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 ovde je elektronska cigareta. To je meni, od pre godinu, dve kad je izmišljeno, pružilo neverovatno zadovoljstvo.
(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.
Mali deo tog zadovoljstva je nikotin, ali tu ima nešto mnogo važnije od nikotina. Od momenta kad su u Velikoj Britaniji zabranili pušenje na javnim mestima nisam više uživao u koktel zabavama.
(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.
Zaključio sam zašto pre neki dan, a to je da kad odeš na koktel zabavu, stojiš i držiš čašu crvenog vina, vodiš beskrajne razgovore, ne želiš da pričaš svo vreme. To je zaista zamorno. Ponekad želiš da samo mirno stojiš sam sa svojim mislima. Ponekad želiš samo da stojiš u ćošku i gledaš kroz prozor. Problem je, što kad ne možeš da pušiš, ako stojiš sam i gledaš kroz prozor, onda ispadaš nedruštven, usamljeni idiot.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
If you stand and stare out of the window on your own with a cigarette, you're a fucking philosopher.
Ako stojiš sam i gledaš kroz prozor sa cigaretom, ti si jebeni filozof.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
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 promene načina posmatranja ne može biti prenaglašena. Ovo što imamo je potpuno ista stvar, ista aktivnost, jedna čini da se osetiš velikim, a druga, sa malom izmenom stava čini da se osećaš grozno. Mislim da je jedan od problema klasične ekonomije njena potpuna preokupiranost realnošću. Realnost nije posebno dobar vodič do ljudske sreće. Zbog čega su, na primer, penzioneri mnogo srećniji od mladih koji su nezaposleni? Obe kategorije su u istoj životnoj fazi. Obe imaju previše vremena i ne mnogo novca. Ali penzioneri su izgleda jako srećni, dok su nezaposleni izuzetno nesrećni i depresivni. Mislim da penzioneri misle da su izabrani da budu penzioneri, dok mladi nezaposleni misle 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."
Viša srednja klasa u Engleskoj je izvrsno rešila ovaj problem, jer su rebrendirali nezaposlenost. Ako ste Englez iz više srednje klase, nazivate nezaposlenost "slobodna godina".
(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 je zato što je sramota imati nezaposlenog sina u Mančesteru, dok je imati nezaposlenog sina na Tajlandu u stvari priznanje.
(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.
Moć da se stvari rebrendiraju - da shvatimo da u stvari naša iskustva, cene, stvari ne zavise mnogo od toga šta su zaista, već od toga kako ih vidimo - zaista mislim da ne može biti precenjena.
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.
Danijel Pink pominje jedan eksperiment sa dva psa u kutiji koja ima električni pod. Povremeno se propusti struja kroz pod i to ih boli. Jedina razlika je da jedan pas ima malo dugme na svojoj polovini kutije. Kad pritisne dugme, šok prestaje. Drugi pas nema dugme. On je izložen potpuno istoj boli kao i pas u prvoj kutiji, ali on ne može da kontroliše situaciju. Prvi pas može biti 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 našim životima možda manje doprinose našoj sreći, od osećaja kontrole koji imamo nad svojim životima. To je jedno zanimljivo pitanje. Postavljamo pitanje - debata u zapadnom svetu je pitanje o visini poreza. Ja mislim da bi trebalo diskutovati o drugoj stvari, koji je nivo kontrole koji imamo nad našim novcem za porez. Nešto čija je cena 10 funti u jednoj priči može biti prokletstvo. Ono što nas košta 10 funti u drugom kontekstu, možda je dobro. Plati 20 000 funti za porez u zdravstvu i osećaš se jadno. Plati 20 000 funti kao donaciju bolničkom odeljenju i već si filantrop. Verovatno sam u pogrešnoj državi
(Laughter)
da bih govorio o spremnosti za plaćanjem poreza. (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"?
Daću vam jedan primer. Zaista je važno kako se stvari posmatraju. Da li se kaže spasavanje Grčke ili spasavanje glupih banaka koje su pozajmile novac Grčkoj?
(Laughter)
Jer to je u stvari ista 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.
Kako nazivate te stvari, utiče na vašu reakciju na njih, intuitivno i moralno. Po meni je, ako ćemo iskreno, psihološka vrednost sjajna. Moj veliki prijatelj, profesor Nik Čater, profesor nauka o odlukama u Londonu, veruje da bi trebalo da provodimo mnogo manje vremena u proučavanju skrivenih dubina čovečanstva, a mnogo više u proučavanju skrivenih plićaka. Mislim da je to tačno. Utisci imaju neverovatan uticaj na to šta mislimo i radimo. Ono što nemamo je zaista dobar model ljudske psihologije. Do pre Kanemana, nismo imali stvarno dobar model ljudske psihologije paralelan sa inženjerstvom, neoklasičnom ekonomijom.
