Dette er min første gang på TED. Som reklamemand taler jeg normalt på TED Evil - TED's hemmelige søsterorganisation - den der betaler regningerne. Det bliver afholdt hvert andet år i Burma. Og jeg husker især en vældigt god tale af Kim Jong Il om hvordan man får teenagere til at ryge igen. (Latter)
This is my first time at TED. Normally, as an advertising man, I actually speak at TED Evil, which is TED's secret sister that pays all the bills. It's held every two years in Burma. And I particularly remember a really good speech by Kim Jong Il on how to get teens smoking again. (Laughter)
Men faktisk er det, efter alle disse år i branchen, gået op for mig, at det, vi skaber i reklamebranchen det som er er immateriel værdi -- man kan kalde det opfattet værdi, du kan kalde det brandværdi, subjektiv værdi, en slags immateriel værdi -- bliver vurderet ret negativt. I er sikkert enige i, at hvis man ønsker at leve i en verden i fremtiden hvor der er færre materielle goder, så har i faktisk kun to valg. Man kan enten leve i en verden, som er fattigere, hvilket folk generelt set ikke bryder sig om. Eller man kan leve i en verden, hvor reel immateriel værdi udgør en større andel af den samlede værdi faktisk, at immateriel værdi på mange måder er en meget, meget god erstatning til at bruge arbejdskraft eller begrænsede resourcer til at skabe ting.
But, actually, it's suddenly come to me after years working in the business, that what we create in advertising, which is intangible value -- you might call it perceived value, you might call it badge value, subjective value, intangible value of some kind -- gets rather a bad rap. If you think about it, if you want to live in a world in the future where there are fewer material goods, you basically have two choices. You can either live in a world which is poorer, which people in general don't like. Or you can live in a world where actually intangible value constitutes a greater part of overall value, that actually intangible value, in many ways is a very, very fine substitute for using up labor or limited resources in the creation of things.
Her er et eksempel. Dette er et tog, som går fra London til Paris. Spørgsmålet blev stillet til en flok ingeniører for ca. 15 år siden: "Hvordan gør vi rejsen til Paris bedre?" Og de fandt frem til en meget god ingeniørløsning: at bruge 6 milliarder pund på at bygge helt nye spor fra London til kysten og gøre en tre-en-halv timers rejse cirka 40 minutter kortere. Nu kan I kalde mig en sur gammel mand, Jeg er bare reklamemand ... ... men det forekommer mig at være en lidt fantasiforladt måde at forbedre en togrejse - blot at gøre den kortere. Men hvor meget glæde ville vi få, i stedet for at bruge 6 milliarder pund på de jernbaneskinner?
Here is one example. This is a train which goes from London to Paris. The question was given to a bunch of engineers, about 15 years ago, "How do we make the journey to Paris better?" And they came up with a very good engineering solution, which was to spend six billion pounds building completely new tracks from London to the coast, and knocking about 40 minutes off a three-and-half-hour journey time. Now, call me Mister Picky. I'm just an ad man ... ... but it strikes me as a slightly unimaginative way of improving a train journey merely to make it shorter. Now what is the hedonic opportunity cost on spending six billion pounds on those railway tracks?
