Do you know how many choices you make in a typical day? Do you know how many choices you make in typical week? I recently did a survey with over 2,000 Americans, and the average number of choices that the typical American reports making is about 70 in a typical day. There was also recently a study done with CEOs in which they followed CEOs around for a whole week. And these scientists simply documented all the various tasks that these CEOs engaged in and how much time they spent engaging in making decisions related to these tasks. And they found that the average CEO engaged in about 139 tasks in a week. Each task was made up of many, many, many sub-choices of course. 50 percent of their decisions were made in nine minutes or less. Only about 12 percent of the decisions did they make an hour or more of their time. Think about your own choices. Do you know how many choices make it into your nine minute category versus your one hour category? How well do you think you're doing at managing those choices?
你知道一天當中 你做了多少選擇嗎? 你知道一個星期之中 你做了多少選擇嗎? 最近,我做了一項調查 對象是兩千名美國人 那些美國人在一天之中 平均做了 七十項選擇 最近還有一項關於總裁的調查 在調查中,科學家跟著那些總裁整整一個星期 這些科學家簡單地把那些總裁 參與的事情記錄下來 以及總裁在那些相關的事情中 花了多少時間做決定 科學家從那些總裁中發現到 他們在一周中平均會參與139件事情 每件事情都由許多選擇以及次要選擇所構成 有百分之五十的決定 用了不到九分鐘的時間 只有百分之十二的決定 他們花了一個小時以上的時間 想想看你自己的選擇 你知道你有多少選擇 需要花費九分鐘 又有多少需要一小時呢? 你覺得自己 有多擅長做選擇呢?
Today I want to talk about one of the biggest modern day choosing problems that we have, which is the choice overload problem. I want to talk about the problem and some potential solutions. Now as I talk about this problem, I'm going to have some questions for you and I'm going to want to know your answers. So when I ask you a question, since I'm blind, only raise your hand if you want to burn off some calories. (Laughter) Otherwise, when I ask you a question, and if your answer is yes, I'd like you to clap your hands. So for my first question for you today: Are you guys ready to hear about the choice overload problem? (Applause) Thank you.
今天,我想和各位談論 關於現代生活中我們碰到的最大問題 就是我們要做太多選擇了 我想談論這些問題 以及一些可能的解決方法 當我談論這個問題時 我想先問你幾個問題 然後我想知道你的答案 當我問你一個問題 由於我是盲人 所以如果你舉手的話,只能因此消耗一些熱量 (笑聲) 因此,當我問你一個問題時 如果你的答案是肯定的 請你拍手 今天我的第一個問題是: 你們大家都準備好聽關於「選擇過量」的問題了嗎? (掌聲) 謝謝
So when I was a graduate student at Stanford University, I used to go to this very, very upscale grocery store; at least at that time it was truly upscale. It was a store called Draeger's. Now this store, it was almost like going to an amusement park. They had 250 different kinds of mustards and vinegars and over 500 different kinds of fruits and vegetables and more than two dozen different kinds of bottled water -- and this was during a time when we actually used to drink tap water. I used to love going to this store, but on one occasion I asked myself, well how come you never buy anything? Here's their olive oil aisle. They had over 75 different kinds of olive oil, including those that were in a locked case that came from thousand-year-old olive trees.
當我還是史丹佛大學的研究生時 我經常去一間非常高級的雜貨店 至少在那個時候它是非常高級的 那是一間叫「德瑞格」的店 現在這間店幾乎變成了一間遊樂場 他們有兩百五十種的黃芥茉和醋 還有超過五百種不同的 水果和蔬菜 以及二十多種不同的瓶裝水 這還是在我們習慣喝水龍頭水的那個年代 我以前很喜歡去這家店 但是有一次我問自己 為何你從來不買東西? 這裡是賣橄欖油的走道 他們有超過七十五種不同的橄欖油 包含那些被鎖在櫃子裡 用千年老橄欖樹製成的油
So I one day decided to pay a visit to the manager, and I asked the manager, "Is this model of offering people all this choice really working?" And he pointed to the busloads of tourists that would show up everyday, with cameras ready usually. We decided to do a little experiment, and we picked jam for our experiment. Here's their jam aisle. They had 348 different kinds of jam. We set up a little tasting booth right near the entrance of the store. We there put out six different flavors of jam or 24 different flavors of jam, and we looked at two things: First, in which case were people more likely to stop, sample some jam? More people stopped when there were 24, about 60 percent, than when there were six, about 40 percent. The next thing we looked at is in which case were people more likely to buy a jar of jam. Now we see the opposite effect. Of the people who stopped when there were 24, only three percent of them actually bought a jar of jam. Of the people who stopped when there were six, well now we saw that 30 percent of them actually bought a jar of jam. Now if you do the math, people were at least six times more likely to buy a jar of jam if they encountered six than if they encountered 24.
