4 exercises — negotiating SaaS pricing increases, raising SLA breach claims, pushing back on contract terms, and making the case for product customisation.
0 / 9 completed
1 / 9
You are renewing a SaaS tool licence. The vendor has proposed a 40% price increase. How do you open the pricing negotiation?
Option C opens a vendor price negotiation effectively:
1. Acknowledges the proposal without hostility: "Thank you for sending" — professional tone 2. Names a concrete internal constraint as leverage: "above budget approval threshold → CFO escalation → 4–6 weeks" — turns "we don't want to pay more" into "a delay that costs both parties time" 3. Demonstrates usage value to anchor the relationship: "18/22 users, 73% feature utilisation" — signals you're a good customer who deserves fair pricing 4. Offers multiple compromise paths: "multi-year, seat reduction, feature tier" — shows flexibility without naming your actual ceiling first 5. Frames the goal as mutual: "avoid a procurement delay on both sides" — vendor also loses by dragging this out
Why A fails: Threat without specifics is rarely believed and damages the relationship
Why B fails: "Can you give us a discount" has no leverage and is easy to say no to
Why D fails: Stating "our budget is fixed" as fact is often untrue and easy for vendors to call bluff on
2 / 9
Your cloud vendor SLA guarantees 99.9% uptime, but you have experienced 6 outages in the last quarter totalling 12 hours of downtime — well above the 99.9% SLA. How do you open the SLA breach conversation?
Option C is a professional SLA breach escalation because:
1. It opens formally: "formally raise an SLA performance concern" — signals this is documented, not casual 2. It quantifies the breach precisely: "12 hours actual vs. 2.2 hours contracted = 5× threshold" — no vagueness, no exaggeration 3. It asks for the vendor's root cause analysis before demanding remedies: "individual failures or systemic pattern?" — signals you understand operations and are open to explanation 4. It structures three distinct remedy paths: service credits (contractual right), infrastructure fix (prevention), SLA amendment (if current level is unachievable) — organized, not emotional 5. It proposes a concrete next step: "call with account AND infrastructure teams this week" — ensures the right people are in the room
Why A fails: "You breached the SLA, we want compensation" — accurate but not structured; doesn't invite dialogue or demonstrate understanding of the severity
Why D fails: Threatened departure without substance — often backfires if the vendor calls the bluff
3 / 9
A vendor is offering a new contract renewal with terms that would shorten the notice period for price changes from 90 to 30 days. How do you push back on this contract term?
Option C successfully pushes back on a contract term by:
1. Isolating one specific term: "I want to flag one specific term" — makes clear the rest of the contract is acceptable, reducing adversarial tension 2. Explaining the business impact in the vendor's language: "budget cycle is annual → 30 days creates an emergency amendment process" — not just "it's inconvenient" but a real operational consequence 3. Proposing two alternative solutions: (1) revert to 90 days, (2) add a price-change cap clause — gives the vendor a face-saving path if 30 days is a hard internal requirement 4. Framing it as mutual: "predictability for both sides" — caps also benefit the vendor by removing unpredictability from renewal conversations
Why D fails: "Please revert to 90" is a demand without reasoning — gives the vendor no reason to say yes
Why B fails: "We need to check with legal" — often perceived as delaying tactics; doesn't advance the negotiation
4 / 9
You are negotiating a new contract with a software vendor. They have a standard "no customisation" policy, but you need two specific workflow integrations. How do you make the case for customisation?
Option C negotiates past a "no customisation" policy by:
1. Acknowledging the policy reason first: "maintaining a clean product slate has real engineering value" — shows you understand the vendor's perspective, which lowers defensiveness 2. Making the request maximally specific: Each integration is described at a technical level — webhook read-only, build our endpoint ourselves, SSO using existing IdP — reducing the perceived scope dramatically 3. Reframing customisation as standard API tier: "Could live in API tier rather than formal customisation" — potentially sidesteps the policy by classifying it differently 4. Aligning with vendor roadmap: "likely in your roadmap given your SOC 2 posture" — positions SSO as something they were going to do anyway 5. Asking for feasibility assessment, not a commitment: "would your integrations team assess the engineering cost?" — low-stakes ask, easy yes 6. Leaving them a graceful exit: "If it's a significant lift, I'd understand" — signals good faith
Why A fails: "We need you to customise" — the answer to this is the policy
Why B fails: Citing competitors often triggers defensiveness rather than cooperation
5 / 9
Sarah (Lead DevOps) sends a Slack message to Ben (Vendor Account Manager): 'Hey Ben, just wanted to quickly discuss the recent increase in our monthly bill for the monitoring service. It's jumped by almost 30% – can we explore some options?'. Which of the following best reflects Sarah's initial approach to the negotiation?
