So today I'm going to talk to you about the rise of collaborative consumption. I'm going to explain what it is and try and convince you -- in just 15 minutes -- that this isn't a flimsy idea, or a short-term trend, but a powerful cultural and economic force reinventing not just what we consume, but how we consume.
今天我要和大家探讨的是 关于协作消费的崛起。 我将要给大家解释协作消费的概念 并在15分钟内尝试说服大家, 这并不仅仅是一个单薄的似天马行空般的概念, 也不仅仅是一个短暂的流行趋势, 而是一股推动文化和经济的强大力量, 它不但重塑着我们消费的产品, 更改变了我们消费的方式。
Now I'm going to start with a deceptively simple example. Hands up -- how many of you have books, CDs, DVDs, or videos lying around your house that you probably won't use again, but you can't quite bring yourself to throw away? Can't see all the hands, but it looks like all of you, right? On our shelves at home, we have a box set of the DVD series "24," season six to be precise. I think it was bought for us around three years ago for a Christmas present. Now my husband, Chris, and I love this show. But let's face it, when you've watched it once maybe, or twice, you don't really want to watch it again, because you know how Jack Bauer is going to defeat the terrorists. So there it sits on our shelves obsolete to us, but with immediate latent value to someone else. Now before we go on, I have a confession to make. I lived in New York for 10 years, and I am a big fan of "Sex and the City." Now I'd love to watch the first movie again as sort of a warm-up to the sequel coming out next week. So how easily could I swap our unwanted copy of "24" for a wanted copy of "Sex and the City?" Now you may have noticed there's a new sector emerging called swap-trading. Now the easiest analogy for swap-trading is like an online dating service for all your unwanted media. What it does is use the Internet to create an infinite marketplace to match person A's "haves" with person C's "wants," whatever they may be.
现在我将用一个从表面看起来很简单的例子来开始我的演讲。 请举手——有多少人 有书籍,音乐CD,DVD,录像带 搁置在家里面? 很可能你这辈子都不会再听再看这些, 但是呢,你又不舍得把他们全部扔掉? 虽然不是所有人都举手, 但貌似大家几乎都举手了。 在我家里的书架上, 我可能放着一套“24小时”的DVD 准确地说是第六季。 我记得大概是三年前买给我们作圣诞礼物的。 虽然我和我爱人,Chris 都很喜欢这个电视剧。 让我们面对现实吧,看一次两次有可能, 但是你不会再看第三次了, 因为你知道男主角杰克·鲍尔Jack Bauer肯定会打败那些恐怖分子的。 所以这套电视剧就在我的书架里面搁置着, 对我们来说它是过时的, 但是我知道对某些人还是有潜在价值的。 现在在我们继续讲之前,我要坦白一件事。 我在纽约住了10年了, 我是“欲望都市”的超级粉丝。 现在呢我很希望能再看一次这部电影。 在下周续集播出前重温一下。 那么,我怎么可以简单做到用 我不想要的那个“24小时” 和别人交换到我想要的“欲望都市”呢? 你可能留意到了 有一种新的交易形式叫做易物交易。 在这个情境下,就像易物交易一样 为我们不需要的物品 开设一个在线的交换服务。 这个服务借助因特网 创造了一个无限广阔的大集市 来撮合供方 与求方, 无论他们有什么和想要什么。
The other week, I went on one of these sites, appropriately called Swaptree, and there were over 59,300 items that I could instantly swap for my copy of "24." Lo and behold, there in Reseda, CA was Rondoron who wanted swap his or her "like new" copy of "Sex and the City" for my copy of "24." So in other words, what's happening here is that Swaptree solves my carrying company's sugar rush problem, a problem the economists call "the coincidence of wants," in approximately 60 seconds. What's even more amazing is it will print out a postage label on the spot, because it knows the way of the item. Now there are layers of technical wonder behind sites such as Swaptree, but that's not my interest, and nor is swap trading, per se.
