Hulu's new series brings in modern themes that make it stand out in a crowded genre.
from Wired https://ift.tt/2whluT3
via
Thursday, February 13, 2020
MIT researchers identify security vulnerabilities in voting app
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in using internet and mobile technology to increase access to the voting process. At the same time, computer security experts caution that paper ballots are the only secure means of voting.
Now, MIT researchers are raising another concern: They say they have uncovered security vulnerabilities in a mobile voting application that was used during the 2018 midterm elections in West Virginia. Their security analysis of the application, called Voatz, pinpoints a number of weaknesses, including the opportunity for hackers to alter, stop, or expose how an individual user has voted. Additionally, the researchers found that Voatz’s use of a third-party vendor for voter identification and verification poses potential privacy issues for users.
The findings are described in a new technical paper by Michael Specter, a graduate student in MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and a member of MIT’s Internet Policy Research Initiative, and James Koppel, also a graduate student in EECS. The research was conducted under the guidance of Daniel Weitzner, a principal research scientist at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL) and founding director of the Internet Policy Research Initiative.
After uncovering these security vulnerabilities, the researchers disclosed their findings to the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA). The researchers, along with the Boston University/MIT Technology Law Clinic, worked in close coordination with election security officials within CISA to ensure that impacted elections officials and the vendor were aware of the findings before the research was made public. This included preparing written summaries of the findings with proof-of-concept code, and direct discussions with affected elections officials on calls arranged by CISA.
In addition to its use in the 2018 West Virginia elections, the app was deployed in elections in Denver, Oregon, and Utah, as well as at the 2016 Massachusetts Democratic Convention and the 2016 Utah Republican Convention. Voatz was not used during the 2020 Iowa caucuses.
The findings underscore the need for transparency in the design of voting systems, according to the researchers.
“We all have an interest in increasing access to the ballot, but in order to maintain trust in our elections system, we must assure that voting systems meet the high technical and operation security standards before they are put in the field,” says Weitzner. “We cannot experiment on our democracy.”
“The consensus of security experts is that running a secure election over the internet is not possible today,” adds Koppel. “The reasoning is that weaknesses anywhere in a large chain can give an adversary undue influence over an election, and today’s software is shaky enough that the existence of unknown exploitable flaws is too great a risk to take.”
Breaking down the results
The researchers were initially inspired to perform a security analysis of Voatz based on Specter’s research with Ronald Rivest, Institute Professor at MIT; Neha Narula, director of the MIT Digital Currency Initiative; and Sunoo Park SM ’15, PhD ’18 , exploring the feasibility of using blockchain systems in elections. According to the researchers, Voatz claims to use a permissioned blockchain to ensure security, but has not released any source code or public documentation for how their system operates.
Specter, who co-teaches an MIT Independent Activities Period course founded by Koppel that is focused on reverse engineering software, broached the idea of reverse engineering Voatz’s application, in an effort to better understand how its system worked. To ensure that they did not interfere with any ongoing elections or expose user records, Specter and Koppel reverse-engineered the application and then created a model of Voatz’s server.
They found that an adversary with remote access to the device can alter or discover a user’s vote, and that the server, if hacked, could easily change those votes. “It does not appear that the app’s protocol attempts to verify [genuine votes] with the back-end blockchain,” Specter explains.
“Perhaps most alarmingly, we found that a passive network adversary, like your internet service provider, or someone nearby you if you’re on unencrypted Wi-Fi, could detect which way you voted in some configurations of the election. Worse, more aggressive attackers could potentially detect which way you’re going to vote and then stop the connection based on that alone.”
In addition to detecting vulnerabilities with Voatz’s voting process, Specter and Koppel found that the app poses privacy issues for users. As the app uses an external vendor for voter ID verification, a third party could potentially access a voter’s photo, driver’s license data, or other forms of identification, if that vendor’s platform isn’t also secure.
“Though Voatz’s privacy policy does talk about sending some information to third parties, as far as we can tell the fact that any third party is getting the voter’s driver’s license and selfie isn’t explicitly mentioned,” Specter notes.
Calls for increased openness
Specter and Koppel say that their findings point to the need for openness when it comes to election administration, in order to ensure the integrity of the election process. Currently, they note, the election process in states that use paper ballots is designed to be transparent, and citizens and political party representatives are given opportunities to observe the voting process.
In contrast, Koppel notes, “Voatz’s app and infrastructure were completely closed-source; we were only able to get access to the app itself.