Her er en naiv reklamemands forslag: Man skulle tage at ansætte alle verdens mandlige og og kvindelige topmodeller, betale dem for at gå frem og tilbage i toget og udlevere gratis Chateau Petrus hele rejsen igennem. (Latter) (Bifald) Du ville stadig have omkring tre milliarder pund tilbage i byttepenge, Og folk ville bede om at togene kørte lidt langsommere. (Latter)
Here is my naive advertising man's suggestion. What you should in fact do is employ all of the world's top male and female supermodels, pay them to walk the length of the train, handing out free Chateau Petrus for the entire duration of the journey. (Laughter) (Applause) Now, you'll still have about three billion pounds left in change, and people will ask for the trains to be slowed down. (Laughter)
OK. Her er en anden naiv reklamemands spørgsmål igen Og dette viser, at ingeniører medicinere, videnskabsfolk, er besat af at løse virkelighedens problemer selvom, når man har nået et basalt velfærdsniveau, er de fleste problemer i samfundet i virkeligheden problemer med opfattelsen. Så jeg vil spørge jer om noget andet. Hvad i alverden er der galt med placeboer? De forekommer mig at være ganske fantastiske. De koster næsten ingenting at udvikle. De virker utroligt godt. De har ingen bieffekter, og hvis de har, er de indbildte, så vi kan trygt ignorere dem. (Latter)
Now, here is another naive advertising man's question again. And this shows that engineers, medical people, scientific people, have an obsession with solving the problems of reality, when actually most problems, once you reach a basic level of wealth in society, most problems are actually problems of perception. So I'll ask you another question. What on earth is wrong with placebos? They seem fantastic to me. They cost very little to develop. They work extraordinarily well. They have no side effects, or if they do, they're imaginary, so you can safely ignore them. (Laughter)
Så jeg diskuterede det. Og jeg besøgte rent faktisk bloggen Marginal Revolution af Tyler Cown. Jeg ved ikke, om nogen af jer kender den. Nogen foreslog faktisk at man kan tage dette koncept endnu længere, og levere placebouddannelser. Pointen er at uddannelse faktisk ikke virker ved at lære én noget. Den virker i stedet ved at give dig indtrykket af at man har fået en rigtig god uddannelse, hvilket giver een en sindssyg fornemmelse af uberettiget selvtillid, hvilket så gør dig meget, meget succesfuld senere i livet. Så. Velkommen til Oxford, mine damer og herrer. (Latter) (Bifald)
So I was discussing this. And I actually went to the Marginal Revolution blog by Tyler Cowen. I don't know if anybody knows it. Someone was actually suggesting that you can take this concept further, and actually produce placebo education. The point is that education doesn't actually work by teaching you things. It actually works by giving you the impression that you've had a very good education, which gives you an insane sense of unwarranted self-confidence, which then makes you very, very successful in later life. So, welcome to Oxford, ladies and gentlemen. (Laughter) (Applause)
Men faktisk er pointen med placebouddannelse interessant. Hvor mange af livets problemer kan løses ved at eksperimentere med opfattelsen, i stedet for alt det kedelige, hårde og besværlige arbejde med faktisk at ændre virkeligheden? Her er et glimrende eksempel fra historien. Jeg har hørt det tilskrevet flere konger, men efter en smule historisk research synes det at være Frederik den Store. Frederik den Store af Preusen var meget opsat på at få tyskerne til at tage kartoflen til sig og spise den. Han forstod, at hvis man har to kilder til kulhydrater, hvede og kartofler, så vil man få meget mindre prisudsving på brød. Og man får en meget mindre risiko for hungersnød, fordi man har to afgrøder at falde tilbage på, ikke kun en.
But, actually, the point of placebo education is interesting. How many problems of life can be solved actually by tinkering with perception, rather than that tedious, hardworking and messy business of actually trying to change reality? Here's a great example from history. I've heard this attributed to several other kings, but doing a bit of historical research, it seems to be Fredrick the Great. Fredrick the Great of Prussia was very, very keen for the Germans to adopt the potato and to eat it, because he realized that if you had two sources of carbohydrate, wheat and potatoes, you get less price volatility in bread. And you get a far lower risk of famine, because you actually had two crops to fall back on, not one.
Det eneste problem er: Kartofler ser, sådan set, ret ulækre ud. Og derudover spiser 1800-tals preussere meget få grøntsager -- ligesom vore dages skotter. (Latter) Så, han prøvede at gøre det obligatorisk. De preussiske bønder sagde: "Vi kan ikke engang få hundene til at spise de forbandede knolde. De er ulækre og ubrugelige." Der er sågar optegnelser over folk, der er blevet henrettet for at nægte at dyrke kartofler.
The only problem is: potatoes, if you think about it, look pretty disgusting. And also, 18th century Prussians ate very, very few vegetables -- rather like contemporary Scottish people. (Laughter) So, actually, he tried making it compulsory. The Prussian peasantry said, "We can't even get the dogs to eat these damn things. They are absolutely disgusting and they're good for nothing." There are even records of people being executed for refusing to grow potatoes.