有天,我上了这么一个网站, 叫做Swaptree。 上面有59300样东西, 我可以用我的“24小时” 来进行交换。 慢慢往下看, 有一个叫做润德龙rondoron的用户,住在美国加州的Reseda 希望拿他/她的 “几乎全新”的“欲望都市”拷贝 来交换我的“24小时”! 换句话说, Swaptree 解决了我所需的问题, 这个问题经济学家也叫做“需求的吻合”, 仅仅用了60多秒而已。 更让人吃惊的是,网站可以当场生成并打印出证明购买的标签, 因为它知道这个交易的价值。 在Swaptree类似网站的背后, 有技术上的创新, 但这不是我的兴趣所在, 易物交易本身也不是我的兴趣所在。
My passion, and what I've spent the last few years dedicated to researching, is the collaborative behaviors and trust-mechanics inherent in these systems. When you think about it, it would have seemed like a crazy idea, even a few years ago, that I would swap my stuff with a total stranger whose real name I didn't know and without any money changing hands. Yet 99 percent of trades on Swaptree happen successfully, and the one percent that receive a negative rating, it's for relatively minor reasons, like the item didn't arrive on time.
我这几年以来 都专注于研究 在这些系统和活动中蕴含的协作行为和 信任机制。 你想想, 这个即使在几年前听起来都很疯狂的主意, 和一个完全不认识的人交换我们的物品, 而且我还不知道那人姓甚名谁 交易还不涉及任何金钱。 在Swaptree上百分之九十九的交易 都是成功的, 只有百分之一的交易得到负面的评价, 这都是由于相对次要的原因, 例如物品没有准时寄到等。
So what's happening here? An extremely powerful dynamic that has huge commercial and cultural implications is at play. Namely, that technology is enabling trust between strangers. We now live in a global village where we can mimic the ties that used to happen face to face, but on a scale and in ways that have never been possible before. So what's actually happening is that social networks and real-time technologies are taking us back. We're bartering, trading, swapping, sharing, but they're being reinvented into dynamic and appealing forms. What I find fascinating is that we've actually wired our world to share, whether that's our neighborhood, our school, our office, or our Facebook network, and that's creating an economy of "what's mine is yours." From the mighty eBay, the grandfather of exchange marketplaces, to car-sharing companies such as GoGet, where you pay a monthly fee to rent cars by the hour, to social lending platforms such as Zopa, that will take anyone in this audience with 100 dollars to lend, and match them with a borrower anywhere in the world, we're sharing and collaborating again in ways that I believe are more hip than hippie. I call this "groundswell collaborative consumption."
那么,到底现在在发生什么呢? 一个超级强大的人与人的交互形式 并拥有巨大的商业价值和文化影响力 正在如火如荼的进行着。 一言以蔽之,新技术 能够让 陌生人间也能建立起信任来。 我们现在住在地球村里 我们可以建立一种人与人的新联系 毋须像之前一样地面对面, 这种新联系却可以有更大的规模,这中联系的方式 也是之前不可能实现的。 所以正在发生的 是社交网络和实时技术 将我们带回“原始”的协作生活中。 我们进行物物交换, 分享等等 但是这些行为都被重塑成 充满活力而吸引人的新形式。 我觉得很有趣的是, 实际上,我们的世界之所以成为现在这个样子,就是为了让大家共享 不管是我们的街区,我们的学校, 我们的办公室,还是我们的Facebook网络等等。 这种正在生成的新经济形式, 即我的东西即是你的。 从网购巨头eBay 这一交易市场的始祖 到类似GoGet这样的租车公司, 你只要每月付费就可以按小时租车; 再到像是Zopa这样的出借服务网站, 它可以让在座任何的一个人 拿出一百美元来借出, 然后配对给世界上任何一位需要这100美元的借用者。 你看我们现在就是以一种 我觉得超前卫的方式 来互相分享以及协作。 我把这个叫做公众协作消费。
Now before I dig into the different systems of collaborative consumption, I'd like to try and answer the question that every author rightfully gets asked, which is, where did this idea come from? Now I'd like to say I woke up one morning and said, "I'm going to write about collaborative consumption," but actually it was a complicated web of seemingly disconnected ideas. Over the next minute, you're going to see a bit like a conceptual fireworks display of all the dots that went on in my head. The first thing I began to notice: how many big concepts were emerging -- from the wisdom of crowds to smart mobs -- around how ridiculously easy it is to form groups for a purpose. And linked to this crowd mania were examples all around the world -- from the election of a president to the infamous Wikipedia, and everything in between -- on what the power of numbers could achieve.