“I think this type of analysis is extremely important. Right now, there’s a drive to make voting more accessible, by using internet and mobile-based voting systems. The problem here is that sometimes those systems aren’t made by people who have expertise in keeping voting systems secure, and they’re deployed before they can get proper review,” says Matthew Green, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute. In the case of Voatz, he adds, “It looks like there were many good intentions here, but the result lacks key features that would protect a voter and protect the integrity of elections.”
Going forward, the researchers caution that software developers should prove their systems are as secure as paper ballots.
“The biggest issue is transparency,” says Specter. “When you have part of the election that is opaque, that is not viewable, that is not public, that has some sort of proprietary component, that part of the system is inherently suspect and needs to be put under a lot of scrutiny.”
from MIT News https://ift.tt/2tYHD7O
via
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
Understanding law in everyday life
Toward the end of her Killian Lecture at MIT on Tuesday afternoon, Susan Silbey showed the audience a photo of a lawn chair on a city street, being used to save a parking spot during a snowstorm.
That’s a familiar image to Boston-area residents. But in this case, the picture had a particular symbolism. Silbey’s scholarship has helped establish a groundbreaking framework for thinking about the interaction of legal codes and civic attitudes. So when people use chairs to hold parking spots, which is illegal, it reflects one specific attitude toward the law, which Silbey helped codify: that the law is there to be negotiated, challenged, and defeated.
That is not the only view people have of the law. Some people regard the law as impartial and just, and others believe the entire legal system is oppressive. But to endure, Silbey emphasized in her remarks, a legal system cannot simply be regarded as being “outside of everyday life. … It must be located as securely within, to be powerful, to be effective, to be a rule of law.”
And, she added, “it must be experienced in property relations, in market exchanges, in contracts … and in chairs, holding parking spots in newly shoveled, snowy streets.”
Thus even little legal evasions, as they play out over time, “are evidence of law’s endurance in everyday life,” noted Silbey, who is the Leon and Anne Goldberg Professor of Humanities, Sociology, and Anthropology, and a professor of behavioral and policy sciences at the Sloan School of Management.
Silbey outlined her influential ideas on Tuesday, discussing her scholarship while accepting MIT’s James R. Killian, Jr. Faculty Achievement Award, the highest such honor at the Institute. The award was established in 1971 to honor Killian, who served as MIT’s 10th president, from 1948 to 1959, and chair of the MIT Corporation, from 1959 to 1971.
“I find it very difficult to find the exact words to express how deeply and truly honored I am by this award,” Silbey said, to an audience of about 250 people in MIT’s Room 10-250. “I thank you.”
Studying her father’s job
The roots of Silbey’s work, she recounted for the audience, go back to her childhood, when her father, a enforcement supervisor in New York State’s labor department, would take her to his office in lower Manhattan. He seemed to know the legal status of every nearby business — whether they had underpaid workers, committed other infractions, or complied with the law.
“It only dawned on me a few years ago that I have spent my entire career studying my father’s work,” Silbey said, adding that the key question she sought to address has been, “How do we empirically observe the rule of law?”
Indeed, Silbey added, “If we think about law as statues, constitutions, or even courtrooms and juries, it cannot tell us what the law means to most people.”
For much of the lecture, Silbey discussed the influential three-part typology of attitudes toward the law that she developed with Patricia Ewick, a professor of sociology at Clark University. Silbey and Ewick introduced their concepts in the 1998 book, “The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life.”
As Silbey and Ewick see it, people generally adopt one of three main postures vis-à-vis the legal system: They can be “before” the law, “with” the law, or “against” the law.
Those who are “before” the law follow the rules closely and regard the legal system as a stable, impartial edifice.
“Legality is imagined as an objective realm of disinterested action, removed and distant from the lives of individuals,” Silbey said. “This is also the law’s story about itself, of its own awesome grandeur.”
By contrast, people who are “with” the law regard the legal system as a game, with victory possible through skill, experience, good lawyers, and other resources.
In this view, Silbey remarks, “There is no [objective] justice — you either win, or you lose.”
Finally, those who are “against” the law view the entire system as an expression of unequal power, and adopt a posture of resistance to it.
For these people, Silbey said, “legality is understood to be arbitrary and capricious,” although, she noted, people who are “against” the law are “rarely cynical” about it. They believe in the possibility of justice, but think the system denies it to them.
