Multiple Equivalent Simultaneous Offers, or MESOs, are a negotiation technique in which one party presents several distinct offers at the same time. Each offer is designed to have approximately the same overall value to the party making the offers, while differing in the way specific issues are combined.
MESOs are particularly useful when a negotiation involves several issues, such as price, delivery time, contract duration, payment terms, benefits, or working conditions. By presenting different packages, the offering party gives the other party meaningful choices and can learn more about their priorities.
Key characteristics of Multiple Equivalent Simultaneous Offers include:
Equivalent value to the offeror: Each complete package should have approximately the same overall value from the perspective of the party presenting the offers. The packages do not need to contain identical terms, but the offeror should be similarly satisfied with any of them.
Meaningful trade-offs: The offers should differ across several negotiation issues. For example, one option may include a higher price but less flexibility, while another may offer a lower price together with more favorable delivery or payment terms.
Simultaneous presentation: The offers are presented at the same time. This distinguishes MESOs from a sequence of concessions or revised offers.
Preference discovery: The other party’s reaction can reveal which issues matter most to them. Even when they reject all the packages, their comments may provide useful information about their priorities and concerns.
Encouragement of joint problem-solving: MESOs can shift the discussion away from a single position and toward comparisons between different combinations of terms. This can encourage a more collaborative and creative negotiation process.
Potential for mutual gains: By identifying differences in the parties’ preferences, MESOs can help negotiators construct agreements that create more value for both sides.
Support in overcoming impasse: When negotiations have stalled around a single proposal, several alternative packages may reopen the discussion and help the parties explore new possibilities.
MESOs should not simply consist of several offers that are acceptable to the offering party. They must be approximately equivalent in their overall value to that party. In addition, the alternatives should involve genuine trade-offs. One package should not clearly provide the other party with more of everything, because such an option would dominate the others and reveal little about the recipient’s preferences.
Consider the following example of a MESO in a salary negotiation.
A job candidate, Pablo, is negotiating his compensation package with a company. The negotiation covers three issues: annual salary, paid vacation, and remote-working flexibility. The company is willing to offer several possible combinations and calculates that the following three packages are approximately equivalent in value to it:
Option 1: A base salary of €60,000 per year, 25 days of paid vacation, and one remote-working day per week.
Option 2: A base salary of €56,000 per year, 30 days of paid vacation, and two remote-working days per week.
Option 3: A base salary of €53,000 per year, 35 days of paid vacation, and three remote-working days per week.
Each option involves a different trade-off. Option 1 provides the highest salary but the least vacation and remote-working flexibility. Option 2 offers a more balanced combination. Option 3 provides the most vacation and flexibility but the lowest salary.
Because the company considers the three packages approximately equivalent, it would be similarly satisfied if Pablo accepted any of them. Pablo’s response, however, provides information about his priorities.
If he prefers Option 1, the company may infer that salary is particularly important to him. If he prefers Option 3, work-life balance and flexibility may be more important. If he prefers Option 2, he may value a more balanced package.
Pablo does not necessarily have to accept one of the offers immediately. He may use them as a basis for further discussion. For example, he might explain that he prefers the salary in Option 1 but places greater value on the remote-working arrangement in Option 2. This information can help the parties develop a revised package that better reflects their respective interests.
However, Pablo should not automatically be allowed to select the most attractive element from each option. Combining the highest salary, the greatest number of vacation days, and the most remote-working flexibility could create a package that is substantially more costly to the company and no longer equivalent to the original offers.
The company benefits from using MESOs because the technique helps it learn about Pablo’s preferences without making a sequence of unilateral concessions. It also demonstrates flexibility and creates several possible paths toward agreement.
MESOs can be a powerful negotiation strategy when several issues are involved and the parties value those issues differently. Their primary purpose is not simply to provide more choices, but to reveal preferences, identify possible trade-offs, and support the development of an agreement that is attractive to both parties.
