What you have here is an electronic cigarette. It's something that, since it was invented a year or two ago, has given me untold happiness.
Ovo što držim u ruci je elektronska cigareta. Otkad su je izumili, prije godinu-dvije, neizmjerno me usrećila.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
A little bit of it, I think, is the nicotine, but there's something much bigger than that; which is, ever since, in the UK, they banned smoking in public places, I've never enjoyed a drinks party ever again.
Mislim da je to malim dijelom zbog nikotina, ali postoji jedan mnogo veći razlog. Naime, otkada su u Velikoj Britaniji zabranili pušenje na javnim mjestima ja više nikada nisam uživao na niti jednoj zabavi .
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
And the reason, I only worked out just the other day, which is: when you go to a drinks party and you stand up and hold a glass of red wine and you talk endlessly to people, you don't actually want to spend all the time talking. It's really, really tiring. Sometimes you just want to stand there silently, alone with your thoughts. Sometimes you just want to stand in the corner and stare out of the window. Now the problem is, when you can't smoke, if you stand and stare out of the window on your own, you're an antisocial, friendless idiot.
A razlog sam tek neki dan shvatio. Kada odete na nekakvu zabavu, stojite sa čašom crnog vina u ruci i provodite vrijeme u beskrajnim razgovorima zapravo i ne želite svo vrijeme provesti u razgovoru. To je zaista, zaista zamorno. Nekad poželite samo stajati u miru, sami sa svojim mislima. Nekad poželite stati u kut, i gledati kroz prozor. No, problem je u tome da, kada ne pušite, i sami stojite u kutu i gledate kroz prozor drugi misle da ste nedruštveni idiot koji nema prijatelja.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
If you stand and stare out of the window on your own with a cigarette, you're a fucking philosopher.
Ali, ako gledate kroz prozor sa cigaretom u ruci e, onda ste prokleti filozof.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
So the power of reframing things cannot be overstated. What we have is exactly the same thing, the same activity, but one of them makes you feel great and the other one, with just a small change of posture, makes you feel terrible. And I think one of the problems with classical economics is, it's absolutely preoccupied with reality. And reality isn't a particularly good guide to human happiness. Why, for example, are pensioners much happier than the young unemployed? Both of them, after all, are in exactly the same stage of life. You both have too much time on your hands and not much money. But pensioners are reportedly very, very happy, whereas the unemployed are extraordinarily unhappy and depressed. The reason, I think, is that the pensioners believe they've chosen to be pensioners, whereas the young unemployed feel it's been thrust upon them.
Snaga stavljanja stvari u nove okvire ne može se precijeniti. U ovom slučaju radi se o istoj stvari, istoj radnji no, od jedne se osjećate odlično, a od druge, uz samo malu promjenu stava, se osjećate užasno. I mislim da je jedan od problema klasične ekonomije taj što je ona apsolutno zaokupljena sa stvarnošću a stvarnost nije baš dobar vodič na putu ka ljudskoj sreći. Zašto su, na primjer, umirovljenici mnogo sretniji od mladih nezaposlenih? Napokon, i jedni i drugi su u potpuno jednakom položaju. Imaju mnogo slobodnog vremena i ne baš previše novaca. No, umirovljenici su jako, jako sretni dok su, nasuprot njima, nezaposleni izuzetno nesretni i deprimirani ljudi. Mislim da je razlog tomu taj da umirovljenici vjeruju da su oni odabrali da budu umirovljenici dok se mladi nezaposleni osjećaju kao da im je to nametnuto.
In England, the upper-middle classes have actually solved this problem perfectly, because they've re-branded unemployment. If you're an upper-middle-class English person, you call unemployment "a year off."
U Engleskoj je gornja srednja klasa taj problem savršeno riješila i to tako da su brendirali nezaposlenost. Ako ste Englez koji pripada gornjoj srednjoj klasi nezaposlenost nazivate "slobodnom godinom".
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
And that's because having a son who's unemployed in Manchester is really quite embarrassing. But having a son who's unemployed in Thailand is really viewed as quite an accomplishment.