Significantly, Silbey added, “We need all three to explain law’s enduring force and organizing presence.” We cannot plausibly claim the law is always impartial, but it cannot sustain legitimacy if always regarded as a game.
Silbey was introduced by MIT chair of the faculty Rick Danheiser, who formally presented the Killian Award to her, telling Silbey it had been granted for “your insatiable curiosity, your extraordinary record of professional accomplishment, your generous mentorship, and last but not least … your important leadership contributions at MIT.”
Silbey earned her BA in political science from Brooklyn College and her MA and PhD in political science from the University of Chicago. She was a faculty member in Wellesley College’s Department of Sociology from 1974 through 2000, when she joined the MIT faculty.
At MIT, Silbey has also extended her research into studies of gender roles in science and engineering, while also extensively evaluating issues of compliance with the law in laboratory settings.
Silbey’s record of service at the Institute includes tenures as chair of the MIT faculty, from 2017 to 2019; secretary of the faculty; and head of the anthropology section, from 2006 to 2014. In 2017, she even received a “Rookie Advisor” award for excellence in advising first-year undergraduates.
In her closing remarks, Silbey made a point of thanking her faculty and staff colleagues, co-authors, family members, and particularly “my beloved late husband, Robert Silbey, who’s always been there for my entire life, more than 50 years.” Robert Silbey was an MIT faculty member from 1966 to 2011. A professor of chemistry, he served as dean of the School of Science from 2000 to 2007.
“He is the reason I have been at MIT,” Silbey added. “These years have been marvelous. I used to say to him daily … I have never been happier in my work than the years I have been at MIT, capped by this most auspicious award. And I thank you very much.”
from MIT News https://ift.tt/38u4wPy
via
“Sensorized” skin helps soft robots find their bearings
For the first time, MIT researchers have enabled a soft robotic arm to understand its configuration in 3D space, by leveraging only motion and position data from its own “sensorized” skin.
Soft robots constructed from highly compliant materials, similar to those found in living organisms, are being championed as safer, and more adaptable, resilient, and bioinspired alternatives to traditional rigid robots. But giving autonomous control to these deformable robots is a monumental task because they can move in a virtually infinite number of directions at any given moment. That makes it difficult to train planning and control models that drive automation.
Traditional methods to achieve autonomous control use large systems of multiple motion-capture cameras that provide the robots feedback about 3D movement and positions. But those are impractical for soft robots in real-world applications.
In a paper being published in the journal IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, the researchers describe a system of soft sensors that cover a robot’s body to provide “proprioception” — meaning awareness of motion and position of its body. That feedback runs into a novel deep-learning model that sifts through the noise and captures clear signals to estimate the robot’s 3D configuration. The researchers validated their system on a soft robotic arm resembling an elephant trunk, that can predict its own position as it autonomously swings around and extends.
The sensors can be fabricated using off-the-shelf materials, meaning any lab can develop their own systems, says Ryan Truby, a postdoc in the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Laboratory (CSAIL) who is co-first author on the paper along with CSAIL postdoc Cosimo Della Santina.
“We’re sensorizing soft robots to get feedback for control from sensors, not vision systems, using a very easy, rapid method for fabrication,” he says. “We want to use these soft robotic trunks, for instance, to orient and control themselves automatically, to pick things up and interact with the world. This is a first step toward that type of more sophisticated automated control.”
One future aim is to help make artificial limbs that can more dexterously handle and manipulate objects in the environment. “Think of your own body: You can close your eyes and reconstruct the world based on feedback from your skin,” says co-author Daniela Rus, director of CSAIL and the Andrew and Erna Viterbi Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. “We want to design those same capabilities for soft robots.”
Shaping soft sensors
A longtime goal in soft robotics has been fully integrated body sensors. Traditional rigid sensors detract from a soft robot body’s natural compliance, complicate its design and fabrication, and can cause various mechanical failures. Soft-material-based sensors are a more suitable alternative, but require specialized materials and methods for their design, making them difficult for many robotics labs to fabricate and integrate in soft robots.
While working in his CSAIL lab one day looking for inspiration for sensor materials, Truby made an interesting connection. “I found these sheets of conductive materials used for electromagnetic interference shielding, that you can buy anywhere in rolls,” he says. These materials have “piezoresistive” properties, meaning they change in electrical resistance when strained. Truby realized they could make effective soft sensors if they were placed on certain spots on the trunk. As the sensor deforms in response to the trunk’s stretching and compressing, its electrical resistance is converted to a specific output voltage. The voltage is then used as a signal correlating to that movement.