Så han prøvede plan B. Han prøvede markedsføringsløsningen, hvor han erklærede kartoflen for en kongelig grøntsag. Og ingen andre end den kongelige familie måtte spise den. Og han plantede den i en kongelig kartoffelhave, med vagter med instruks om at vogte den dag og nat, men med hemmelig instruks om ikke at vogte den særlig godt. (Latter) Nu ved en 1800-tals bonde godt, at der er en ret sikker regel i livet: Hvis der er noget der er værd at bevogte, Så er det værd at stjæle. Inden længe var der en massiv undergrunds kartoffeldyrkende operation i Tyskland. Hvad han rent faktisk havde gjort var at re-brande kartoflen. Et absolut mesterværk.
So he tried plan B. He tried the marketing solution, which is he declared the potato as a royal vegetable, and none but the royal family could consume it. And he planted it in a royal potato patch, with guards who had instructions to guard over it, night and day, but with secret instructions not to guard it very well. (Laughter) Now, 18th century peasants know that there is one pretty safe rule in life, which is if something is worth guarding, it's worth stealing. Before long, there was a massive underground potato-growing operation in Germany. What he'd effectively done is he'd re-branded the potato. It was an absolute masterpiece.
Jeg fortalte denne historie, og en mand fra Tyrkiet kom op til mig og sagde: "Meget, meget god markedsfører, Frederik den Store. Men han slår ikke Ataturk." Ataturk var, lidt ligesom Nicolas Sarkozy, meget opsat på at stoppe brugen af tørklæder i Tyrkiet, for at modernisere samfundet. Nu ville kedsommelige mennesker blot forbyde tørklædet. Men det ville have givet en masse modpres og en pokkers masse modstand. Ataturk var tænkte bredt. Han gjorde det obligatorisk for prostituerede at bære tørklæde. (Latter) (Bifald)
I told this story and a gentleman from Turkey came up to me and said, "Very, very good marketer, Fredrick the Great. But not a patch on Ataturk." Ataturk, rather like Nicolas Sarkozy, was very keen to discourage the wearing of a veil, in Turkey, to modernize it. Now, boring people would have just simply banned the veil. But that would have ended up with a lot of awful kickback and a hell of a lot of resistance. Ataturk was a lateral thinker. He made it compulsory for prostitutes to wear the veil. (Laughter) (Applause)
Jeg kan ikke bekræfte det fuldstændigt. Men det er ligegyldigt. Sådan løses jeres miljøproblemer i øvrigt: Alle dømte børnemishandlere skal tvinges til at køre en Porsche Cayenne. (Latter) Hvad Ataturk forstod var i virkeligheden to meget fundamentale ting. Det første er, at al værdi er relativ. Al værdi er opfattet værdi.
I can't verify that fully, but it does not matter. There is your environmental problem solved, by the way, guys: All convicted child molesters have to drive a Porsche Cayenne. (Laughter) What Ataturk realized actually is two very fundamental things. Which is that, actually, first one, all value is actually relative. All value is perceived value.
For dem af jer, som ikke taler spansk: juho de naranja - er det samme som "orange juice" Fordi det faktisk ikke er Dollaren, det er Peso'en i Buenos Aires. Meget kløgtige gadehandlere i Buenos Aires besluttede at gennemføre en prisdifferentiering til skade for forbipasserende Gringo turister. Som reklamemand må jeg beundre det.
For those of you who don't speak Spanish, jugo de naranja -- it's actually the Spanish for "orange juice." Because actually it's not the dollar. It's actually the peso in Buenos Aires. Very clever Buenos Aires street vendors decided to practice price discrimination to the detriment of any passing gringo tourists. As an advertising man, I have to admire that.