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.
Tako da oni koji su verovali u psihološka rešenja, nisu imali model. Nismo imali obrazac. Ovo je prema Čarliju Mangeru, poslovnom partneru Vorena Bafeta, "mreža za oslanjanje ideja." Inženjeri, ekonomisti, klasični ekonomisti, svi su imali vrlo čvrstu mrežu, na koju se mogla okačiti svaka ideja. Mi jedva da imamo neku kolekciju raznih individualnih saznanja bez nekog opšteg modela. To znači da smo gledajući kakva su rešenja, verovatno previše važnosti davali inženjersko-tehničkim rešenjima, njutnovskim rešenjima, a ni izbliza 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.
Znate za moj primer Eurostara. Šest miliona funti je potrošeno da bi se skratilo vreme putovanja između Pariza i Londona za oko 40 min. Sa 0,01 posto ovog novca mogao se uvesti bežični internet u vozovima, što ne bi skratilo vreme putovanja, ali bi značajno popravilo uživanje i korist. Sa možda 10 posto novca, mogli su se platiti svi najbolji svetski muški i ženski supermodeli koji bi išli kroz voz i nudili besplatan Šato Petrus svim putnicima.
(Laughter)
Još bi preostalo pet milijardi funti
You'd still have five million pounds in change, and people would ask for the trains to be slowed down.
i ljudi bi tražili da vozovi idu sporije.
(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.
Zbog čega nam nije omogućeno da rešimo ovaj problem psihološki? Mislim da je to zbog toga što postoji disbalans, asimetrija u načinu na koji tretiramo kreativne, emotivno podstaknute psihološke ideje spram načina na koji tretiramo racionalne, numeričke, tabelarne ideje. Ako ste kreativna osoba, morate da dajete ideje na odobrenje mnogo racionalnijim ljudima od sebe. Treba da se prijavite i da imate analizu troškova, studiju izvodljivosti, detaljna istraživanja povrata ulaganja. Mislim da je to verovatno ispravno. Ali ne važi u suprotnom smeru. Ljudi koji imaju postojeći ekonomski, inženjerski okvir, osećaju da je logika u stvari odgovor. Oni ne kažu: "Izgleda da se svi brojevi slažu, ali pre nego što predstavim ovu ideju, pokazaću je nekim zaista otkačenim ljudima da vidim da li će oni smisliti nešto bolje." Tako dajemo, po meni pogrešno, veću važnost mehaničkim nad 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 primer odlične psihološke ideje: jedinstveno poboljšanje zadovoljstva putnika u londonskoj podzemnoj železnici nije došlo jer je povećan broj vozova i njihova učestalost, već zato što su postavili matrični displej na platformama. Priroda čekanja je takva da ne zavisi samo od svoje brojčane vrednosti, trajanja već od nivoa nesigurnosti koji doživljavamo dok čekamo. Čekati voz sedam minuta sa satom koji odbrojava je manje frustrirajuće i iritirajuće nego čekanje četiri minuta sa nerviranjem u razmišljanju: "Kad će ovaj prokleti voz stići?"
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 lep primer psihološkog rešenja sprovedenog u Koreji. Crvena svetla na semaforu imaju odbrojavanje. Eksperimentalno je potvrđeno da je smanjena stopa nesreća. Zašto? Zato što su bes, nestrpljenje i iritacija drastično smanjeni kad zaista vidite vreme čekanja. U Kini su, ne razumevajući ovaj princip ovo su primenili i na zelena svetla na semaforima. (Smeh)
(Laughter)
To nije dobra ideja.
which isn't a great idea. You're 200 yards away, you realize you've got five seconds to go, you floor it.
Na 200 metara ste, shvatite da imate pet sekundi da prođete, dodate gas. (Smeh)
(Laughter)
Koreanci su vrlo temeljno, testirali oba.
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.
Stopa nesreća se smanjuje kad se ovo primeni na crvena svetla, a povećava kod primene na zelenim svetlima. To je sve što tražim u odlukama ljudi
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.
uzimanje u obzir sve tri stvari tehnologija, psihologija, ekonomija. Ne tražim potpuni primat jedne stvari nad drugom. Jednostavno kažem da kad rešavate problem, sve tri stvari treba da jednako posmatrate, treba da što dublje tražite rešenja koja su u sredini.
