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.
Tole, kar držim v roki, je elektronska cigareta. Odkar so jo pred letom ali dvema izumili, me je neizmerno osrečila.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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.
Malo, se mi zdi, zaradi nikotina, ampak za še nekaj pomembnejšega gre. Odkar so v Veliki Britaniji prepovedali kajenje na javnih mestih, nisem nikoli več užival na zabavah.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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.
Šele oni dan sem ugotovil, zakaj je tako. Ko namreč človek gre na zabavo in stoji tam in v roki drži kozarec rdečega vina ter brez prestanka klepeta z ljudmi, v bistvu noče neprestano govoriti. To je zares utrujajoče. Včasih bi rad samo tiho stal tam, sam s svojimi mislimi. Včasih bi rad stal v kotu in zrl skozi okno. Če pri tem ne sme kaditi, pa vseeno stoji tam in zre ven skozi okno, je videti kot nedružaben bedak brez prijateljev.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
If you stand and stare out of the window on your own with a cigarette, you're a fucking philosopher.
Če pa stoječ zre skozi okno in v rokah drži cigareto, je prekleti filozof.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
(Applause)
(aplavz)
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.
Pomena postavljanja stvari v nove okvire torej ne gre zanemariti. Gre za povsem isto stvar, isto aktivnost, ampak en način vam daje krasen občutek, pri drugem pa se, zaradi majhne spremembe, počutite prav bedno. In mislim, da je ena od težav klasične ekonomije v tem, da se absolutno preveč ukvarja z realnostjo. Realnost pa ni posebej dober vodič k sreči. Zakaj so, na primer, upokojenci veliko srečnejši od mladih nezaposlenih ljudi? Obe skupini sta v istem življenjskem položaju. Oba imata preveč časa in malo denarja. Ampak upokojenci so menda zelo zelo srečni, medtem ko so nezaposleni izjemno nesrečni in depresivni. Po moje je razlog v tem, da upokojenci verjamejo, da so se odločili, da bodo upokojenci, medtem ko se mladim nezaposlenim zdi, da so bili v to pahnjeni.
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."
Višji srednji sloj v Angliji je to težavo rešil na popoln način, saj so nezaposlenosti spremenili oznako. Če ste predstavnik angleškega višjega srednjega razreda, boste nezaposlenost poimenovali "prosto leto".
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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.
To pa zato, ker je imeti nezaposlenega sina nekje v Manchestru res precej sramotno, medtem ko je imeti nezaposlenega sina, ki je na Tajskem, videti kot precejšnji dosežek.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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.
Mislim, da moči spreminjanja oznak stvarem... razumevanja, da naše izkušnje, stroški, stvari niso tako odvisni od tega, kar v resnici so, temveč od tega, kako jih vidimo... Iskreno mislim, da tega ne moremo preveč poudariti.
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, se mi zdi, omenja eksperiment, pri katerem dva psa postavite v škatlo z električnim tokom na dnu. Vsake toliko časa tja spustite elektriko, kar povzroči bolečino psoma. Razlika je samo v tem, da ima eden od psov na svoji polovici škatle majhen gumb. Ko se ga dotakne, električni šok preneha. Drugi pes nima tega gumba. Izpostavljen je povsem enaki ravni bolečine, le da nima nadzora nad okoliščinami. V splošnem je lahko prvi pes dokaj zadovoljen. Drugi pa pade v popolno depresijo.
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.
Okoliščine naših življenj morda za našo srečo niso tako pomembne kot občutek nadzora nad lastnim življenjem. Gre za zanimivo vprašanje. Sprašujemo se... celotna razprava v zahodnem svetu se suče okoli ravni obdavčitve. Mislim, da je treba zahtevati drugačno razpravo, namreč o tem, kakšen nadzor imamo nad svojimi davki. Nekaj, kar nas stane deset funtov, bo v določenem kontekstu prekletstvo. V drugem kontekstu bo morda istih deset funtov pravi blagoslov. Veste, če plačate 20,000 funtov v zdravstveno blagajno, je to kaplja v morje. Če teh 20,000 funtov podarite bolnišničnemu oddelku, vas bodo imenovali za dobrotnika. Verjetno sem v napačni državi, da bi govoril o pripravljenosti za plačevanje davkov.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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"?