现在在我进一步解释协作消费 的不同运行机制之前, 我想尝试着解答一下 每个创作者想当然都会被问到的问题, 关于这个想法是怎么产生的? 其实我是很想这么说,“有天早上,我刚醒就觉得, 关于协作消费,我得写点什么东西。” 不过事实上这想法是一个复杂网络, 它看似由一些风马牛不相及的想法构成。 接下来的时间, 你将会看到包含所有我曾经想到过的一些奇怪点子 的一个概念演示。 我最先注意到的是: 多少大概念在酝酿 从群众的智慧结晶到高智商人群-- 要有什么想法就可以建个组 这点做起来超简单的。 再跟这些狂热的群众力量联系起来, 我们发现全球到处都是实例-- 像是总统选举啦, 声名狼藉的维基百科,以及其间的任何事-- 凭借数量上的优势能够实现的东西。
Now, you know when you learn a new word, and then you start to see that word everywhere? That's what happened to me when I noticed that we are moving from passive consumers to creators, to highly enabled collaborators. What's happening is the Internet is removing the middleman, so that anyone from a T-shirt designer to a knitter can make a living selling peer-to-peer. And the ubiquitous force of this peer-to-peer revolution means that sharing is happening at phenomenal rates. I mean, it's amazing to think that, in every single minute of this speech, 25 hours of YouTube video will be loaded. Now what I find fascinating about these examples is how they're actually tapping into our primate instincts. I mean, we're monkeys, and we're born and bred to share and cooperate. And we were doing so for thousands of years, whether it's when we hunted in packs, or farmed in cooperatives, before this big system called hyper-consumption came along and we built these fences and created out own little fiefdoms. But things are changing, and one of the reasons why is the digital natives, or Gen-Y. They're growing up sharing -- files, video games, knowledge. It's second nature to them. So we, the millennials -- I am just a millennial -- are like foot soldiers, moving us from a culture of "me" to a culture of "we."
这的确是一个新的理念, 而且你也开始在很多地方看到它了吧? 这也是发生在我身上的事 当我注意到我们从 被动的消费者 转变成创造者, 并有些志同道合的合作伙伴。 这也就意味着 互联网不再需要中间人, 所以任何的服装设计师 编织工之间 都可以一对一的谋生。 所以这次对等网络的革新 所带来的普遍性力量 说明这种分享理念在以惊人的比率蔓延着。 我是说,就连我现在演讲的每一分钟 都有25小时的视频 会被上传到Youtube, 这真的很厉害吧! 现在我觉得这些例子很有趣也是因为 它们事实上是利用 我们的原始本能。 我的意思是,咱们是猴子变的, 每个人生来就懂得分享以及合作。 几千年来都是这样, 无论是背着包狩猎的时候, 或者是一道去农田里劳作, 这一切都是在这个叫做过度消费的理念出现之前 之后我们学会建起了栅栏 创造出了自个儿小小的王国。 但事物总是变化的, 原因之一就是 数码网络影响下的这代人,或是Y世代的人。 共享伴随着他们的成长-- 共享文件,视频游戏,共享知识等等; 这是他们的第二天性。 那么新千年一代人,我也是新千年一代人中的一名, 我们就像步兵一样, 从我的文化转变为我们的文化。
The reason why it's happening so fast is because of mobile collaboration. We now live in a connected age where we can locate anyone, anytime, in real-time, from a small device in our hands. All of this was going through my head towards the end of 2008, when, of course, the great financial crash happened. Thomas Friedman is one of my favorite New York Times columnists, and he poignantly commented that 2008 is when we hit a wall, when Mother Nature and the market both said, "No more." Now we rationally know that an economy built on hyper-consumption is a Ponzi scheme. It's a house of cards. Yet, it's hard for us to individually know what to do.