A to je zato što je u Manchesteru sramota imati nezaposlenog sina. Ali, ako imate nezaposlenog sina u Tajlandu to možete smatrati velikim postignućem.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
But actually, the power to re-brand things -- to understand that our experiences, costs, things don't actually much depend on what they really are, but on how we view them -- I genuinely think can't be overstated.
No, zapravo, moć da se stvari preimenuju-- razumijevanje da naša iskustva, cijene, stvari zapravo i ne ovise o onome što one zaista i jesu nego o tome kako mi na njih gledamo-- Ja zaista vjerujem da se to ne može previše naglašavati.
There's an experiment I think Daniel Pink refers to, where you put two dogs in a box and the box has an electric floor. Every now and then, an electric shock is applied to the floor, which pains the dogs. The only difference is one of the dogs has a small button in its half of the box. And when it nuzzles the button, the electric shock stops. The other dog doesn't have the button. It's exposed to exactly the same level of pain as the dog in the first box, but it has no control over the circumstances. Generally, the first dog can be relatively content. The second dog lapses into complete depression.
Daniel Pink spominje eksperiment u kojem stavite dva psa u kutiju koja ima ožičeno dno. Svako malo kroz pod pustite struju, proizvedete strujni udar koji psima prouzročuje bol. Jedina je razlika u tome što jedan pas u svojoj polovici kutije ima malo dugme. Kada pas pritisne dugme, strujni udar prestane. Drugi pas nema to dugme. Oba psa su izložena jednakj razini boli, ali drugi pas nema nikakve kontrole nad okolnostima. Generalno gledano, prvi je pas relativno zadovoljan. Drugi pas pada u potpunu depresiju.
The circumstances of our lives may actually matter less to our happiness than the sense of control we feel over our lives. It's an interesting question. We ask the question -- the whole debate in the Western world is about the level of taxation. But I think there's another debate to be asked, which is the level of control we have over our tax money, that what costs us 10 pounds in one context can be a curse; what costs us 10 pounds in a different context, we may actually welcome. You know, pay 20,000 pounds in tax toward health, and you're merely feeling a mug. Pay 20,000 pounds to endow a hospital ward, and you're called a philanthropist. I'm probably in the wrong country to talk about willingness to pay tax.
Okolnosti u našem životu mogu imati manje utjecaja na našu sreću od osjećaja kontrole koju imamo u našim životima. Zanimljivo. Pitamo se -- u zapadnom svijetu vodi se debata o visini poreza. Ali, ja mislim da bi se trebalo raspravljati o tome kakvu kontrolu imamo nad tim novcem kojeg plaćamo. Nešto što nas košta 10 funti u jednom kontekstu može biti prokletstvo. U drugačijem kontekstu to je zapravo može biti poželjno i dobrodošlo. Znate, kada platite 20,000 funti u porezu za zdravstvo to vam se čini kao kap u moru. Ali, ako poklonite 20,000 funti štićenicima neke bolnice smatrati će vas filantropom. Vjerojatno sam u krivoj zemlji da bi govorio o voljnosti da se plaća porez.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
So I'll give you one in return: how you frame things really matters. Do you call it "The bailout of Greece"? Or "The bailout of a load of stupid banks which lent to Greece"?
Dat ću vam jedan drugi primjer. Zaista je važno kako oblikujemo stvari. Je li to spašavanje Grčke, ili spašavanje grupe glupih banaka koje su novac posudile Grčkoj?
(Laughter)
Zato što su to iste stvari.
Because they are actually the same thing. What you call them actually affects how you react to them, viscerally and morally. I think psychological value is great, to be absolutely honest. One of my great friends, a professor called Nick Chater, who's the Professor of Decision Sciences in London, believes we should spend far less time looking into humanity's hidden depths, and spend much more time exploring the hidden shallows. I think that's true, actually. I think impressions have an insane effect on what we think and what we do. But what we don't have is a really good model of human psychology -- at least pre-Kahneman, perhaps, we didn't have a really good model of human psychology to put alongside models of engineering, of neoclassical economics.