Zato bom povedal nekaj drugega. Res je pomembno, kako formulirate stvari. Je to res reševanje Grčije ali je reševanje neumnih bank, ki so posojale Grčiji?
(Laughter)
Ker v bistvu gre za isto stvar.
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.
To, kako jo poimenujete, vpliva na to, kako nanjo reagirate, instinktivno in moralno. Če sem pošten, mislim, da je psihološka vrednost nekaj odličnega. Moj dober prijatelj, profesor po imenu Nick Chater, ki uči znanost odločanja v Londonu, verjame, da bi morali manj časa posvečati raziskovanju skritih globin človeštva in več časa raziskovati skrite plitkosti. Mislim, da to drži. Mislim, da imajo vtisi nor učinek na to, kar mislimo in kar počnemo. Ampak nimamo pa res dobrega modela človeške psihologije. Vsaj pred Kahnemanom morda nismo imeli res dobrega modela človeške psihologije, ki bi stal poleg modelov inženirstva in 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.
Ljudje, ki so verjeli v psihološke rešitve, niso imeli modela. Nismo imeli okvira. Temu Charlie Munger, poslovni partner Warrena Buffetta, pravi "mreža, na katero obešamo svoje ideje". Inženirji, ekonomisti, klasični ekonomisti so vsi imeli zelo močno obstoječo mrežo, na katero so lahko obesili praktično vsako idejo. Mi imamo samo zbirko naključnih posameznih vpogledov brez celostnega modela. In to pomeni, da smo pri iskanju rešitev verjetno preveč prednosti dali t.i. tehničnim inženirskim rešitvam, Newtonovskim rešitvam, mnogo premalo pa 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.
Saj poznate moj primer Eurostara. Šest milijonov funtov so porabili, da so čas potovanja med Parizom in Londonom skrajšali za okoli 40 minut. Za 0,01 odstotka tega denarja bi lahko na vlake namestili brezžični internet, kar ne bi skrajšalo trajanja potovanja, bi pa zelo izboljšalo njegovo uporabnost in počutje med njim. Za morda deset odstotkov tega denarja bi lahko vse največje svetovne moške in ženske supermodele plačali, da bi se sprehajali po vlaki in potnikom delili brezplačne kozarce Chateau Petrusa.
(Laughter)
Še vedno bi vam ostalo pet milijard funtov drobiža
You'd still have five million pounds in change, and people would ask for the trains to be slowed down.
in ljudje bi zahtevali, naj vlak vozi počasneje.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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.
Zakaj nismo imeli možnosti, da bi ta problem rešili psihološko? Mislim, da zato, ker obstaja neravnotežje, asimetrija med tem, kako obravnavamo kreativne, čustveno utemeljene psihološke ideje, in tem, kako obravnavamo racionalne, numerične, na tabelah temelječe ideje. Če ste kreativni, mislim da morate upravičeno dati vse svoje zamisli v potrditev ljudem, ki so bolj racionalni od vas. Napraviti morate analizo stroškov in koristi, študijo izvedljivosti, oceno dobička glede na vložek itd. In verjetno je tako prav. Ampak obratno pa ne velja. Ljudje z obstoječim okvirom, naj bo ekonomski, inženirski, mislijo, da je logika rešitev sama po sebi. Ne rečejo si: "No, številke se ujemajo, ampak preden predstavim zamisel, jo bom pokazal nekaj res norim ljudem, da vidim, če si lahko izmislijo kaj boljšega." Mislim, da na umeten način dajemo prednost mehanističnim idejam pred psihološkimi.