这变化发生得如此之快的原因是 移动协同。 我们现生活在一个相互联系的时代, 我们手中的小小装置可以让我们在任何时间, 甚至实时地,找到任何人。 我脑中的这一切 要追溯到2008年底, 当时前所未有的金融危机发生。 我最喜欢的纽约时报专栏作家之一托马斯·弗里德曼 他尖锐地评论 2008年我们碰壁了 当自然天性和市场 都呼吁“不再过度消费”。 目前我们理性地意识到 这种过度消费模式下的经济 是一种庞氏骗局;它也是一个海市蜃楼。 这也很难让我们个体知道该怎样应对。
So all of this is a lot of twittering, right? Well it was a lot of noise and complexity in my head, until actually I realized it was happening because of four key drivers. One, a renewed belief in the importance of community, and a very redefinition of what friend and neighbor really means. A torrent of peer-to-peer social networks and real-time technologies, fundamentally changing the way we behave. Three, pressing unresolved environmental concerns. And four, a global recession that has fundamentally shocked consumer behaviors. These four drivers are fusing together and creating the big shift -- away from the 20th century, defined by hyper-consumption, towards the 21st century, defined by collaborative consumption. I generally believe we're at an inflection point where the sharing behaviors -- through sites such as Flickr and Twitter that are becoming second nature online -- are being applied to offline areas of our everyday lives. From morning commutes to the way fashion is designed to the way we grow food, we are consuming and collaborating once again.
所有这一切产生了很多微博信息,不是吗? 我脑中有很多杂音和复杂想法, 直到我实际意识到正在发生的 这4个主要驱动因素。 第一,关于社区重要性的新想法, 重新定义朋友和邻居到底意味着什么。 第二接连不断地对等社交网络 和实时通讯技术的出现 从根本上改变了我们的行为方式。 第三,迫在眉睫的环境问题尚未解决。 第四,全球萧条 这从根本上改变了 消费行为。 这四个驱动因素 共同影响 并创造了这种巨大的转变-- 从20世纪起 过度消费的定义 转变为21世纪 协作消费的新定义。 我通常认为我们是在一个转折点 通过 像Flickr和推特的网站, 我们的网上在线分享行为既然成为我们的第二天性, 那么这种线上分享行为也应用到了我们日常生活的线下活动。 从早上拼车路程到共同设计服饰 再到共同种植食物, 我们又一次的消费并协作着。
So my co-author, Roo Rogers, and I have actually gathered thousands of examples from all around the world of collaborative consumption. And although they vary enormously in scale, maturity and purpose, when we dived into them, we realized that they could actually be organized into three clear systems. The first is redistribution markets. Redistribution markets, just like Swaptree, are when you take a used, or pre-owned, item and move it from where it's not needed to somewhere, or someone, where it is. They're increasingly thought of as the fifth 'R' -- reduce, reuse, recycle, repair and redistribute -- because they stretch the life cycle of a product and thereby reduce waste.
所以我和我的合著者,罗奥·罗杰斯Roo Rogers 其实已经收集了成千上万的 全球协作消费的案例。 尽管协作消费在成熟度和目的性上 有着巨大差异, 当我们把它们加以区别, 我们了解到协作消费实际上可以划分为3个不同类别。 第一类是再分配市场。 类似像Swaptree的再分配市场, 当你拿一个用过的或者旧的物品 从不需要用它的人手里 分配到需要它的某个地方,或者某人手上。 再分配市场由此产生了第五个以'R'字母打头的共识原则, 分别是reduce减量, reuse复用, recycle再循环, repair补修 和这第5个redistribute再分配。 这5个原则延伸了产品的生命周期 从而也减少了浪费。
The second is collaborative lifestyles. This is the sharing of resources of things like money, skills and time. I bet, in a couple of years, that phrases like "coworking" and "couchsurfing" and "time banks" are going to become a part of everyday vernacular. One of my favorite examples of collaborative lifestyles is called Landshare. It's a scheme in the U.K. that matches Mr. Jones, with some spare space in his back garden, with Mrs. Smith, a would-be grower. Together they grow their own food. It's one of those ideas that's so simple, yet brilliant, you wonder why it's never been done before.
第二类是协作生活方式。 这是对类似金钱,技术和时间等资源的 分享。 我打赌,在接下来一两年, 像共同办公, 沙发客和时间银行的术语 会变成日常用语的一部分。 我最喜欢的协作生活方式的案例之一是 耕地分享。 这是在英国的一个计划。 琼斯先生 的后花园有些空地, 这正好迎合了史密斯夫人的需求,她想成为一个种植者。 他们共同种些他们自己的食物。 这就是那些简单,但最不可思议的想法之一, 大家都会惊奇怎么以前从没想到呢。
Now, the third system is product-service systems. This is where you pay for the benefit of the product -- what it does for you -- without needing to own the product outright. This idea is particularly powerful for things that have high-idling capacity. And that can be anything from baby goods to fashions to -- how many of you have a power drill, own a power drill? Right. That power drill will be used around 12 to 13 minutes in its entire lifetime. (Laughter) It's kind of ridiculous, right? Because what you need is the hole, not the drill. (Laughter) (Applause) So why don't you rent the drill, or, even better, rent out your own drill to other people and make some money from it? These three systems are coming together, allowing people to share resources without sacrificing their lifestyles, or their cherished personal freedoms. I'm not asking people to share nicely in the sandpit.