Men først og fremmest viser det, at al værdi er subjektiv. Den anden pointe er, at overtalelse ofte er bedre end tvang. Disse sjove skilte, der viser dig din hastighed, nogle af de nye, nederst til højre viser nu en smiley eller en sur smiley, for at udløse en følelse. Det fascinerende ved disse skilte er, at de koster omkring 10 procent af en almindelig hastighedskontrol. Men de forhindrer dobbelt så mange ulykker. Så, det bizarre ved det her, som er så forvirrende for konventionelle, klasssisk uddannede økonomer, er, at den mærkelige lille smiley har en større handlingsændrende effekt end truslen om en £60 bøde og tre straf-point
But the first thing is that all value is subjective. Second point is that persuasion is often better than compulsion. These funny signs that flash your speed at you, some of the new ones, on the bottom right, now actually show a smiley face or a frowny face, to act as an emotional trigger. What's fascinating about these signs is they cost about 10 percent of the running cost of a conventional speed camera, but they prevent twice as many accidents. So, the bizarre thing, which is baffling to conventional, classically trained economists, is that a weird little smiley face has a better effect on changing your behavior than the threat of a £60 fine and three penalty points.
En lille adfærdsøkonomisk detalje: I Italien går strafpoint baglæns. Man starter med 12 og så bliver de taget fra een. Fordi de fandt ud af, at det at tabe point har en større indflydelse på folks adfærd. I Storbritttanien har vi det ofte med at tænke: "Uha! Fik tre mere!" Sådan er det ikke i Italien.
Tiny little behavioral economics detail: in Italy, penalty points go backwards. You start with 12 and they take them away. Because they found that loss aversion is a more powerful influence on people's behavior. In Britain we tend to feel, "Whoa! Got another three!" Not so in Italy.
En anden fantastisk case om at skabe imaterial værdi er at erstatte konkret eller materiel værdi, hvilket I husker, er hvad miljøbevægelsen bør dreje sig om: Dette er igen fra Preusen, fra, tror jeg, omkring 1812, 1813. De rige preussere, for at hjælpe i krigen mod franskmændene, blev opfordret til at donere alle deres smykker. Og det blev erstattet med replikasmykker lavet af støbejern. Her er en: "Gold gab ich für Eisen, 1813." Det interessante er, at 50 år senere var de smykker, der gav den højeste status i Preussen ikke lavet af hverken guld eller diamanter. De var lavet af støbejern. Fordi, uagtet den reelle værdi af guldsmykker, så havde de symbolsk værdi, brandværdi. Det viste, at ens familie havde gjort et stort offer i fortiden.
Another fantastic case of creating intangible value to replace actual or material value, which remember, is what, after all, the environmental movement needs to be about: This again is from Prussia, from, I think, about 1812, 1813. The wealthy Prussians, to help in the war against the French, were encouraged to give in all their jewelry. And it was replaced with replica jewelry made of cast iron. Here's one: "Gold gab ich für Eisen, 1813." The interesting thing is that for 50 years hence, the highest status jewelry you could wear in Prussia wasn't made of gold or diamonds. It was made of cast iron. Because actually, never mind the actual intrinsic value of having gold jewelry. This actually had symbolic value, badge value. It said that your family had made a great sacrifice in the past.
Så, den moderne ækvivalent ville være dette. (Latter) Men, faktisk er der en ting, ligesom der er Veblen-goder hvor værdien af godet afhænger af at det er dyrt og sjældent -- der er modsatte typer af ting hvor værdien af dem faktisk afhænger af at være allestedsnærværende, klasseløse og minimalistiske.
So, the modern equivalent would of course be this. (Laughter) But, actually, there is a thing, just as there are Veblen goods, where the value of the good depends on it being expensive and rare -- there are opposite kind of things where actually the value in them depends on them being ubiquitous, classless and minimalistic.
Hvis I tænker over det, så var Shakerismen en proto-miljøbevægelse. Adam Smith snakker om USA i det 18. århundrede, hvor modstanden mod synlige tegn på rigdom var så stor, at den næsten blokerede økonomien i New England, fordi selv rige landmænd ikke kunne finde på noget at bruge deres penge på uden at vække deres naboers mishag. Det er absolut muligt at skabe et sådant socialt pres som leder til mere egalitære samfund.
If you think about it, Shakerism was a proto-environmental movement. Adam Smith talks about 18th century America, where the prohibition against visible displays of wealth was so great, it was almost a block in the economy in New England, because even wealthy farmers could find nothing to spend their money on without incurring the displeasure of their neighbors. It's perfectly possible to create these social pressures which lead to more egalitarian societies.