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?"
Tole je primer odlične psihološke ideje: najpomembnejša izboljšava zadovoljstva potnikov na londonski podzemni železnici glede na vsak vložen funt se je zgodila brez dodatnih vozil ali spremembe njihove pogostosti, temveč ko so na perone uvedli ekrane s točkastimi oznakami položaja vozil. Kajti narava čakanja ni odvisna samo od njegove numerične lastnosti, njegovega trajanja, temveč od ravni negotovosti, ki jo občutite med čakanjem. Sedemminutno čakanje na vlak, pod uro, ki odšteva čas, nam gre manj na živce, kakor če čakamo štiri minute in si grizemo nohte, ko se sprašujemo, kdaj bo ta presneti vlak že prispel.
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 --
Tole pa je čudovit primer psihološke rešitve iz Koreje. Rdeče luči na semaforjih odštevajo čas do spremembe. To dokazano zmanjšuje število nesreč. Zakaj? Ker se jeza, nestrpnost in splošna živčnost na cesti izjemno zmanjšajo, če lahko dejansko vidite, koliko časa morate čakati. Na Kitajskem tega principa ne razumejo čisto v redu, zato so isto načelo vpeljali za zelene luči. (smeh)
(Laughter)
Kar ni tako odlična zamisel.
which isn't a great idea. You're 200 yards away, you realize you've got five seconds to go, you floor it.
Dvesto metrov ste oddaljeni, vidite, da imate še pet sekund časa, seveda boste pohodili plin. (smeh)
(Laughter)
Korejci so marljivo testirali obe možnosti.
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.
Število nesreč se zmanjša, če z merilcem časa označite rdečo luč; če označite zeleno, se poveča. Samo to bi rad dosegel pri človeškem odločanju,
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.
da bi upoštevali te tri stvari. Ne zahtevam popolne prevlade enega načina nad drugim. Pravim samo, da ko rešujete probleme, enakomerno upoštevajte vse tri in kolikor je mogoče iščite rešitve, ki so nekje v zlati sredini. Če pogledate kak dober posel,
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.
boste skoraj vedno videli preplet vseh teh treh stvari. Res zelo uspešna podjetja... Google je odličen tehnološki uspeh, a temelji tudi na zelo dobri psihološki bazi: ljudje verjamejo da je nekaj, kar počne samo eno stvar, boljše od nečesa, kar počne to stvar in še nekaj drugega. Gre za prirojeno stvar z imenom redčenje. Ayelet Fischbach je o tem napisal članek.
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.
V času Googla je bolj ali manj vsak hotel biti portal. Ja, ima iskalnik, ampak ima tudi vreme, šport in kakšno novico. Google je razumel, da če je samo iskalnik, bodo ljudje mislili, da je zelo zelo dober iskalnik. Saj to veste sami, od takrat, ko ste šli kupovat televizijo. Na slabši strani izbora TV-jev z ravnim ekranom lahko najdete prezira vredne zadeve, ki se imenujejo kombinirani TV in DVD predvajalniki. Pojma nimamo o kakovosti teh stvari, ampak ko zagledamo kombiniran TV in DVD predvajalnik, rečemo: "Fuj. Verjetno je skupek zanič televizije in ničvrednega DVD predvajalnika." In iz trgovine odidemo z vsakim posebej. Google pa je tako psihološki kot tehnološki uspeh.
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.
Predlagam, da uporabimo psihologijo za reševanje težav, za katere sploh nismo vedeli, da so težave. To je moj predlog, kako ljudi navaditi, da bodo dokončali svoj odmerek antibiotikov. Ne dajte jim 24 belih tablet. Dajte jim 18 belih in šest modrih in jim recite, naj najprej vzamejo bele in nato modre. Temu pravimo oblikovanje skupin. Verjetnost, da bodo ljudje prišli do konca, je veliko večja, če nekje v sredini obstaja vmesni cilj. Menim, da je ena največjih napak ekonomije v tem,
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.
da ne razume, da je vsaka stvar, naj bo upokojitev, brezposelnost, strošek, skupek svojih številk in svojega pomena.