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.
Zapravo, ako pogledate uspešan biznis skoro uvek su sve tri stvari u igri. Zaista uspešni biznisi - Google je fantastičan tehnološki uspeh, ali je baziran na odličnom psihološkom uvidu: ljudi veruju da je nešto što radi samo jednu stvar, bolje od nečeg drugog što radi još nešto. To je urođeno i zove se razblaživanje ciljeva. Ejlet Fišbah je napisala članak o tome.
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.
Svi drugi su u vremenu Googla manje-više, pokušavali da budu portal. Da, tu je opcija pretrage, takođe imate vreme, sportske rezultate, malo vesti. Google je razumeo da ako si samo pretraživač, ljudi podrazumevaju da si onda veoma dobar pretraživač. Svi znamo da, kad idemo da kupimo televizor. Na samom kraju niza televizora sa ravnim ekranom mogu se videti one neomiljene stvari koje zovu kombinovani televizori sa DVD plejerom. Mi nemamo nikakvo saznanje o kvalitetu tih stvari, ali pri pogledu na kombinovani televizor sa DVD-ejm: "Uh. To je verovatno đubre i od televizora i DVD plejera." Tako da izađemo iz prodavnice sa oba. Google je podjednako i psihološki i 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.
Predlažem da koristimo psihologiju za rešavanje problema za koje nismo ni znali da postoje. Ovo je moj predlog da se ljudi nateraju da završe kuru antibiotika. Nemojte im dati 24 bele pilule. Dajte im 18 belih i 6 plavih i recite im da prvo troše bele, a zatim plave. To se zove seckanje. Mnogo je veća verovatnoća da će ljudi stići do cilja ako negde u sredini postoji značajan događaj.
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.
Po meni je velika greška u ekonomiji ta što nema razumevanja da nešto, kao što su odlazak u penziju, nezaposlenost, trošak, ne zavisi samo od količine, već i od 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 je naplatna rampa u Britaniji. Vrlo često se stvaraju redovi na rampama. Nekad su to jako dugi redovi. Isti princip se može primeniti ako želite, na sigurnosne trake na aerodromima. Šta bi bilo ako biste mogli da platite duplo da biste prešli preko mosta, ali kroz ekspres traku? To nije nerazumno. To je ekonomski isplativo. Vreme nekim ljudima znači više. Ako čekate da biste otišli na razgovor za posao, sigurno biste platili da prođete kroz brzu traku. Ako idete da posetite taštu, verovatno biste pre ostali levo.
(Laughter)
you'd probably prefer to stay on the left.
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.
Jedini problem je ako izložite ovo ekonomski isplativo rešenje, ljudi ga ne vole. Oni misle da namerno stvaraš zastoj na mostu da bi povećao svoj prihod: "Zaboga, zašto da subvencionišem tvoju nekompetentnost?" Ali ako malo preoblikuješ stvari, napraviš menadžment za upravljanje dobrovoljnim davanjima, tako da dodatni novac ne ide kompaniji čiji je most, već u dobrotvorne svrhe, spremnost da se plati se potpuno menja. Imaš ekonomski isplativo rešenje, koje ima javno odobravanje, čak malu dozu naklonosti, umesto bezobrazluka.
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.
Ono gde ekonomisti prave osnovnu grešku je što misle da je novac novac. Moj bol kad plaćam pet funti nije samo proporcionalan sumi, već i mestu gde ja mislim da taj novac ide. Mislim da razumevanje ovoga može izazvati revoluciju u poreskoj politici. Može promeniti javne usluge. Može značajno promeniti stvari.
[Ludwig Von Mises is my hero.]
Ovde je čovek kog svi treba da proučimo.
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."
On je đak austrijske škole ekonomije koji bio je aktivan u prvoj polovini dvadesetog veka u Beču. Austrijska škola je zanimljiva jer je rasla paralelno sa Frojdovom školom. Uglavnom ih je interesovala psihologija. Verovali su u disciplinu nazvanu prakseologija, koja je bila disciplina pre ekonomskih nauka. Prakseologija je nauka o ljudskom izboru, delovanju i procesu odlučivanja. Mislim da su u pravu. Mislim da je opasnost u današnjem svetu to što studija ekonomije smatra sebe prethodnikom studije ljudske psihologije. Čarli Manger kaže: "Ako ekonomija nije bihevioralna, onda dođavola ne znam šta jeste."
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.