But the material didn’t stretch much, which would limit its use for soft robotics. Inspired by kirigami — a variation of origami that includes making cuts in a material — Truby designed and laser-cut rectangular strips of conductive silicone sheets into various patterns, such as rows of tiny holes or crisscrossing slices like a chain link fence. That made them far more flexible, stretchable, “and beautiful to look at,” Truby says.
Credit: Ryan L. Truby, MIT CSAIL
The researchers’ robotic trunk comprises three segments, each with four fluidic actuators (12 total) used to move the arm. They fused one sensor over each segment, with each sensor covering and gathering data from one embedded actuator in the soft robot. They used “plasma bonding,” a technique that energizes a surface of a material to make it bond to another material. It takes roughly a couple hours to shape dozens of sensors that can be bonded to the soft robots using a handheld plasma-bonding device.
Credit: Ryan L. Truby, MIT CSAIL
“Learning” configurations
As hypothesized, the sensors did capture the trunk’s general movement. But they were really noisy. “Essentially, they’re nonideal sensors in many ways,” Truby says. “But that’s just a common fact of making sensors from soft conductive materials. Higher-performing and more reliable sensors require specialized tools that most robotics labs do not have.”
To estimate the soft robot’s configuration using only the sensors, the researchers built a deep neural network to do most of the heavy lifting, by sifting through the noise to capture meaningful feedback signals. The researchers developed a new model to kinematically describe the soft robot’s shape that vastly reduces the number of variables needed for their model to process.
In experiments, the researchers had the trunk swing around and extend itself in random configurations over approximately an hour and a half. They used the traditional motion-capture system for ground truth data. In training, the model analyzed data from its sensors to predict a configuration, and compared its predictions to that ground truth data which was being collected simultaneously. In doing so, the model “learns” to map signal patterns from its sensors to real-world configurations. Results indicated, that for certain and steadier configurations, the robot’s estimated shape matched the ground truth.
Next, the researchers aim to explore new sensor designs for improved sensitivity and to develop new models and deep-learning methods to reduce the required training for every new soft robot. They also hope to refine the system to better capture the robot’s full dynamic motions.
Currently, the neural network and sensor skin are not sensitive to capture subtle motions or dynamic movements. But, for now, this is an important first step for learning-based approaches to soft robotic control, Truby says: “Like our soft robots, living systems don’t have to be totally precise. Humans are not precise machines, compared to our rigid robotic counterparts, and we do just fine.”
from MIT News https://ift.tt/2Sz5va4
via
Drake partners with Caffeine app to stream URL rap battles
Rapper and entrepreneur Aubrey “Drake” Graham signed a partnership with new streaming app Caffeine to live stream URL rap battles, according to uproxx.com.
Caffeine is a streaming app geared toward fans of eSports. Their exclusive partnership with Drake will allow the URL to be streamed live for free for the first time since its inception. Prior to this collaboration, URL battles were streamed live on HD pay-per-view but now even the casual fan can watch, too.
In an announcement on CNN.com, Caffeine’s founder, Ben Keighran, explained the rationale for the partnership. “Drake, if you look at his career in the last ten years, is defined as the biggest artist in the world,” he said. “This is a guy that can catch the attention of not just the entertainment world, but the gaming world as well. The first thing we’re bringing out with him is not actually a video gaming thing,” Keighran said, noting that the partnership allows Drake to “do whatever he wants.”
The Canadian native has long expressed his love for battle rapping. In 2015, Drake skipped the Grammy ceremony despite being nominated in order to attend a rap battle event called Blackout 5 in his hometown of Toronto in which his brand, OVO, was the sponsor according to blogto.com. He is also no stranger to battle rap in his own right. Throughout his illustrious career, he’s battled with rappers like Meek Mill, Tory Lanez, Pusha T, Common along subliminally responding to other rappers who took shots at him.
Last November, the actor partnered with Canopy Growth Corpo. to launch the More Life Growth Co., a fully licensed producer of cannabis, based in Toronto. More Life Growth is centered around wellness, discovery, and overall personal growth with the hope of facilitating connections and shared experiences across the globe. Drake holds a 60% ownership interest in the More Life Growth Co., with Canopy Growth retaining a 40% ownership.
from Black Enterprise https://ift.tt/38oz595
via
Andrew Yang disappoints supporters and withdraws from 2020 presidential race
Andrew Yang has officially ended his campaign to become president.