Det er også interessant, at hvis man kigger på produkter med en høj andel af hvad man kunne kalde meddelelsesværdi, en høj andel af immateriale værdi i forhold til deres iboende værdi: De er ganske ofte egalitære. Hvis man fx kigger på tøj er denim måske det perfekte eksempel på noget hvor material værdi afløses af symbolsk værdi. Coca-Cola. En stor del af jer kan være nok så venstreorienterede, og kan måske ikke lide virksomheden Coca-Cola. Men det er værd at huske Andy Warhols' pointe om Coke. Det Warhol sagde om Coke er, "Hvad jeg virkelig godt kan lide ved Coca-Cola er, at USA's præsident ikke kan få en bedre Coca-Cola end bumsen på gadehjørnet." Nu er det, hvis I tænker over det, noget som vi tager for givet -- det er faktisk bemærkelsesværdigt at kunne producerede noget, der er så demokratisk.
What's also interesting, if you look at products that have a high component of what you might call messaging value, a high component of intangible value, versus their intrinsic value: They are often quite egalitarian. In terms of dress, denim is perhaps the perfect example of something which replaces material value with symbolic value. Coca-Cola. A bunch of you may be a load of pinkos, and you may not like the Coca-Cola company, but it's worth remembering Andy Warhol's point about Coke. What Warhol said about Coke is, he said, "What I really like about Coca-Cola is the president of the United States can't get a better Coke than the bum on the corner of the street." Now, that is, actually, when you think about it -- we take it for granted -- it's actually a remarkable achievement, to produce something that's that democratic.
Nu bliver vi nødt til at ændre vores synsvinkel en smule. Der er en antagelse om, at ægte værdi involverer at producere ting, involverer arbejde. Involvererer ingeniørkunst. Involverer begrænsede råmaterialer. Og at det, som vi putter ovenpå er falskt. Det er en kopiversion. Og der er grund til mistænksomhed og usikkerhed omkring det. Det vækker mindelser om propaganda. Men, det vi har nu er et langt mere varieret medie-økosystem hvor vi kan skabe den slags værdi. Og det er langt mere fair.
Now, we basically have to change our views slightly. There is a basic view that real value involves making things, involves labor. It involves engineering. It involves limited raw materials. And that what we add on top is kind of false. It's a fake version. And there is a reason for some suspicion and uncertainly about it. It patently veers toward propaganda. However, what we do have now is a much more variegated media ecosystem in which to kind of create this kind of value, and it's much fairer.
Da jeg voksede op, var det her grundlæggende mediebilledet af min barndom oversat til mad. I har en monopol leverandør. Til venstre har I Rupert Murdoc, eller BBC. (Latter) Og til højre har I den afhængige offentlighed som er patetisk taknemmelig for hvad end de kan få. (Latter)
When I grew up, this was basically the media environment of my childhood as translated into food. You had a monopoly supplier. On the left, you have Rupert Murdoch, or the BBC. (Laughter) And on your right you have a dependent public which is pathetically grateful for anything you give it. (Laughter)
I dag er brugeren faktisk involveret. Det er det, som i den digitale verden, bliver kaldt "bruger-genereret indhold". Selvom det bliver kaldt landbrug, i madverdenen. (Latter) Dette er faktisk et mix, hvor man tager et indhold, som nogle andre har produceret♫ og gør noget nyt med det. Også kaldet madlavning. Dette er mad 2.0, det er mad man producerer med det formål at dele det med andre. Dette er mobil mad. Briter er ret gode til det. Fish and chips i en avis, Cornish Pastie en pie, en sandwich. Vi opfandt dem alle. Vi er generelt ikke særlig gode til mad. Italienerne laver god mad. Men den er generelt ikke særlig bærbar. (Latter)
Nowadays, the user is actually involved. This is actually what's called, in the digital world, "user-generated content." Although it's called agriculture in the world of food. (Laughter) This is actually called a mash-up, where you take content that someone else has produced and you do something new with it. In the world of food we call it cooking. This is food 2.0, which is food you produce for the purpose of sharing it with other people. This is mobile food. British are very good at that. Fish and chips in newspaper, the Cornish Pasty, the pie, the sandwich. We invented the whole lot of them. We're not very good at food in general. Italians do great food, but it's not very portable, generally. (Laughter)