Zanimljivo je da Fon Mizes veruje da je ekonomija samo deo psihologije. On za ekonomiju kaže da je "nauka o ljudskoj prakseologiji pod uslovima oskudice." Među mnogim stvarima Fon Mizes uzima analogiju koja je najbolje opravdanje i objašnjenje za marketinšku vrednost, vrednost doživljene vrednosti i činjenicu da bi trebalo da je tretiramo kao potpuno jednaku sa bilo kojom drugom vrednošću.
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.
Svi mi nastojimo - čak i oni koji rade u prodaji - da vidimo vrednost na dva načina. Postoji stvarna vrednost, koja nastaje u fabrici ili kad pružite uslugu, i postoji takoreći diskutabilna vrednost, koju napravite promenom načina na koji ljudi gledaju na stvari. Fon Mizes potpuno odbacuje ovu razliku. On koristi sledeću analogiju. On se oslanja na čudne ekonomiste tzv. francuske fiziokrate, koji su verovali da je jedina prava vrednost ona koja se dobije iz zemlje. Tako da ako ste pastir, rudar ili zemljoradnik, vi stvarate pravu vrednost. Ako ste kupili vunu od pastira i naplatili zaradu pravljenjem šešira, vi u stvari ne pravite novu vrednost, vi eksploatišete pastira.
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.
Fon Mizes kaže da savremeni ekonomisti prave upravo istu grešku u odnosu na reklame i marketing. On kaže da ako vodiš restoran, nema jasne razlike između vrednosti koju stvaraš kuvajući i vrednosti koju stvaraš brišući pod. Jedna od njih možda stvara glavni proizvod - ono šta plaćamo - druga stvara kontekst u kom možemo da uživamo u proizvodu. Ideja da je jedna od tih stvari važnija je suštinski 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.
Pokušajte ovaj misaoni eksperiment. Zamislite restoran koji služi hranu sa Mišelin zvezdom, a u stvari restoran smrdi na kanalizaciju i ljudski izmet je na podu.
(Laughter)
Da biste napravili 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.
nije najbolje još popravljati hranu, već rešiti se smrada i očistiti pod. Veoma je važno shvatiti ovo.
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 to deluje kao čudna, nejasna stvar, u Velikoj Britaniji, pošta je imala 98 posto uspešnosti u dostavljanju pošte prve klase sutradan. Odlučeno je da to nije dovoljno dobro i hteli su da podignu ovaj nivo na 99 posto. Da bi ovo uradili skoro su uništili organizaciju. Da ste u isto vreme pitali ljude: "Koji procenat pošte prve klase stiže sutradan?" prosečan odgovor bi bio 50 do 60 posto. Ako je vaša percepcija mnogo gora od realnosti, zbog čega zaboga pokušavate da promenite realnost? To je isto kao popravljanje hrane u restoranu koji smrdi. Ono što treba da uradite je da prvo kažete ljudima da 98 posto pošte prve klase stiže sutradan. To je dosta dobro. Reći ću vam, u Britaniji postoji mnogo bolji okvir, a to je reći ljudima da više pošte prve klase stiže sutradan u Britaniji nego u Nemačkoj. Ako hoćete da nas u Britaniji napravite srećnim zbog nečega, samo recite da to radimo bolje od Nemaca.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
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 referentni okvir i percepciju i samim tim stvarna vrednost je potpuno transformisana. U vezi sa Nemcima, mora se reći da Nemci i Francuzi rade briljantan posao u stvaranju ujedinjene Evrope. Jedina stvar koju oni ne očekuju je da ujedinjuju Evropu kroz blagu mržnju Francuza i Nemaca. Ali ja sam Britanac, mi to tako volimo.
(Laughter)
Primećujete da je u svakom slučaju naša percepija loša.
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 navesti razliku između kvaliteta hrane i sredine u kojoj je konzumiramo. Svi ste videli ovaj fenomen ako ste oprali ili servisirali auto. Posle odlaska, osećate kao da vaš auto ide bolje.
(Laughter)
Razlog je,
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 su mi u servisu misteriozno promenili ulje ili uradili nešto što nisam platio ili ne znam, to što percepcija u svakom slučaju nije dobra.
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.
Brendirani analgetici su mnogo bolji u efektima smanjivanja bola od analgetika koji nisu brenidrani. Ne mislim samo na prijavljeno smanjenje bola, već na izmereno smanjenje bola. Tako da je percepcija u stvari slaba u svakom slučaju. Ako uradite nešto što je pogrešno iz jedne perspektive, možete da oštetite drugu.
Thank you very much.
Mnogo vam hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)