On Tuesday in Manchester, New Hampshire, the entrepreneur told his supporters, who came to be known as the “Yang Gang,” that the math didn’t add up to a successful run.
READ MORE: Dave Chappelle joins the ‘Yang Gang’ places his support behind Andrew Yang
“While there is great work left to be done, you know I am the math guy, and it is clear tonight from the numbers that we are not going to win this race,” Yang said, according to CNN. “I am not someone who wants to accept donations and support in a race that we will not win. And so, tonight I am announcing I am suspending my campaign for president.”
Yang said he ultimately decided to hang it up when he was “persuaded that the message of this campaign will not be strengthened by my staying in this race any longer.”
Still, Yang pointed out the success of his campaign in that it propelled him to outlast “over a dozen senators, governors and members of Congress to become the most exciting force in this entire race.”
“The Yang Gang has fundamentally shifted the direction of this country and transformed our politics, and we are only continuing to grow,” Yang said, reported CNN.
Yang became a presidential candidate in 2017, although few paid attention to him back then. He told CNN even his family asked “president of what” when he told them he was running. He would go on to build a devoted campaign by backing such measures as a universal basic income and the legalization of marijuana.
READ MORE: Andrew Yang calls on LeBron James to join the Yang Gang
Yang had a poor showing in Iowa, receiving just 1 percent of the vote, despite spending millions of dollars and a lot of time campaigning in the final weeks before the caucuses. His showing was also dismal in New Hampshire.
People will be sure to follow Yang’s next move to see what role, if any, he may be presented with by Democrats.
The post Andrew Yang disappoints supporters and withdraws from 2020 presidential race appeared first on TheGrio.
from TheGrio https://ift.tt/2HjB0Qw
via
Byron Allen’s Entertainment Studios buys 11 TV stations for $305 million
Byron Allen, founder, and CEO of Entertainment Studios Networks (parent company of theGrio) has acquired 11 broadcast television stations from USA Television Holdings LLC and USA Television MidAmerica Holdings LLC (collectively, USA TV) for $305 million.
Allen Media Broadcasting, a division of Entertainment Studios, closed on the deal on Tuesday. This move signifies a commitment by Allen to expand his company’s broadcast holdings, reported Deadline.
READ MORE: Byron Allen’s star-studded Oscar gala raises $1.5 million for Children’s Hospital Los Angeles
“Over the past six months we’ve invested nearly $500 million to acquire best-in-class, top-tier, broadcast network affiliates,” Allen said. “We plan to invest approximately $10 billion to acquire ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox television stations over the next three years with the goal of being one of the largest broadcast television groups in America.”
The move is expected to strengthen local coverage and improve the digital footprints of these local stations.
“These stations are dedicated to their local communities and this transaction will enable them to become even stronger on both their broadcast and digital platforms,” USA Television CEO Robert Prather, Jr. said according to Deadline.
Here are the stations covered by the USA TV deal:
- WAAY, WAAY-D2 (ABC, ION) — Huntsville, Decatur, and Florence, Alabama
- WFFT (Fox) — Ft. Wayne, Indiana
- KEZI, KEZI-D2, KEZI-D3 (ABC, ION, METV) — Eugene, Oregon
- KNVN*, KNVN-DT2*, KHSL, KHSL-D2, KHSL-D5 (NBC, Telemundo, CBS, CW, Ion) — Chico and Redding, California
- WTVA, WLOV*, WTVA-D2 (NBC, Fox, ABC) — Columbus, Tupelo and West Point, Missouri
- KDRV, KDRV-D2 (ABC, antenna TV) — Medford and Klamath Falls, Oregon
- KIMT, KIMT-D2, KIMT-D3 (CBS, MyTV, Ion) — Rochester, Minnesota, Mason City, Iowa, and Austin, Minnesota
- WTHI, WTHI-D2, WTHI-D3 (CBS, Fox, MyTV, CW) — Terre Haute, Indiana
- WLFI, WLFI-D2, WLFI-D3 (CBS, CW, Ion) — Lafayette, Indiana
* operated through joint sales and services agreement
In 2015, Allen sued Comcast for discrimination, maintaining that the country’s largest cable company refused to pick up Entertainment Studios’ channels because of race. Comcast countered essentially that Allen must demonstrate that race was the only reason behind their decision. He sued under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, a post-Civil War statute that allowed “all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States” to have the same right to uphold contracts “as is enjoyed by white citizens.”