Kako ih nazivate utječe na to kako ćete na njih reagirati, instiktivno i moralno. Da budem iskren, mislim da je psihološka vrijednost nešto odlično. Jedan od mojih dobrih prijatelja, Nick Chater, profesor Znanosti o odlučivanju (Decision Scienses) u Londonu, vjeruje da bismo trebali provoditi puno manje vremena u proučavanju skrivenih ljudskih dubina i puno više vremena proučavati skrivene plićake. I ja se s time slažem. Mislim da dojmovi mogu imati nevjerojatan učinak na to kako mislimo i što radimo. Ali, ono što nemamo je jedan zaista dobar model psihologije čovjeka. Odnosno, do Kahnemana nismo imali dobar model psihologije čovjeka koji bi stajao pored modela strojarstva, ili neoklasične ekonomije.
So people who believed in psychological solutions didn't have a model. We didn't have a framework. This is what Warren Buffett's business partner Charlie Munger calls "a latticework on which to hang your ideas." Engineers, economists, classical economists all had a very, very robust existing latticework on which practically every idea could be hung. We merely have a collection of random individual insights without an overall model. And what that means is that, in looking at solutions, we've probably given too much priority to what I call technical engineering solutions, Newtonian solutions, and not nearly enough to the psychological ones.
Ljudi koji su vjerovali u psihološka rješenja nisu imali nikakav model. Nismo imali okvir. To je ono što Warrenn Buffet, poslovni partner Charlija Mungera, naziva "rešetka za okačiti ideje." Inženjeri, ekonomisti, klasični ekonomisti, svi su oni imali veoma, veoma čvrste rešetke na koje se mogla okačiti gotovo svaka ideja. Mi smo imali samo zbirku individualnih uvida bez sveobuhvatnog modela. A to znači da smo prilkom traženja rješenja pridavali previše pažnje onome što zovemo tehničkim rješenjima, njutonovskim rješenjima, a ni približno dovoljno psihološkim.
You know my example of the Eurostar: six million pounds spent to reduce the journey time between Paris and London by about 40 minutes. For 0.01 percent of this money, you could have put wi-fi on the trains, which wouldn't have reduced the duration of the journey, but would have improved its enjoyment and its usefulness far more. For maybe 10 percent of the money, you could have paid all of the world's top male and female supermodels to walk up and down the train handing out free Château Pétrus to all the passengers.
Poznat vam je moj primjer sa Eurostarom. Šest milijuna funti potrošeno je da bi se put između Londona i Pariza skratio za oko 40 minuta. Za 0.01 posto tog novca moglo se vlakove opremiti bežičnim internetom, što ne bi skratilo vrijeme puta, ali bi se povećala korisnost i ugodnost. Za možda 10 posto tog novca mogli bi platiti sve vrhunske svjetske muške i ženske modele da hodaju gore dolje po vlaku i putnicima toče besplatno vino.
(Laughter)
Ostalo bi vam 5 milijardi funti ,
You'd still have five million pounds in change, and people would ask for the trains to be slowed down.
a ljudi bi vas još i molili da vlakove usporite.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Why were we not given the chance to solve that problem psychologically? I think it's because there's an imbalance, an asymmetry in the way we treat creative, emotionally driven psychological ideas versus the way we treat rational, numerical, spreadsheet-driven ideas. If you're a creative person, I think, quite rightly, you have to share all your ideas for approval with people much more rational than you. You have to go in and have a cost-benefit analysis, a feasibility study, an ROI study and so forth. And I think that's probably right. But this does not apply the other way around. People who have an existing framework -- an economic framework, an engineering framework -- feel that, actually, logic is its own answer. What they don't say is, "Well, the numbers all seem to add up, but before I present this idea, I'll show it to some really crazy people to see if they can come up with something better." And so we -- artificially, I think -- prioritize what I'd call mechanistic ideas over psychological ideas.
