misrepresentation 3) of a material 4) fact 5) reasonably relied upon by your counterpart, that 6) causes damages.133
Here we have 1) a knowing 2) misrepresentation, but we may not have any other element of fraud. If you don’t have all these elements, it’s not fraud. Let’s analyze the other elements.
Is the fact that the Prince and Princess toured another Trump Tower property “material?” Interesting? Yes. Material to an objective purchaser’s decision? Probably not.
Is it a “fact?” Yes. But can a sophisticated business professional reasonably rely on it to make a decision? Probably not. And if reasonably relied upon, would it cause damage? Possibly, if they bought the condo at a higher price due to this misstatement. But perhaps not.
Too many contingencies here. Fraud? Probably not.
What about the earlier Trump statements extolling the “incredible spot to live” and guaranteeing they will “love it” and it’s the “best address” and saying their “friends will be jealous?” Opinion and not fact. And statements about the future. Not fraud.
Might other legal theories apply? Perhaps. Different states regulate similar conduct differently. And different states also have slightly different standards for fraud. If in doubt, check with a lawyer.
Does the statement or conduct increase negotiation effectiveness?
Finally, if you consider it moral and no legal problem exists, evaluate its effectiveness.
Does Trump’s puffery work, assuming he was that “real-estate official” who spread the rumor of the royals’ alleged interest?
Trump stated, “It certainly didn’t hurt us.” Short-term, he’s almost certainly right. Long-term might be a different story.
RESEARCH: A reputation as a “bullshitter” versus a “straight shooter” in your negotiations—characterized as puffery or not—will be highly problematic in many negotiation environments.
Personally, I have a moral problem with stating an untrue fact like this. And while it’s probably legal, it’s sleazy. Effective? Not worth the possible short-term benefit. I want a reputation as a straight shooter.
LESSONS LEARNED
| Trump’s Strategies and Tactics | Trump consistently used over-the-top exaggerations in many negotiations, with few restrictions. |
| Trump considered “truthful hyperbole” in many negotiation environments to be morally and legally acceptable and effective. | |
| Lessons Learned | Too much exaggeration is counterproductive. |
| Consistently engaging in unacceptable puffery will negatively impact your reputation and effectiveness. | |
| “Truthful hyperbole” may constitute fraud or cross other legal lines. | |
| A “straight-shooter” reputation will lead to greater long-term effectiveness than the opposite. |
TARGETING TRUE MOTIVATIONS: USING CARROTS TO CLOSE DEALS
“It felt good seeing my name in print [when the newspaper headline “Trump Wins Game for NYMA” appeared regarding his high school baseball game]. How many people are in print? Nobody’s in print. It was the first time I was ever in the newspaper. I thought it was amazing.” 134
—Donald J. Trump
Donald Trump has enjoyed a long-standing love affair with the media (until quite recently). He admittedly loves to see his name and face in print and on television. For years he adorned his office with cover pages of magazines featuring him.135
And for years, the media have been very good to him and his brand. He’s also been very good to the media. Stories on Trump sell and sell well. Just look to the success of The Apprentice.
In fact, his relationship with the media—perhaps the most critical and long-standing “negotiation” in his career—garnered him so much free press during the campaign that it likely played a significant role in his winning the presidency.
How has he developed such a profitable and successful media relationship?
Trump deeply understands the media’s true needs and interests. He knows what they want and, crucially, why they want it. Knowing this, he offers them carrots that satisfy their interests.
This Trump strategy was used on reporter Wayne Barrett in 1978, as described in Trump Revealed.
Barrett, one of the first reporters to take a deep look at Trump’s deals, was about to become one of the first to experience a media strategy, then in its infancy, that would become familiar to reporters around New York, then across the country…. Trump handled him with carrot and stick—attempts to ingratiate himself with the reporter, followed almost immediately with thinly veiled threats.
First, the carrot. Barrett lived in Brownsville, then one of the poorest areas of Brooklyn. “I could get you an apartment,” Trump told Barrett. “That must be an awfully tough neighborhood.” Barrett replied that he chose to live in Brownsville and worked as a community organizer. “We do the same thing!” Trump replied. “We’re both rebuilding neighborhoods…. We’re going to have to really get to know each other.”
Then, the stick. “I’ve broken one writer,” Trump told Barrett another time. “You and I’ve been friends and all, but if your story damages my reputation, I want you to know I’ll sue.”136
Three elements make up the carrot part of Trump’s carrot-and-stick negotiation strategy:
identify his own personal and professional interests,
ascertain reporters’ personal and professional interests, and
explore what options (carrots) can satisfy them both. Trump used this same approach in his business negotiations.
After offering up these carrots, we will then evaluate how his approach aligns with the experts’ recommendations.
Identify His Own Personal and Professional Interests
Trump knows what he wants and why he wants it in his media “negotiations.” These include personal and professional wants and needs. These merge for his personal and business brand.
Why do we care? Because his interests drive him personally and business-wise and form critical components in all his negotiations. Here is what he generally wants from the media.
Professional/personal positions—what he wants.
– Press mentions