Jeg lærte det først forleden dag. Jarlen af Sandwich opfandt ikke sandwichen. Han opfandt Toasty. Men Jarlen af Toasty ville være et latterligt navn. (Latter)
I only learned this the other day. The Earl of Sandwich didn't invent the sandwich. He actually invented the toasty. But then, the Earl of Toasty would be a ridiculous name. (Laughter)
Sidst har vi kontekstuel kommunikation. Grunden til, at jeg viser jer Pernod -- det er kun et eksempel. Hvert land har sin egen kontekstuelle alkoholiske drik. I Frankrig er det Pernod. Det smager fantastisk inden for landets grænser. Men af absolut lort, hvis man drikker det nogen som helst andre steder. (Letter) Unicum i Ungarn, for eksempel. Grækerne har ovenikøbet formået at producere noget de kalder Retsina, som smager af lort, selv når man er i Grækenland. (Latter)
Finally, we have contextual communication. Now, the reason I show you Pernod -- it's only one example. Every country has a contextual alcoholic drink. In France it's Pernod. It tastes great within the borders of that country, but absolute shite if you take it anywhere else. (Laughter) Unicum in Hungary, for example. The Greeks have actually managed to produce something called Retsina, which even tastes shite when you're in Greece. (Laughter)
Men der er så megen kommunikation i dag der er konstekstafhængig, at muligheden for at puffe til folk, for at give dem bedre information -- B. J. Fogg, fra Standord Universitet, har den pointe at mobiltelefonen faktisk er -- Han opfandt ordene, "overtalende teknologier". Han mener at mobiltelefonen, ved at være lokationsspecifik, kontekstuel, tidslig og umiddelbar, simplethen er den bedste overtalende teknologi, der nogensinde er opfundet.
But so much communication now is contextual that the capacity for actually nudging people, for giving them better information -- B.J. Fogg, at the University of Stanford, makes the point that actually the mobile phone is -- He's invented the phrase, "persuasive technologies." He believes the mobile phone, by being location-specific, contextual, timely and immediate, is simply the greatest persuasive technology device ever invented.
Nu, med alle disse redskaber til vores rådighed, bliver vi nødt til at stille det spørgsmål, og Thaler og Sunstein gjorde det, om hvordan vi kan bruge dem mere intelligent. Lad mig give jer et eksempel. Hvis I havde en stor rød knap som denne på en væg hjemme hos jer selv, og hver gang I trykkede på den, sparede den 50 dollars op for jer, satter 50 dollars ind på jeres pensionskonto, så ville I spare en meget mere op. Grunden er, at grænsefladen grundlæggende bestemmer adfærden. Okay?
Now, if we have all these tools at our disposal, we simply have to ask the question, and Thaler and Sunstein have, of how we can use these more intelligently. I'll give you one example. If you had a large red button of this kind, on the wall of your home, and every time you pressed it, it saved 50 dollars for you, put 50 dollars into your pension, you would save a lot more. The reason is that the interface fundamentally determines the behavior. Okay?
Nu har reklamebranchen gjort et meget godt job med at skabe muligheder for impulskøb. Men vi har aldrig skabt mulighed for impulsopsparing. Hvis man gjorde det, ville folk spare mere op. Det er simpelthen et spørgsmål om at ændre de grænseflader hvor folk træffer beslutninger. Og selve naturen af beslutningerne ændres. Det er klart, at jeg ikke vil have folk til at gøre det, fordi som reklamemand har jeg det med at anse opsparing som unødvendigt udskudt forbrugerisme. (Latter) Men hvis nogen ville gøre det, så er det den slags, vi bliver nødt til at tænke over. Altså: Grundlæggende muligheder for at ændre menneskelig adfærd.
Now, marketing has done a very, very good job of creating opportunities for impulse buying. Yet we've never created the opportunity for impulse saving. If you did this, more people would save more. It's simply a question of changing the interface by which people make decisions, and the very nature of the decisions changes. Obviously, I don't want people to do this, because as an advertising man I tend to regard saving as just consumerism needlessly postponed. (Laughter) But if anybody did want to do that, that's the kind of thing we need to be thinking about, actually: fundamental opportunities to change human behavior.