Zašto nam nisu dali šansu da riješimo problem psihološki? Mislim da je to zato što imamo disbalans, asimetriju između načina na koji postupamo s kreativnim, psihološkim idejama utemeljenim na emotivnim porivima i načina na koji postupamo sa racionalnim, numeričkim idejama koje temeljimo na tabelama. Ako ste kreativna osoba, mislim da s pravom trebate iznositi svoje ideje da bi ih prihvatili ljudi koji su puno racionalniji od vas samih. Morate napraviti troškovnik, analizu dobiti, studije izvedivosti, studije o povratku uloženog i tako dalje. I mislim da je to u redu. Ali, to ne vrijedi i obrnuto. Ljudi koji imaju određeni postojeći okvir, ekonomski okvir, inženjerski okvir, misle da je logika rješenje sam po sebi. Oni ne kažu: "Pa, brojevi se, eto, slažu ali idem najprije iznesti svoju ideju nekim stvarno ludim ljudima da vidim da li će oni smisliti nešto bolje." I tako,na umjetan način, dajemo prednost tim tzv. mehanističkim idejama umjesto psihološkim idejama.
An example of a great psychological idea: the single best improvement in passenger satisfaction on the London Underground, per pound spent, came when they didn't add any extra trains, nor change the frequency of the trains; they put dot matrix display boards on the platforms -- because the nature of a wait is not just dependent on its numerical quality, its duration, but on the level of uncertainty you experience during that wait. Waiting seven minutes for a train with a countdown clock is less frustrating and irritating than waiting four minutes, knuckle biting, going, "When's this train going to damn well arrive?"
Jedan primjer odlične psihološke ideje: Najveće poboljšanje zadovoljstva putnika Londonske podzemne željeznice na svaku potrošenu funtu dogodio se, ne onda kad su dodani novi vlakovi ili se promijenila frekvencija vlakova, već onda kada su postavljeni zasloni ne kojima se vidi gdje se nalaze vlakovi. Zbog toga što sama priroda čekanja ne ovisi samo o svom numeričkom svojstvu, o trajanju, već i o nivou neizvjesnosti koju osjećate dok čekate. Čekati vlak sedam minuta dok gledate u sat koji odbrojava je manje frustrirajuće i iritantno nego kada čekate, grizete nokte i mislite si: "Kad će već jednom stići taj prokleti vlak"
Here's a beautiful example of a psychological solution deployed in Korea. Red traffic lights have a countdown delay. It's proven to reduce the accident rate in experiments. Why? Because road rage, impatience and general irritation are massively reduced when you can actually see the time you have to wait. In China, not really understanding the principle behind this, they applied the same principle to green traffic lights --
Evo jednog divnog primjera psihološkog rješenja primijenjenog u Koreji. Crvena svjetla na semaforu sa odbrojavanjem. Dokazano se smanjuje broj nesreća. Zašto? Zato što se bijes na cesti, nestrpljenje i izirtiranost jako smanjuju kada vidite koliko još morate čekati. U Kini baš i nisu shvatili princip koji stoji iza toga pa su tehniku primijenili na zelena svjetla. (Smijeh)
(Laughter)
Što baš i nije bila sjajna ideja.
which isn't a great idea. You're 200 yards away, you realize you've got five seconds to go, you floor it.
Udaljeni ste 200 metara, vidite da imate još nekoliko sekundi, i nagazite na gas. (Smijeh)
(Laughter)
Marljivi su Korenaci zapravo testirali obje mogućnosti.
The Koreans, very assiduously, did test both. The accident rate goes down when you apply this to red traffic lights; it goes up when you apply it to green traffic lights.
Kada ovo primijenite na crveno prometno svjetlo, broj nesreća se smanjuje, a kada primijenite na zeleno svjetlo, broj nesreća se povećava. To je sve što ja tražim, da se prilikom odlučivanja
This is all I'm asking for, really, in human decision making, is the consideration of these three things. I'm not asking for the complete primacy of one over the other. I'm merely saying that when you solve problems, you should look at all three of these equally, and you should seek as far as possible to find solutions which sit in the sweet spot in the middle.