READ MORE: Byron Allen arrives in Washington to take on Supreme Court
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that Allen’s claims were plausible. Last April, Comcast filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court following the judgment. Over the summer, the Trump DOJ filed an amicus brief with the court in support of Comcast.
The racial discrimination case was heard by the Supreme Court in November 2019 and according to Reuters, has an expected ruling that should be made by the end of June 2020.
The post Byron Allen’s Entertainment Studios buys 11 TV stations for $305 million appeared first on TheGrio.
from TheGrio https://ift.tt/39uOLba
via
6 Negotiating Tactics for Fast Growth-Minded Businesses
In business, it would be difficult if not impossible to achieve a notable measure of success without having inked a significant number of agreements with other parties—most appreciably with conflicts inherent in the process having been pleasingly overcome for all involved. Whether negotiating a sale with an existing customer or prospective new account, contracts with vendors, deals with company and industry stakeholders, a M&A situation, the salary of a new hire or any other employee negotiating is a fundamental driver of a company’s prosperity.
The better company personnel are at negotiating, the more successful it will be. It’s that simple. Of course, negotiation is a learned skill that one must first master and then continue to hone—one involving psychological intuition, emotional control, cognitive agility, and even creativity combined with practical and tactical skill.
So important is this function and the dynamic the outcome establishes, the nonprofit public policy research organization The Brookings Institution offers a “Negotiation: Strategies for Results” course helping people learn, among other things, how to “enhance the quality and logic of negotiation agreements; and, as a result, increase the likelihood of true consensus.”
The institute’s approach of leaning on logic as a key driver in facilitating desired outcomes—and experiencing that “winning” vis a vis an outcome of genuine unanimity—intrigued me. So often, fast track companies, in particular, have a “win at all costs” mentality, and one might pontificate that a fast track might be even faster should the mindset shift to curating equitable “win-wins,” instead. However, no matter the balance of the proverbial scale relative to who realized the better end of the deal, negotiation prowess is nothing short of mission-critical when it comes to realizing successful agreements—for fast-growth companies in particular and certainly for other business who aspire to uptick gains on a fast track.
With this understanding, I reached out to senior-level international negotiation consultant Ruth Shlossman for some fresh tips on how fast trackers, in particular, can facilitate strategic agreements more effortlessly and efficiently. And deliver Shlossman did, which was no surprise given her lofty pedigree in the negotiation space, perhaps best exemplified by her newly-released title “Negotiate with Ease”—a book billed as one “guaranteed” to help readers negotiate successfully.
Through that exchange, Shlossman kindly offered up these six key negotiation truths and strategies that, she asserts, can significantly help propel fast growth-minded businesses.
1. Facts over emotions: Negotiate based on actualities
While it seems elementary, this idea is worth a foundational mention as a shocking number of professionals approach the negotiation table wildly underprepared. Before entering into any negotiation, you need to know your facts and be ready, willing and able to present them well. For example, if you are negotiating about a trade, you should know your costs including engineer services, raw material fluctuations, delivery options, consignment costs and currency concerns. Identify the core issues and how they will affect the various outcome of the bargain. Before reaching an agreement, make sure you understand what it constitutes and the value it brings to you. Failure to understand what you are agreeing to, from every viewpoint, can result in a costly concession that you may never have an opportunity to change.
Take time to understand the other person or company as much as possible. Also understand the issue that you will be negotiating, and what each of the parties expects. For instance, if you are conferring to buy a new building, several issues are worth considering. The length of time the property has been on sale, the number of buildings on sale in the area and the possibility of zoning changes. As you think of such issues, you will identify which can serve as leverage to gain the most out of the agreement.
2. Make a trade with every concession
From the start, you should consider and include every possibility of the negotiated agreement. Think about each various facet of the deal up front and consider the risks of making costly concessions related to any or all. One method that is used in the Chinese culture is where negotiations are conducted with a long-term mind-set. You need to consider factors like the ten-year plan of the other company and what would happen if technology changes or demand doubles. Think of what would happen in case of raw material shortages or if the company gets acquired by another. Considering such “what if” scenarios can save you in terms of money, time and the stress of negotiating.
It’s also prudent to look for any clues about the other person’s underlying interest, which will better enable you to negotiate on what matters to that person. For instance, timing may be the most important factor for the other party when you are considering a merger and acquisition. Perhaps upfront costs may be their deciding factor when entering into an investment. For you to be a solid negotiator, you need to take the approach of a detective and seek to identify the interests of the other party to parlay.