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 --
Tole je cestninska postaja v Britaniji. Pogosto se tu naredijo kolone. Včasih so zelo zelo dolge. Isto načelo bi lahko uporabili pri varnostnih pregledih na letališčih. Kaj bi se zgodilo, če bi lahko plačali dvakrat več za prehod mostu, vendar bi za to ceno lahko odpeljali skozi hitri pas? To ni nerazumno. Je ekonomsko učinkovito. Čas enim pomeni več kot drugim. Če ste na poti na razgovor za službo, boste brez dvoma plačali nekaj funtov več, da bi šli na hitrejši pas. Če ste na poti na obisk k tašči, boste verjetno raje ostali na levem.
(Laughter)
you'd probably prefer to stay on the left.
Edina težava je v tem, da če uvedete to ekonomsko učinkovito rešitev,
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.
jo bodo ljudje sovražili. Kajti mislili bodo, da namenoma ustvarjate zamude na mostu, da bi povečali prihodek in "zakaj hudiča naj bi jaz podpiral vašo nesposobnost?" Po drugi strani, če malo spremenite okvir in mu dodate dobrodelno noto, tako da dodaten denar ne gre upravljavcu, ampak dobrodelni ustanovi, se bo pripravljenost plačati povsem spremenila. Tako imate ekonomsko učinkovito rešitev, ki jo javnost podpira in ji je celo malo naklonjena, namesto da bi se ji zdela podla.
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.
Ekonomisti torej največjo napako naredijo, ko mislijo, da je denar le denar. Ampak moja bolečina ob plačilu petih funtov ni samo sorazmerna vsoti, temveč tudi temu, kam po mojem mnenju ta denar gre. Razumevanje tega bi prineslo revolucijo v davčno politiko. Revolucija bi prišla v javne službe. Res bi lahko temeljito spremenila stvari.
[Ludwig Von Mises is my hero.]
Delo tega tipa bi morali vsi prebrati.
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."
Gre za avstrijskega ekonomista, ki je deloval v prvi polovici 20. stoletja na Dunaju. Za avstrijsko šolo je zanimivo, da se je razvila skupaj s Freudom. Zato pripadnike zanima predvsem psihologija. Verjamejo, da obstaja disciplina z imenom prakseologija, ki je bila predhodnica ekonomije. Prakseologija je veda o človekovi izbiri, delovanju in odločanju. Mislim, da imajo prav. Mislim, da je naša današnja nevarnost to, da ekonomija kot veda sebe razume kot prednico psihologije človeka. A kot pravi Charlie Munger: "Če ekonomija ni vedenjska, potem ne vem, kaj je."
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, zanimivo, verjame, da je ekonomija samo podvrsta psihologije. Mislim, da ekonomijo označuje kot "študij človekove prakseologije v razmerah pomanjkanja". Von Mises, kot mnogi drugi, po moje uporablja analogijo, ki je verjetno najboljša utemeljitev in razlaga pomena marketinga, pomena zaznane vrednosti, ter dejstva, da bi jo morali razumeti kot povsem enakovredno katerikoli drugi vrednosti.
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.
Vsi mi - celo tisti, ki delajo v marketingu - smo nagnjeni k razumevanju vrednosti z dveh vidikov. Eno je realna vrednost, tisto, kar naredite v tovarni ali storitev, ki jo nudite, drugo je nekakšna dvomljiva vrednost, tisto, kar ustvarite s spreminjanjem človeškega pogleda na stvari. Von Mises je to delitev popolnoma zavrnil. Uporabil je naslednji primer. Skliceval se je na čudne ekonomiste z imenom francoski fiziokrati, ki so verjeli,da je edina prava vrednost tisto, kar pridobite iz zemlje. Če ste ovčar ali delavec v kamnolomu ali kmet, ustvarjate pravo vrednost. Če pa ste od ovčarja kupili nekaj volne, jo spremenili v kapo in izdelku dodali maržo, v resnici niste dodajali vrednosti, ampak izkoriščali ovčarja.