uzmu u obzir te tri stvari. Ne tražim da jedna ima prevlast nad ostalima. Samo kažem da biste kada pristupate problemu trebali uzeti u obzir sve tri jednako i, koliko god je to moguće, tražiti rješenja koja se nalaze u slatkoj sredini. Ako pogledate zaista uspješne poslove,
If you actually look at a great business, you'll nearly always see all of these three things coming into play. Really successful businesses -- Google is a great, great technological success, but it's also based on a very good psychological insight: people believe something that only does one thing is better at that thing than something that does that thing and something else. It's an innate thing called "goal dilution." Ayelet Fishbach has written a paper about this.
skoro uvijek ćete vidjeti da su u igri sve tri stvari. Zaista uspješne kompanije-- Google je ogroman, ogroman tehnološki uspjeh ali je isto tako baziran da veoma dobroj psihološkoj bazi: Ljudi vjeruju da kada nešto radi samo jednu stvar onda to radi bolje od nečega što radi tu istu stvar i još nešto drugo. To je urođena osobina, zove se razrjeđivanje cilja. Ayelet Fishbach je o tome napisao rad.
Everybody else at the time of Google, more or less, was trying to be a portal. Yes, there's a search function, but you also have weather, sports scores, bits of news. Google understood that if you're just a search engine, people assume you're a very, very good search engine. All of you know this, actually, from when you go in to buy a television, and in the shabbier end of the row of flat-screen TVs, you can see, are these rather despised things called "combined TV and DVD players." And we have no knowledge whatsoever of the quality of those things, but we look at a combined TV and DVD player and we go, "Uck. It's probably a bit of a crap telly and a bit rubbish as a DVD player." So we walk out of the shops with one of each. Google is as much a psychological success as it is a technological one.
U vrijeme Google-a svi ostali su manje-više željeli postati portali. Da, imate funkciju "traži", ali isto tako imate i vrijeme, sportske rezultate, malo vijesti. U Google-u su shvatili da će, ako ste samo pretraživač, ljudi pretpostaviti da ste jako, jako dobar pretraživač. Svima vama je to poznato iz situacije kada kupujemo televizor. I negdje na zadnjoj polici dućana sa televizorima sa ravnim ekranom može se vidjeti one prezira vrijedne stvari koje se zovu kombinirani TV i DVD. Mi o kvaliteti tih stvari ne znamo ništa, ali, pogledamo te kombinirane TV-e i DVD-e i kažemo "Bljak! Vjerojatno je to nekakvo smeće od televizije i smeće od DVD-a zajedno." I izlazimo iz trgovine sa po jednim komadom DVD-a i TV-a. Google je podjednako psihološki i tehnološki uspjeh.
I propose that we can use psychology to solve problems that we didn't even realize were problems at all. This is my suggestion for getting people to finish their course of antibiotics. Don't give them 24 white pills; give them 18 white pills and six blue ones and tell them to take the white pills first, and then take the blue ones. It's called "chunking." The likelihood that people will get to the end is much greater when there is a milestone somewhere in the middle.
Predlažem da koristimo psihologiju kod rješavanja problema koje nismo ni prepoznali. Kako nagovoriti ljude da do kraja popiju propisanu dozu antibiotika? Nemojte im dati 24 bijele tablete. Dajte im 18 bijelih i 6 plavih i kažite im da najprije popiju bijele tablete, a zatim da uzmu plave. To se zove formiranje skupine. Vjerojatnost da će netko popiti dozu do kraja mnogo je veća kada je na sredini nekakva prekretnica. Jedna od većih grešaka u ekonomiji, po mom mišljenju,
One of the great mistakes, I think, of economics is it fails to understand that what something is -- whether it's retirement, unemployment, cost -- is a function, not only of its amount, but also its meaning.
je ta da ne uspjeva razumijeti da je svaka stvar, bilo da je mirovina, nezaposlenost, cijena, skup svoje količine i brojeva i značenja.