现在来谈谈第三类 产品服务系统。 这是指当某种产品服务你的时候-- 你相应地付费-- 而不必永久地拥有这种产品。 对于 那些 长久闲置不用的东西来说,这个想法非常棒。 从婴儿用品 到时尚品的这些闲置不常用的东西-- 你们中有多少人拥有电钻? 拥有电钻?对。 我们整个一生中大概会用到电钻 也就是12到13分钟。 (笑声) 这有点可笑,对吧? 因为你所需的只是钻个孔,而不是电钻。 (笑声) (掌声) 那你为什么不租用电钻呢, 或是把你的电钻转租给别人, 从中你还能挣点钱? 这三类协作消费共同作用, 允许人们分享资源 而且不牺牲他们自身的生活方式, 或是他们所珍惜的个人自由。 我不是要求大家 分享沙滩上玩耍的乐趣。
So I want to just give you an example of how powerful collaborative consumption can be to change behaviors. The average car costs 8,000 dollars a year to run. Yet, that car sits idle for 23 hours a day. So when you consider these two facts, it starts to make a little less sense that we have to own one outright. So this is where car-sharing companies such as Zipcar and GoGet come in. In 2009, Zipcar took 250 participants from across 13 cities -- and they're all self-confessed car addicts and car-sharing rookies -- and got them to surrender their keys for a month. Instead, these people had to walk, bike, take the train, or other forms of public transport. They could only use their Zipcar membership when absolutely necessary. The results of this challenge after just one month was staggering. It's amazing that 413 lbs were lost just from the extra exercise. But my favorite statistic is that 100 out of the 250 participants did not want their keys back. In other words, the car addicts had lost their urge to own.
只是给大家一个例子 那就是协作消费是怎样强有力地 改变我们的行为。 一辆普通的汽车 每天需要花费8千美元。 但是一天中有23个小时 汽车都闲置在那。 当你想到这2个事实, 你才稍有意识到 我们必须拥有一辆汽车吗? 这也是 像Zipcar和GoGet这样的汽车租车公司孕育而生的原因。 在2009年, Zipcar让 遍及13个城市的250个参与者, 他们都自称是汽车爱好者, 加入到汽车分享总动员活动, 并让他们交出汽车钥匙一个月。 反而代之的是,这些人们要走路, 骑自行车,乘火车, 或者其他公共交通工具。 他们只有在必要急需时,才可以使用 他们的Zipcar会员身份。 这挑战的结果仅仅在一个月后 就让我们惊奇。 人们仅从额外锻炼就减了413磅, 这太令人惊讶了。 但我最感兴趣的数据 是这250个用户中有100人 不想再 要回他们的汽车钥匙。 换言之,汽车爱好者 不再急切想拥有他们的汽车。
Now products-service systems have been around for years. Just think of libraries and laundrettes. But I think they're entering a new age, because technology makes sharing frictionless and fun. There's a great quote that was written in the New York Times that said, "Sharing is to ownership what the iPod is to the 8-track, what solar power is to the coal mine." I believe also, our generation, our relationship to satisfying what we want is far less tangible than any other previous generation. I don't want the DVD; I want the movie it carries. I don't want a clunky answering machine; I want the message it saves. I don't want a CD; I want the music it plays. In other words, I don't want stuff; I want the needs or experiences it fulfills. This is fueling a massive shift from where usage trumps possessions -- or as Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine, puts it, "where access is better than ownership."
