRI machines and negotiates with a monopolistic supplier.
The supplier initially offered high prices and strict terms, leveraging their monopoly.
The hospital must accept the offer, negotiate better terms, or pursue a fallback option (BATNA).
Cost Breakdown:
Each machine costs £100,000 under flexible terms and £150,000 under high price - strict terms.
Additional costs for maintenance contracts and downtime risks:
Strict Terms: £50,000 annually.
Flexible Terms: £20,000 annually.
BATNA costs involve leasing older machines at £20,000 per year per machine.
Payoff Analysis
We’ll analyze the payoffs for each strategy, factoring in equipment costs, maintenance (over 3 years), and BATNA.:
Option 1: High Price, Strict Terms
Equipment cost = £150,000 × 5 = £750,000.
Maintenance cost (3 years) = £50,000 × 3 = £150,000.
Total Cost = £900,000.
Compared to the fallback (BATNA) cost of £300,000:
Loss = £300,000 - £900,000 = -£600,000.
Option 2: Moderate Price, Flexible Terms
Equipment cost = £100,000 × 5 = £500,000.
Maintenance cost (3 years) = £20,000 × 3 = £60,000.
Total Cost = £560,000.
Compared to the fallback (BATNA) cost of £300,000:
Loss = £300,000 - £560,000 = -£260,000.
Option 3: BATNA (Fallback)
Total Cost = £20,000 × 5 × 3 = £300,000.
Since this is the fallback baseline, the loss is £0.
Decision Analysis
Buyer’s Minimax Strategy
Worst-case losses:
High Price, Strict Terms = -£600,000.
Moderate Price, Flexible Terms = -£260,000.
BATNA = £0.
Decision: Minimize the maximum risk by rejecting strict terms and pushing for moderate pricing with flexible terms.
Supplier's Maximin Strategy
Worst-case profits:
High Price, Strict Terms = £0 (if the buyer rejects).
Moderate Price, Flexible Terms = £350,000.
Decision: Maximize the minimum profit by offering moderate pricing to avoid losing the deal entirely.
Why Doesn't the Monopolist Push High Prices?
Despite its monopoly power, the supplier faces several constraints:
Buyer’s BATNA: The hospital’s fallback option limits dependency on the monopolist (e.g., leasing refurbished equipment).
Reputation Risk: High prices may harm the supplier’s credibility and future business prospects.
Regulatory Scrutiny: Healthcare procurement is often regulated, discouraging exploitative pricing.
Market Growth Goals: Flexible terms encourage long-term adoption and recurring revenues.
Demand Elasticity: High prices can suppress demand, reducing sales volumes.
Minimax Strategies Promote Rational Decisions by Balancing Profit and Risk
Both parties optimize outcomes by focusing on their worst-case scenarios, leading to sustainable agreements.
By applying minimax strategies, buyers can minimize risks while suppliers can ensure stable profits. In the hospital case, rational strategies resulted in moderate pricing with flexible terms, creating a win-win scenario that effectively balanced cost and value.
Minimax Theory explains what many of us used to do with our eyes wide shut.
Comments