This is a toll crossing in Britain. Quite often queues happen at the tolls. Sometimes you get very, very severe queues. You could apply the same principle, actually, to the security lanes in airports. What would happen if you could actually pay twice as much money to cross the bridge, but go through a lane that's an express lane? It's not an unreasonable thing to do; it's an economically efficient thing to do. Time means more to some people than others. If you're waiting trying to get to a job interview, you'd patently pay a couple of pounds more to go through the fast lane. If you're on the way to visit your mother-in-law, you'd probably prefer --
Ovo su naplatne kućice u Velikoj Britaniji. Česte su kolone na njima. Nekada jako, jako duge kolone. Isti princip se može primijeniti kod sigurnosnih provjera na aerodromima. Što bi se desilo kada biste mogli platiti dvostruko da prijeđete most ali kroz traku koja bi bila ekspres traka? To uopće nije nerazumno. I ekonomski je efikasno. Vrijeme nekim ljudima vrijedi više. Ukoliko idete na razgovor za posao rado ćete platili par funti više kako biste stigli na vrijeme. Ukoliko ste krenuli u posjet punici vjerojatno ćete ostati u lijevoj traci.
(Laughter)
you'd probably prefer to stay on the left.
Problem je u tome da ako uvedete ekonomski efikasno rješenje
The only problem is if you introduce this economically efficient solution, people hate it ... because they think you're deliberately creating delays at the bridge in order to maximize your revenue, and, "Why on earth should I pay to subsidize your incompetence?" On the other hand, change the frame slightly and create charitable yield management, so the extra money you get goes not to the bridge company, it goes to charity ... and the mental willingness to pay completely changes. You have a relatively economically efficient solution, but one that actually meets with public approval and even a small degree of affection, rather than being seen as bastardy.
ljudi će ga mrziti. Misliti će da namjerno stvarate kolone vozila da biste si povećali prihode. i misliti će: "Zašto bi, zaboga, ja subvencionirao vašu nesposobnost?" S druge strane, ako samo malo promijenite okvir i napravite od toga nekakav dobrovoljni prilog tako da višak novca ne ide vlasniku mosta, već da ide u dobrotvorne svrhe stav ljudi će se u potpunosti promijeniti. Dobili ste relativno efikasno ekonomsko rješenje koje javnost odobrava a svaki, pa i najmanji stupanj naklonosti je bolji od toga da na vas gledaju kao na pokvarenjake.
So where economists make the fundamental mistake is they think that money is money. Actually, my pain experienced in paying five pounds is not just proportionate to the amount, but where I think that money is going. And I think understanding that could revolutionize tax policy. It could revolutionize the public services. It could actually change things quite significantly.
Dakle, ono u čemu ekonomisti najviše griješe jest kada misle da je novac samo novac. Zapravo, moja bol kada plaćam 5 funti nije proporcionalna samo iznosu, već i načinu na koji će se novac utrošiti. Razumijevanje te činjenice napravilo bi revoluciju u poreznoj politici. I revoluciju u javnim službama Zaista bi moglo bitno izmijeniti stvari.
[Ludwig Von Mises is my hero.]
Djela ovog čovjeka trebali bi svi proučiti.
Here's a guy you all need to study. He's an Austrian School economist who was first active in the first half of the 20th century in Vienna. What was interesting about the Austrian School is they actually grew up alongside Freud. And so they're predominantly interested in psychology. They believed that there was a discipline called praxeology, which is a prior discipline to the study of economics. Praxeology is the study of human choice, action and decision-making. I think they're right. I think the danger we have in today's world is we have the study of economics considers itself to be a prior discipline to the study of human psychology. But as Charlie Munger says, "If economics isn't behavioral, I don't know what the hell is."
Pripadnik je "austrijske škole ekonomije" koja je djelovala u prvoj polovici 20-tog stoljeća. Ono što je zanimljivo kod austrijske škole jest to, da se razvijala u vrijeme Freuda. I zato ih je pretežno zanimala psihologija. Vjerovali su da postoji disciplina koju su zvali prakseologija koja bi bila prethodnica ekonomije. Prakseologija se bavi proučavanjem izbora, djelovanja i donošenja odluka. Mislim da su u pravu. Mislim da danas realnu opasnost predstavlja to što znanost o ekonomiji sama sebe drži važnijom od znanosti o ljudskoj psihologiji. Kako kaže Charlie Munger: "Ako ekonomija nema veze s ponašanjem, onda ja ne znam što ima."