Jeg har et eksempel her fra Canada. Der var en ung praktikant på Ogilvy Canada ved navn Hunter Somerville, som arbejdede med improvisationsteater i Toronto, og som fik et deltidsjob i reklamebranchen, og fik ansvaret for at reklamere for Shreddies. Nu er det her det mest perfekte eksempel på at skabe immateriale merværdi uden at ændre produktet det mindste. Shreddies er et mærkelig, firkantet fuldkornsmorgenmadsprodukt som kun kan købes i New Zealand, Canada og Storbrittanien. Det er Krafts egensindige måde at belønne loyalitet til den engelske krone. (Latter) I arbejdet med at relancere Shreddies fandt han på dette:
Now, I've got an example here from Canada. There was a young intern at Ogilvy Canada called Hunter Somerville, who was working in improv in Toronto, and got a part-time job in advertising, and was given the job of advertising Shreddies. Now this is the most perfect case of creating intangible, added value, without changing the product in the slightest. Shreddies is a strange, square, whole-grain cereal, only available in New Zealand, Canada and Britain. It's Kraft's peculiar way of rewarding loyalty to the crown. (Laughter) In working out how you could re-launch Shreddies, he came up with this.
Vide: (Buzzer) Mand: Shreddies skal være firkantede. (Latter)
Video: (Buzzer) Man: Shreddies is supposed to be square. (Laughter)
Kvinde: Er nogle af disse diamantformede sluppet ud? (Latter)
Woman: Have any of these diamond shapes gone out? (Laughter)
Voice-over: Nye Diamand-Shreddies morgenmad. Samme 100 procent fuldkornshvede i lækker diamantform. (Bifald)
Voiceover: New Diamond Shreddies cereal. Same 100 percent whole-grain wheat in a delicious diamond shape. (Applause)
Jeg tror dette må være det mest perfekte eksempel på at skabe immaterial værdi. Det eneste der kræves er for at skabe dette er fotoner, neuroner og en pokkers god ide. Jrg vil bedømme det som genialt. Men selvfølgelig kan man ikke gøre sådan noget uden en smule markedsundersøgelse.
Rory Sutherland: I'm not sure this isn't the most perfect example of intangible value creation. All it requires is photons, neurons, and a great idea to create this thing. I would say it's a work of genius. But, naturally, you can't do this kind of thing without a little bit of market research.
Shreddies producerer et nyt produkt, som er meget spændende for dem. De introducerer nye Diamant-Shreddies. (Latter) Så jeg vil gerne bede dig om dine første tanker når du ser dem, når du ser kassen med Diamant-Shreddies her. (Latter)
Man: So, Shreddies is actually producing a new product, which is something very exciting for them. So they are introducing new Diamond Shreddies. (Laughter) So I just want to get your first impressions when you see that, when you see the Diamond Shreddies box there. (Laughter)
Var de ikke firkantede?
Woman: Weren't they square?
Jeg er lidt forvirret. De ligner firkanter for mig.
Woman #2: I'm a little bit confused. Woman #3: They look like the squares to me.
De - ja, det er alt sammen i udseendet. Men det er lige som at dreje et sekstal eller et nital som et sekstal. Hvis du drejer det ligner det et nital. Men seks er meget forskelligt fra ni.
Man: They -- Yeah, it's all in the appearance. But it's kind of like flipping a six or a nine. Like a six, if you flip it over it looks like a nine. But a six is very different from a nine.
Eller et "M" og et "W". Præcis: Et "M" og et "W".
Woman # 3: Or an "M" and a "W". Man: An "M" and a "W", exactly.
[uklart] Det ser ud som om I bare har drejet dem. Men når du ser dem sådan ser det mere interessant ud.
Man #2: [unclear] You just looked like you turned it on its end. But when you see it like that it's more interesting looking.
Prøv bare begge to. Prøv en firkantet en først. (Latter) Hvilken en foretrækker du? Den første.
Man: Just try both of them. Take a square one there, first. (Laughter) Man: Which one did you prefer? Man #2: The first one.