目前产品服务系统已经运作了好几年。 想想看图书馆和自助洗衣店。 但我认为这会进入一个新纪元, 因为科技让分享 变得容易和有趣。 在纽约时报上有一句名言, “分享即是拥有, 好比iPod即是8个音乐专辑, 太阳能即是煤矿能源。” 我也同样认为,我们这一代人, 我们为了满足我们的物质欲望的关系 都远远比不上 我们之前的任何一代人。 我不想拥有DVD,我想让电影播放起来。 我不想要一个笨重的电话回复机, 我想要它保存下来的讯息。 我不想要CD,我想让音乐响起来。 换言之,我不想要物质东西, 我想要这东西的实用价值或者是亲身体验。 这助长了大规模的转变, 从个人消费拥有转变为协作消费使用-- 或者如连线杂志编辑凯文·凯利所说, “物尽其用好过仅仅拥有。”
Now as our possessions dematerialize into the cloud, a blurry line is appearing between what's mine, what's yours, and what's ours. I want to give you one example that shows how fast this evolution is happening. This represents an eight-year time span. We've gone from traditional car-ownership to car-sharing companies, such as Zipcar and GoGet, to ride-sharing platforms that match rides to the newest entry, which is peer-to-peer car rental, where you can actually make money out of renting that car that sits idle for 23 hours a day to your neighbor. Now all of these systems require a degree of trust, and the cornerstone to this working is reputation.
随着我们的财产 逐渐的非物质化, 一个模糊的界线正在显现 介于什么是我的,什么是你的, 什么是共有的财产间。 我给大家举个例子 它展示了这种变化发生地有多快。 这张图显示了8年的时间跨度。 我们从对传统汽车的拥有权 转变为汽车共享公司--比如 Zipcar和GoGet-- 作为租赁汽车的交易平台 与最新汽车交易相匹配,也就是对等的汽车租赁, 当你把每天闲置23小时的自家车 租给你的邻居,你实际上 可以赚一些钱。 目前所有这些体系 要求一种信任度, 这种运作的关键 就是信誉度。
Now in the old consumer system, our reputation didn't matter so much, because our credit history was far more important that any kind of peer-to-peer review. But now with the Web, we leave a trail. With every spammer we flag, with every idea we post, comment we share, we're actually signaling how well we collaborate, and whether we can or can't be trusted. Let's go back to my first example, Swaptree. I can see that Rondoron has completed 553 trades with a 100 percent success rate. In other words, I can trust him or her. Now mark my words, it's only a matter of time before we're going to be able to perform a Google-like search and see a cumulative picture of our reputation capital. And this reputation capital will determine our access to collaborative consumption. It's a new social currency, so to speak, that could become as powerful as our credit rating.
过去的消费系统, 我们的信誉不是特别重要, 因为我们信用卡的记录比起 任何的对等网络评论更加重要。 但是现在的网络,我们有了长尾效应。 随着我们举报的任何一个垃圾邮件, 我们发表的任何想法,我们分享的任何评论, 实际上都体现出我们更好地协作着, 也能看出我们是否值得信任。 让我们回到我的第一个案例, Swaptree。 我能看到润德龙 已经交易了553次 以百分之百的成功率。 换言之,我会信任他或她。 现在记住我的话, 这只是个时间问题 我们将会像执行谷歌一样的搜索功能 来查看我们信誉资本 的汇总图。 这个信誉资本 决定了我们的协作消费程度。 可以说,信誉资本是种新社交货币, 它如同我们的信用评级一样强大有用。
Now as a closing thought, I believe we're actually in a period where we're waking up from this humongous hangover of emptiness and waste, and we're taking a leap to create a more sustainable system built to serve our innate needs for community and individual identity. I believe it will be referred to as a revolution, so to speak -- when society, faced with great challenges, made a seismic shift from individual getting and spending towards a rediscovery of collective good. I'm on a mission to make sharing cool. I'm on a mission to make sharing hip. Because I really believe it can disrupt outdated modes of business, help us leapfrog over wasteful forms of hyper-consumption and teach us when enough really is enough.
现在做个闭幕总结, 我认为我们的确处于一个转变年代 我们要从这种由无尽的空虚和奢华浪费的 宿醉中 清醒过来, 我们要做飞跃式的转变, 来创造一个更加可持续发展的系统, 建于用来满足我们 对社区和个体身份认同的内在需求。 可以说,协作消费会被称作为 一种革命,说起来-- 当社会面临巨大挑战, 会有巨大的改变 从个体所得消费系统 转变为集体利益的重新分配系统。 我的任务是让这种分享更酷, 让这种协作分享更前卫。 因为我真的相信 它能够帮助破除过时的经营模式, 并帮助我们跨过 过度消费形态的铺张浪费 教会我们知足常乐。
Thank you very much.
谢谢大家。
(Applause)
(掌声)