Von Mises, interestingly, believes economics is just a subset of psychology. I think he just refers to economics as "the study of human praxeology under conditions of scarcity." But Von Mises, among many other things, I think uses an analogy which is probably the best justification and explanation for the value of marketing, the value of perceived value and the fact that we should treat it as being absolutely equivalent to any other kind of value.
Von Mises vjeruje da je ekonomija samo grana psihologije. On smatra da je ekonomija "znanost ljudske prakseologije u uvjetima nestašice." No von Mises, između ostalog, koristi analogiju koja je najbolje opravdanje i tumačenje vrijednosti na tržištu, percipirane vrijednosti i činjenice da bismo tu vrijednost trebali tretirati jednako kao i bilo koju drugu vrijednost.
We tend to, all of us, even those of us who work in marketing, think of value in two ways: the real value, which is when you make something in a factory or provide a service, and then there's a dubious value, which you create by changing the way people look at things. Von Mises completely rejected this distinction. And he used this following analogy: he referred to strange economists called the French physiocrats, who believed that the only true value was what you extracted from the land. So if you're a shepherd or a quarryman or a farmer, you created true value. If however, you bought some wool from the shepherd and charged a premium for converting it into a hat, you weren't actually creating value, you were exploiting the shepherd.
Imamo naviku--čak i mi koji radimo u marketingu-- razmišljati o vrijednosti na dva načina. Imamo pravu vrijednost, kao kada se nešto proizvede u tvornici ili kada se pruža usluga, i imamo drugu, nekakvu sumnjivu vrijednost, koju dobivamo kada promijenimo način na koji ljudi gledaju na stvar. Von Mises je u potpunosti odbacio tu razliku i dao sljedeću analogiju. Pozvao se na čudne ekonomiste tzv. Francuske fiziokrate koji su vjerovali da je jedina prava vrijednost ona koju dobijete od zemlje. Dakle ako ste ovčar, radnik u kamenolomu ili poljoprivrednik onda stvarate pravu vrijednost. Međutim, ukoliko ste od ovčara kupili vunu i naplatili maržu zato što ste od vune napravili šešir niste stvorili pravu vrijednost, već iskorištavate stočara.
Now, Von Mises said that modern economists make exactly the same mistake with regard to advertising and marketing. He says if you run a restaurant, there is no healthy distinction to be made between the value you create by cooking the food and the value you create by sweeping the floor. One of them creates, perhaps, the primary product -- the thing we think we're paying for -- the other one creates a context within which we can enjoy and appreciate that product. And the idea that one of them should have priority over the other is fundamentally wrong.
Von Mises drži da moderni ekonomisti rade istu pogrešku kod oglašavanja i marketinga. Naime, ukoliko ste u restoranu, ne možete razlikovati vrijednost koju ste dobili pripremanjem hrane od vrijednosti koju ste dobili čišćenjem podova. Jedno je stvorilo primarni proizvod, ono što plaćamo, no drugo je stvorilo okruženje u kojem u proizvodu možemo uživati. I ideja da bi jedan trebao imati prioritet nad drugim je iz temelja pogrešna.
Try this quick thought experiment: imagine a restaurant that serves Michelin-starred food, but where the restaurant smells of sewage and there's human feces on the floor.
Probajte jedan mali misaoni pokus. Zamislite restoran koji poslužuje vrhunski spremljenu hranu, ali koji smrdi po kanalizaciji a na podu je ljudski izmet.
(Laughter)
Najbolja stvar koju možete napraviti da stvorite novu vrijednost
The best thing you can do there to create value is not actually to improve the food still further, it's to get rid of the smell and clean up the floor. And it's vital we understand this.
nije da još poboljšate hranu, nego da se riješite smrada i očistite pod. Od velikog je značaja da to shvatimo.
