The Deal Died Before Negotiations

The terms were right. The numbers made sense. The opportunity was genuinely good for both sides. And yet it did not close. Most founders, when a deal or partnership falls through, conduct a thorough post-mortem on the wrong things. They revisit the proposal. They question the pricing. They wonder if the timing was off or the market conditions unfavourable. They examine everything except the one variable that was present in every conversation, every meeting and every moment the other party was...

min read

The terms were right. The numbers made sense. The opportunity was genuinely good for both sides. And yet it did not close. Most founders, when a deal or partnership falls through, conduct a thorough post-mortem on the wrong things. They revisit the proposal. They question the pricing. They wonder if the timing was off or the market conditions unfavourable. They examine everything except the one variable that was present in every conversation, every meeting and every moment the other party was forming their judgment. Themselves. The uncomfortable truth about deals that die in the final stages — after interest has been established, terms discussed and both sides have invested significant time — is that they almost never die because of the numbers. They die because of doubt. And doubt, at this level of business, is almost always created by a gap between how capable someone appears on paper and how commanding they actually are in person. Here is how that gap shows up. The founder enters the room with strong credentials. Their business is real, their track record solid, their offering genuinely valuable. But something about how they carry themselves — how they communicate, how they handle questions they do not immediately know the answer to, how they respond to pushback, whether they fill silence comfortably or nervously creates a quiet uncertainty in the mind of the person across the table. Not enough to walk away immediately. Just enough to hesitate. To ask for more time. To come back with a revised term that was never really about the term at all. That hesitation is not a negotiation tactic. It is a verdict about a person. The founders who close consistently not occasionally, not when the deal is easy, but consistently across different partners, different rooms, different levels of scrutiny share one quality that has nothing to do with the quality of their business. They are congruent. The person in the room matches the company on the document. The confidence in the conversation matches the credibility on paper. There is no gap to fall into, no uncertainty to take root, no quiet question that lingers after the meeting ends. That congruence is not charisma. It is not charm or aggression or years of sales training. It is a personal brand built with enough deliberateness that it communicates the same thing in every room, to every person, under every level of scrutiny and pressure. It says without words — this is who I am, this is what I stand for, and you would be making a sound decision to proceed with me. Think about the last significant deal or partnership that did not close the way you expected. Play back those conversations honestly not what was said, but how you showed up in them. Were you the version of yourself that your business deserves to be represented by? Or was there a gap somewhere — between the business you have built and the personal authority with which you were presenting it to the room? Because here is what the other party was actually experiencing. They were not evaluating your company in isolation. They were evaluating you as the person who would be their partner, their counterpart, the face of this entire arrangement in every difficult conversation still to come. And if what they saw gave them any reason to hesitate — however small, however unspoken, however quickly dismissed in the moment — that hesitation became the real reason the deal did not close. The terms were never really the problem. I work with founders at exactly this intersection where business strength and personal brand need to meet for the right deals to actually happen and close. If a significant opportunity has recently slipped through in a way that still does not fully make sense to you, that confusion is worth a direct conversation. Book here: https://www.calendly.com/divyaaadvaani/founderbrand-audit — Divyaa Advaani, Personal Branding Strategist (The writer is a personal branding expert. She has clients from 14+ countries. Views personal.)

Gun Violence in America

Vishwas Pethe

Dec 27, 2024

3 min read

Updated: Jan 2, 2025

On December 16, 2024, tragedy struck Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, where a 15-year-old student, Natalie Rupnow, fatally shot a fellow student and a teacher before taking her own life. Six others were injured, with two in critical condition. This devastating event is a grim reminder of the United States' ongoing struggle with gun violence, particularly in schools.

A Long History of Gun Ownership in America

The issue of gun violence in the United States cannot be discussed without acknowledging its deep-rooted history of gun ownership. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1791, which states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Initially, this amendment was intended to empower citizens to form militias for self-defense during a time when standing armies were distrusted. Over the centuries, however, the interpretation of the Second Amendment has evolved. Today, it is often cited as a justification for individual gun ownership, a concept reinforced by landmark court cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which affirmed an individual's right to own firearms for self-defense.

Gun culture is deeply ingrained in American society, with nearly 400 million firearms in civilian hands—more guns than people. This level of accessibility, coupled with a powerful gun lobby led by organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA), has made significant legislative reform difficult.

Gun Violence in Numbers

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), firearms cause approximately 40,000 deaths annually in the United States—equivalent to 109 deaths per day. This figure includes homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings. Among children and teenagers, firearms are now the leading cause of death, surpassing motor vehicle accidents.

School shootings are a particularly horrifying aspect of gun violence in America. Since 1990, there have been over 800 incidents in K-12 schools, resulting in more than 500 deaths and over 1,000 injuries. High-profile tragedies such as the Columbine High School massacre (1999), the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (2012), and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School attack (2018) have shocked the nation and the world, yet meaningful reforms remain elusive.

A Global Comparison

The United States stands out among developed nations for its high rate of gun violence. In countries like Australia, Canada, and much of Europe, strict gun control measures have significantly reduced firearm-related deaths. For example: By contrast, the firearm-related death rate in the United States is 12.2 per 100,000 people, significantly higher than other developed nations. The prevalence of guns and the lack of uniform gun control laws contribute to this disparity.

Challenges in Addressing Gun Violence

Efforts to reduce gun violence in the U.S. have faced significant obstacles. One of the most notable is the prohibition of federal funding for gun violence research. In 1996, Congress passed the Dickey Amendment, effectively barring the CDC from studying gun violence as a public health issue. Although the funding ban was partially lifted in 2019, its legacy has left the country with a limited understanding of the causes and solutions to gun violence.

Advocates have long called for measures such as:

• Universal Background Checks: Closing loopholes in gun sales to ensure that all firearm purchases are subject to background checks.

• Safe Storage Laws: Requiring gun owners to store firearms securely to prevent unauthorized access.

• Bans on Certain Firearms: Prohibiting the sale of assault-style weapons, which are often used in mass shootings.

The Debate Over Gun Rights and Reform

The debate over gun control in the United States often pits the rights of gun owners against the need for public safety. Opponents of stricter gun laws argue that restrictions infringe on constitutional rights and fail to address the root causes of violence, such as mental health issues. Proponents, however, point to the success of gun control measures in other countries and the overwhelming public support for policies like background checks.

A Way Forward

Despite the challenges, there is growing momentum for change. Grassroots organizations, survivors of gun violence, and some lawmakers are advocating for comprehensive reforms. The Madison school shooting serves as a stark reminder of the urgency of these efforts. As the nation grapples with its gun violence epidemic, it must look to both its history and the experiences of other countries to find a path toward a safer future.

(The author is a resident of US. Views personal.)

The Deal Died Before Negotiations

Gun Violence in America

Recent Posts

Comments