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 pravi, da moderni ekonomisti delajo enako napako v zvezi z oglaševanjem in marketingom. Pravi, da če imate restavracijo, ne more biti prave razlike med vrednostjo, ki jo ustvarite s kuhanjem in tisto, ki jo ustvarite s pometanjem. Ena morda napravi primarni izdelek, tisto, kar gost plača, druga pa ustvari okolje, v katerem lahko ta izdelek uživamo. Prepričanje, da bi ena morala biti pomembnejša od druge, je v temelju zgrešeno.
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.
Napravimo tale hitri miselni poskus. Predstavljajte si restavracijo, ki nudi hrano, nagrajeno z Michelin zvezdicami, restavracija sama pa smrdi po odtoku in na tleh so človeški izločki.
(Laughter)
Največ, kar lahko naredite, da bi temu dodali vrednost,
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.
ni da izboljšate hrano, ampak da restavracijo očistite in odstranite smrad. Ključno je, da to razumemo.
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.
Če se vam to zdi kot nekaj čudnega in nejasnega... britanska pošta je imela 98-odstoten uspeh pri dostavi pošte prvega razreda v naslednjem dnevu. Odločili so se, da to ni dovolj in so hoteli doseči 99 odstotkov. Ta trud je organizacijo skoraj uničil. Če bi hkrati vprašali ljudi, kolikšen odstotek prvorazredne pošte prispe naslednji dan, bi bil povprečni odgovor med 50 in 60 odstotki. Če je vaša predstava veliko slabša od realnosti, zakaj hudiča bi spreminjali realnost? To je isto kot izboljšanje hrane v restavraciji, ki smrdi. Najprej morate povedati ljudem, da 98 odstotkov prvorazredne pošte pride do naslovnika naslednji dan. To je precej dobro. V Britaniji je še boljša primerjava, če ljudem poveste, da naslednji dan prispe več prvorazredne pošte tu kot v Nemčiji. Kajti v splošnem Britance lahko zadovoljite z nečim, že če jim poveste, da so boljši kot Nemci.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
(Applause)
(aplavz)
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.
Izberite svoj okvir in dojeto vrednost in to bo povsem spremenilo dejansko vrednost. Glede Nemcev moram reči, da oni in Francozi odlično opravljajo svoje delo pri oblikovanju enotne Evrope. Edino, česar ne pričakujejo, je, da Evropo združuje rahlo sovraštvo do nemcev in francozov, ki si ga deli. Ampak jaz sem Britanec in to nam je všeč.
(Laughter)
Opazili boste tudi, da je naša percepcija v vsakem primeru nepopolna.
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 poznamo razlike med kakovostjo hrane in okoljem, v katerem jo užijemo. Vsi ste ta pojav videli, če ste odpeljali avto v avtopralnico ali ga pustili, da vam ga parkirajo. Ko ste se odpeljali stran, ste imeli občutek, da se avto lepše vozi. Razlog za to,
(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.
razen če so vmes skrivoma zamenjali olje in opravili delo, ki ga nismo plačali in ne vemo zanj, je v tem, da je naše dojemanje v vsakem primeru nepopolno. Analgetiki znanih znamk bolj učinkovito odpravljajo bolečino
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.
kot analgetiki neznanih znamk. In to ne samo glede na poročila o zmanjšanju bolečine, ampak glede na dejanske meritve zmanjšanja. Dojemanje je res nepopolno. Če torej storite kaj, kar je v določenem smislu dojeto kot slabo, lahko drugim napravite škodo.
Thank you very much.
Hvala lepa.
(Applause)
(aplavz)