Sarah's message demonstrates an open and collaborative approach. She isn't demanding anything immediately but is requesting clarification on the increase and exploring potential solutions like alternative tiers or discounts. This is a common first step in vendor negotiations – gathering information before making demands helps avoid misunderstandings and allows for a more strategic discussion. Option A is too aggressive, option B ignores the issue, and option D sets an unnecessarily rigid tone.
6 / 9
David (Senior Developer) writes a comment on a code review for a new API integration: 'This endpoint returns JSON with a field called 'status'. It should be renamed to 'responseCode' to align with our team's naming conventions and improve clarity. Can we discuss the rationale behind this specific field name?' What is David doing in this comment?
David is initiating a negotiation regarding API design. He's not just identifying a potential error; he's requesting a discussion about the rationale behind the field name and proposing an alternative that aligns with team standards. This demonstrates proactive communication and a focus on establishing consistent practices – crucial in vendor negotiations for long-term alignment. Option A is too forceful, option C is dismissive, and option D avoids the issue.
7 / 9
Maria (Product Manager) drafts a PR description for a new feature that requires integration with a third-party service: 'This release incorporates the Acme Analytics API to track user engagement. We've negotiated a usage-based pricing model and are confident this will provide valuable data insights. We'll continue monitoring performance and exploring opportunities for optimization.' What aspect of vendor negotiation is Maria implicitly addressing?
Maria's description highlights the crucial element of ongoing cost management – the 'usage-based pricing model'. Vendor negotiations aren't just about the initial contract; they involve securing favorable terms for future usage and exploring opportunities to optimize costs. This demonstrates a strategic approach that considers the long-term relationship with the vendor. Options A, C, and D focus on different aspects of the release but don't address the core negotiation point.
8 / 9
Tom (Technical Lead) is preparing for a standup meeting. He says: 'We're still awaiting confirmation from VendorX on the custom reporting dashboard we requested. They've stated they need a detailed specification outlining our data requirements, which is adding some delay to the project.' What tactic is Tom employing?
Tom is strategically responding to the vendor's request by proactively supplying the detailed specification they require. This demonstrates initiative and aims to resolve the delay quickly – a common tactic in negotiations to maintain momentum and avoid further roadblocks. While raising concerns (option A) might be valid later, starting with a solution shows willingness to collaborate. Options B and C are less effective initially.
9 / 9
Emily (Procurement Specialist) receives an API response from a vendor regarding their proposed cloud storage pricing: 'Response Code: 403 – Forbidden. Request requires authorization level 5.' What does this response *most accurately* reflect in the context of negotiating cloud storage costs?
The '403 Forbidden' response suggests the vendor is responding to a request for lower pricing by pointing out that certain levels of service (likely requiring more storage capacity or security features) necessitate higher cost tiers. This indicates that they are controlling the negotiation and demanding justification for a reduced price—a common tactic when pushing back on customisations. Option A is too direct, option B misinterprets the response code, and option D is a factual description of API authentication.
This module focuses on Negotiation English — real workplace phrasing you'll use on the job. It contains 9 scenario-based multiple-choice questions with instant feedback.
Is this exercise free to use?
Yes. Every exercise on CoderSlingo, including this one, is free to use with no account or sign-up required.
How many questions does this exercise have?
This module includes 9 questions. Each one gives an immediate right/wrong result plus a full explanation of the correct phrasing.
What happens if I answer a question incorrectly?
You'll see the correct answer highlighted straight away, along with a plain-English explanation of why it's right and why the other options don't fit — mistakes are part of the learning here.
Can I retry the exercise if I want a better score?
Yes — use the 'Try again' button on the results screen to reset your score and go through the questions again. There's no limit on attempts.
Who is this Negotiation English exercise for?
It's aimed at IT professionals with working English who want to sound more natural and precise around negotiation english — useful whether you're preparing for real conversations at work or just building confidence with the vocabulary.
Do I need an account to track my progress?
No account is needed. Your progress through the exercise is tracked locally in your browser for the current session, and you can replay the module at any time.
How is this different from reading a blog article?
This exercise is an interactive drill that tests and reinforces specific phrasing through multiple-choice questions with instant feedback, while blog articles explain concepts and vocabulary in prose. The two work well together.
Where can I find more Negotiation English exercises?
See the Negotiation English hub for more modules like this one, or browse the full Exercises page for other IT-English topics.
Can I complete this exercise on my phone?
Yes — every exercise on CoderSlingo is fully responsive and works on phones and tablets, so you can practise anywhere.