If that seems like a sort of strange, abstruse thing -- in the UK, the post office had a 98 percent success rate at delivering first-class mail the next day. They decided this wasn't good enough, and they wanted to get it up to 99. The effort to do that almost broke the organization. If, at the same time, you'd gone and asked people, "What percentage of first-class mail arrives the next day?" the average answer, or the modal answer, would have been "50 to 60 percent." Now, if your perception is much worse than your reality, what on earth are you doing trying to change the reality? That's like trying to improve the food in a restaurant that stinks. What you need to do is, first of all, tell people that 98 percent of first-class mail gets there the next day. That's pretty good. I would argue, in Britain, there's a much better frame of reference, which is to tell people that more first-class mail arrives the next day in the UK than in Germany, because generally, in Britain, if you want to make us happy about something, just tell us we do it better than the Germans.
Ako vam se to čini malo čudno ili nejasno, britanska pošta imala je postotak uspješnosti 98 posto prilikom dostave hitnih pošiljaka sljedeći dan. Smatrali su da im to nije dovoljno, željeli su postotak dići na 99 posto. Pokušaj u tome umalo ih je uništio. Međutim, da su umjesto toga probali upitati ljude "Što mislite koliki se postotak pošiljki dostavi sljedeći dan?" najčešći odgovor bio bi 50 do 60 posto. E sada, ukoliko je vaša predodžba mnogo gora od stvarnosti zašto, zaboga, mijenjati stvarnost? To je isto kao da pokušate poboljšati hranu u restoranu koji smrdi. Ono što trebate napraviti jest, najprije reći ljudima da se 98 posto hitnih pošiljki dostavi slijedeći dan. To je prilično dobro. Rekao bih, da je u Velikoj Britaniji dobar i sljedeći pristup: kažete ljudima da se u Velikoj Britaniji više pošte dostavi sljedeći dan nego u Njemačkoj. Naime, ukoliko želite usrećiti Britance, samo im kažite da nešto rade bolje od Nijemaca.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Choose your frame of reference and the perceived value, and therefore, the actual value is completely transformed. It has to be said of the Germans that the Germans and the French are doing a brilliant job of creating a united Europe. The only thing they didn't expect is they're uniting Europe through a shared mild hatred of the French and Germans. But I'm British; that's the way we like it.
Izaberite svoj okvir i percipiranu vrijednost i to će u potpunosti transformirati pravu vrijednost. Za Nijemce se treba reći da zajedno sa Francuzima rade izuzetan posao na ujedinjavanju Europe. Jedino što ne očekuju to da je baza ujedinjene Europe uzajamna blaga netrpeljivosti Francuza i Nijemaca. Ali, ja sam Britanac, a mi volimo da je to tako.
(Laughter)
Vjerojatno ste primijetili da je u bilo kojem slučaju naša precepcija nepotpuna.
What you'll also notice is that, in any case, our perception is leaky. We can't tell the difference between the quality of the food and the environment in which we consume it. All of you will have seen this phenomenon if you have your car washed or valeted. When you drive away, your car feels as if it drives better.
Ne možemo razlikovati kvalitetu hrane od okoline u kojoj je konzumiramo. Svi ste svjedočili tom fenomenu kad ste odvezli auto u praonicu. Na odlasku iz praone, čini vam se da auto bolje ide. Razlog tomu,
(Laughter)
And the reason for this -- unless my car valet mysteriously is changing the oil and performing work which I'm not paying him for and I'm unaware of -- is because perception is, in any case, leaky.
osim ako u praoni nisu promijenili i ulje i izvršili popravke za koje ja ne znam i koje ne plaćam. jest taj da je percepcija nepotpuna. Analgetici poznatih marki, efikasniji su kod uklanjanja boli
Analgesics that are branded are more effective at reducing pain than analgesics that are not branded. I don't just mean through reported pain reduction -- actual measured pain reduction. And so perception actually is leaky in any case. So if you do something that's perceptually bad in one respect, you can damage the other.
od analgetika nepoznatih proizvođača. I ne govorim samo o subjektivnom doživljaju boli, već o rezultatima mjerenja visine boli. Dakle, percepcija je nepotpuna. I zato, ako napravite nešto što je percepcijski loše u jednom smislu naštetit ćete i drugom.
Thank you very much.
Hvala lijepa.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)