the partnership term that almost broke a deal

spent a chunk of this week in partnership conversations, the kind where two teams agree on almost everything except one line item, and that one line item somehow becomes the whole negotiation.

this time it was a revenue share structure. both sides wanted the partnership. both sides believed in the upside. and both sides got stuck circling a percentage point that, in the grand scheme, wouldn't matter in twelve months if the thing worked. but people don't negotiate from twelve months out. they negotiate from the fear of getting the split wrong on day one.

what i've learned running enough of these is that the number itself is rarely the real issue. the real issue is trust in the other side's effort. if you believe your partner will actually show up and do the work, a slightly worse split feels fine because the pie is bigger. if you don't trust the effort, even a generous split feels like a bad deal.

so instead of negotiating the number directly, it helps to negotiate the proof first. what does month one look like. what does month three look like. build enough specificity into the plan that both sides can picture the other actually delivering, and the percentage stops being the fight.

i also think there's a tendency in early partnership conversations to over-formalize before there's any lived experience together. sometimes the better move is a smaller, shorter, less binding first phase, just so both sides get real data on how the other operates before committing to the long structure. you learn more about a partner in six weeks of actual work than in six months of contract drafting.

none of this is about being naive about terms. terms matter. but terms fixed too early, before trust exists, tend to get renegotiated anyway once reality hits. better to build the trust first and let the terms follow it.

are you negotiating the number, or are you actually negotiating the trust underneath it?