Den første? (Latter)
Man: The first one? (Laughter)
Herefter begyndte der naturligvis en ophedet debat. Der var konservative elementer i Canda, naturligvis, som faktisk modsatte sig denne indtrængen. Så til sidst gav producenten sig og lavede et kompromis: kombo-pakken. (Latter) (Bifald) (Latter)
Rory Sutherland: Now, naturally, a debate raged. There were conservative elements in Canada, unsurprisingly, who actually resented this intrusion. So, eventually, the manufacturers actually arrived at a compromise, which was the combo pack. (Laughter) (Applause) (Laughter)
Hvis I synes det er sjovt, så husk, at der er en organisation ved navn Det Amerikanske Institut for Vinøkonomi, som faktisk laver omfattende forskning i opfattelsen af ting, og opdagede, at bortset fra måske 5 eller 10 procent af de mest vidende mennesker, så er der ingen korrelation mellem kvalitet og nydelse i vin, bortset fra når I fortæller folk hvor dyr den er, hvorefter de fleste nyder det dyre sprøjt mere. Så drik jeres vin blindt i fremtiden.
If you think it's funny, bear in mind there is an organization called the American Institute of Wine Economics, which actually does extensive research into perception of things, and discovers that except for among perhaps five or ten percent of the most knowledgeable people, there is no correlation between quality and enjoyment in wine, except when you tell the people how expensive it is, in which case they tend to enjoy the more expensive stuff more. So drink your wine blind in the future.
Men dette er både hysterisk morsomt -- men jeg synes en vigtig filosofisk pointe, som er, at vi fremover har brug for mere af den slags værdi. Vi har brug for at bruge mere tid på at værdsætte det, som allerede eksisterer og mindre tid på at pine os selv over hvad vi ellers kan gøre.
But this is both hysterically funny -- but I think an important philosophical point, which is, going forward, we need more of this kind of value. We need to spend more time appreciating what already exists, and less time agonizing over what else we can do.
To citater til mere eller mindre at slutte af med Et af dem er: "Poesi er når man gør nye ting kendte og kendte ting nye". Det er ikke en dårlig definition af, hvad vores job er, at hjælpe mennesker med at værdsætte det ukendte, men også at opnå en større anerkendelse, og at sætte en langt højere værdi på de ting, som allerede eksisterer. Der er nogle indicier på, at ting som sociale netværk hjælper med at gøre dette. Fordi de hjælper mennesker med at dele nyheder. De giver brandværdi til hverdagens små trivielle aktiviteter. Og reducerer derfor behovet for at bruge mange penge på at vise ting frem, og øger den tredjepartsfornøjelse man kan få fra de mindste, simpleste ting i livet. Hvilket er magisk.
Two quotations to more or less end with. One of them is, "Poetry is when you make new things familiar and familiar things new." Which isn't a bad definition of what our job is, to help people appreciate what is unfamiliar, but also to gain a greater appreciation, and place a far higher value on those things which are already existing. There is some evidence, by the way, that things like social networking help do that. Because they help people share news. They give badge value to everyday little trivial activities. So they actually reduce the need for actually spending great money on display, and increase the kind of third-party enjoyment you can get from the smallest, simplest things in life. Which is magic.
det andet citat er af G. K. Chesterton. Denne sessions citat er: "Vi er fortabte på grund af manglende undren, ikke på grund af mangel på vidundere". hvilket jeg tror er sandt for alle, som er involveret i teknologi. Og en sidste ting: Når I værdisætter ting som helbred, kærlighed, sex og sådan noget, og lærer at sætte en material værdi på det, I tidligere har underkendt for bare at være imaterialle, ting der ikke kan ses, så vil I opdage, at I er langt rigere, end I nogen sinde havde forestillet jer. Mange tak. (Latter)
The second one is the second G.K. Chesterton quote of this session, which is, "We are perishing for want of wonder, not for want of wonders," which I think for anybody involved in technology, is perfectly true. And a final thing: When you place a value on things like health, love, sex and other things, and learn to place a material value on what you've previously discounted for being merely intangible, a thing not seen, you realize you're much, much wealthier than you ever imagined. Thank you very much indeed. (Applause)