3. Avoid being transactional—see the bigger picture
After identifying the core issues in a negotiation, develop the best possible outcome—optimally equitably for all involved. Also known as the Best Agreement to Make (BAM), this should be your opening offer. At the same time, think about your target, possible final offer and what you may use as a “Plan B.” Consider the various possible negotiation’s outcomes, including potential future problems related to each. A successful result is one that’s pegged on the identification and even anticipation of potential problems, allowing you to take a stance that benefits you the most.
4. Align with stakeholder interests
In any negotiation, it’s imperative to identify your company’s true interest and negotiate to align that strategic interest with deal terms. When negotiating with new clients or suppliers, the stakes of a fast track company are usually higher. How a negotiated agreement begins determines the way forward, even for the decades to come. Since it is often more difficult to change an agreement than to create one, it is also important to start on a high note. The moment you erroneously say “yes” in a negotiation, keep in mind it can be both costly and painful to turn that “yes” to a “no” or back down later on. So, proffer affirmations judiciously.
The most important thing for your company could be a longer contract, joint PR, training, a new way of tracking orders or teaming up to improve engineering services. Whatever the interests are, ensure you are speaking on behalf of your company’s stakeholders. This could include members of the marketing team, engineering services, accounts payables, operation or the core leadership team. Think of the hidden costs in the terms being negotiated to avoid entering into an agreement that will end up being costly in the long run.
5. Don’t open fair, open assertively
The importance of having perfect information cannot be overemphasized. Your opening offer can only be deemed credible if it’s based on adequate information and facts. Many experts believe that negotiators who open assertively, though NOT aggressively, end up with the best deal. Also, when negotiating with a party you’ve done so with previously, approach each deal individually and with a beginner’s mind—no matter how similar they may be. Don’t start where your previous negotiations ended. Several things may have changed; policies, goals or the nature of the product all may be impacted.
When you are opening your negotiations, you should start with the BAM, which is to say the most assertive offer. While some people open at their target or goal, this is usually a huge mistake. Unlike BAM, the target lacks the flexibility needed in negotiations. By starting with the BAM, you will be opening assertively and with the ability to “give” by making strategic concessions. A good way of developing your BAM is considering the core issues and possible changes, including the various favorable options, potential changes in pricing when a new supplier emerges or effects of possible shifts in technology.
6. Embrace conflict and discomfort
As you start your negotiations for a fast-growth company (or with that mindset), think about your BAM—that all-important opening position or offer. Ensure that the core issues you bring forth are adaptable based on concessions offered and taken. The most important thing is to be prepared for changes and be willing and able to act accordingly. For example, your counterpart may make an unreasonable counteroffer. The appropriate approach is to avoid responding with a counteroffer as this will actually give theirs credibility. Instead, ask them to explain why they are asking something that seems unreasonable to you. Also, however uncomfortable it may be for everyone, take your time to respond appropriately—and calmly—to conflict in pursuit of better outcomes.
Time is an enemy of fast-growth company negotiations. You will most likely be pressured to get the deal done in the shortest time possible. The trick is taking your time and avoid succumbing to such pressures while still being sensitive to timing issues. Explain to your stakeholders the importance of a well-negotiated agreement and the favorable bottom line impacts that can be realized by taking the appropriate amount of time to deliberate and navigate the deal. Do your utmost to remain in control of the negotiation timeline and agenda. Most importantly, be proactive in the negotiations rather than reactive.
Fast trackers would do well to read, and perhaps re-read, these tips from Shlossman slowly—but implement them quickly—to negotiate more confidently, skillfully and shrewdly and, in turn, realize (and sustain) rapid advancement of your own.
As the Executive Editor and Producer of “The Luxe List,” Merilee Kern, MBA is an internationally-regarded brand analyst, strategist and futurist. As a prolific branding and marketplace trends pundit, Merilee spotlights noteworthy industry innovators, change makers, movers and shakers. This includes field experts and thought leaders, brands, products, services, destinations and events across all categories. Connect with her at www.TheLuxeList.com / Instagram www.Instagram.com/LuxeListReports / Twitter www.Twitter.com/LuxeListReports / Facebook www.Facebook.com/LuxeListReports / LinkedIN www.LinkedIn.com/in/MerileeKern.
from Black Enterprise https://ift.tt/2vuNMIY
via
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)