因此,有一天我決定去見經理一面 我問他 「這種提供大家所有選擇的行銷模式真的有用嗎?」 他以每天一車車前來的 遊客為例 通常這些遊客也都準備了相機 我們決定做一點小實驗 以果醬為實驗樣本 這裡是賣果醬走道 他們有348種不同的果醬 我們設置了一些試吃攤 就在接近店門口的位置 我們在那裡放了六種 或是二十四種不同的果醬 然後我們觀察兩件事: 第一,在哪一種情況下 人們比較願意停下來試吃? 大部份的人在有二十四種果醬的時候停下來, 大約佔了百分之六十 而有六種果醬時 則只有百分之四十的人停下來試吃 另一個部份,我們觀察 在哪一種情況下 人們比較有可能買一罐果醬 我們發現了相反的結果 當人們看到二十四種果醬停下來時 只有百分之三的人真的買了一罐果醬 而在只有六種果醬前停下來的人 我們發現有百分之三十的人 買了果醬 現在如果你試算看看 人們碰到六種果醬後購買的比率 遠高於碰到二十四種果醬的比率 至少超過六倍之多
Now choosing not to buy a jar of jam is probably good for us -- at least it's good for our waistlines -- but it turns out that this choice overload problem affects us even in very consequential decisions. We choose not to choose, even when it goes against our best self-interests. So now for the topic of today: financial savings. Now I'm going to describe to you a study I did with Gur Huberman, Emir Kamenica, Wei Jang where we looked at the retirement savings decisions of nearly a million Americans from about 650 plans all in the U.S. And what we looked at was whether the number of fund offerings available in a retirement savings plan, the 401(k) plan, does that affect people's likelihood to save more for tomorrow. And what we found was that indeed there was a correlation. So in these plans, we had about 657 plans that ranged from offering people anywhere from two to 59 different fund offerings. And what we found was that, the more funds offered, indeed, there was less participation rate.
現在選擇不買果醬 對我們來說反而是一個好消息 -至少對我們的腰圍來說是好的- 但這也代表了過多選擇的問題 也影響了我們做許多重要的決定 我們選擇不去做選擇 即使這件事與我們的最佳利益相左 因此,我們要談到今天的另一個主題:省錢。 現在,我要向各位介紹一份 我和Gur Huberman, Emir Kamenica, Wei Jang共同完成的研究 這份研究裡,我們觀察了大約一百萬名美國人 如何在 全美的650種的退休儲蓄計畫中 做選擇 在這個研究中我們想要了解的是 人們在退休儲蓄計畫 與401退休福利計畫中 是否因為提供的資金多寡 而影響人們決定 是否為未來存更多錢 在這個研究中 我們發現這兩者確實有關聯性 因此在大約657個計畫中 包含了提供人們兩種到59種不同選擇 的退休計畫裡 我們發現的是 提供的資金愈多 反而愈少人參與
So if you look at the extremes, those plans that offered you two funds, participation rates were around in the mid-70s -- still not as high as we want it to be. In those plans that offered nearly 60 funds, participation rates have now dropped to about the 60th percentile. Now it turns out that even if you do choose to participate when there are more choices present, even then, it has negative consequences. So for those people who did choose to participate, the more choices available, the more likely people were to completely avoid stocks or equity funds. The more choices available, the more likely they were to put all their money in pure money market accounts. Now neither of these extreme decisions are the kinds of decisions that any of us would recommend for people when you're considering their future financial well-being.
因此當你看到圖片的起端 那些只提供兩種資金選擇的計畫 人們的參與率大約是70% 不如我們所期待的高參與率 而那些大約有60種不同資金選擇的計畫 參與率下降至 大約60% 由此可知 即使有更多的選項 提供你選擇 得到的反而是負面的結果 因此對那些最後選擇參與的人們來說 擁有愈多的選擇 反而造成人們避免購買 股票或是類似的基金 愈多的選擇 人們反而更有可能選擇 將錢單純的存在帳戶裡 如果為人們未來的經濟情況著想 這兩種極端的方式 都不會成為 我們推薦給他人的選擇
Well, over the past decade, we have observed three main negative consequences to offering people more and more choices. They're more likely to delay choosing -- procrastinate even when it goes against their best self-interest. They're more likely to make worse choices -- worse financial choices, medical choices. They're more likely to choose things that make them less satisfied, even when they do objectively better. The main reason for this is because, we might enjoy gazing at those giant walls of mayonnaises, mustards, vinegars, jams, but we can't actually do the math of comparing and contrasting and actually picking from that stunning display. So what I want to propose to you today are four simple techniques -- techniques that we have tested in one way or another in different research venues -- that you can easily apply in your businesses.
然而,在過去的十年裡 我們觀察到提供人們愈來愈多的選擇 會產生三種主要的負面結果 (過多的選擇降低了…) 他們更容易延遲決定-- (投影片:準時遵守約定) 即使耽擱會影響他們的最佳利益 他們更有可能做錯決定-- (投影片:選擇的品質) 更糟的理財與醫療決定 他們更有可能選擇讓他們不太滿意的決定 (投影片:滿足感) 即使客觀來說他們的選擇沒那麼不好 造成這種情況最主要的原因是 我們可能享受盯著那些巨大的城牆 像是美乃滋、黃芥茉、醋、果醬等等的東西 但是我們不可能真的一一比較 然後從其中挑選出一罐 因此,今天我想推薦 四種簡單的技巧- 這些技巧都已經過我們一再的測試- 透過不同的研究場域 讓你可以簡單的 運用在事業上
The first: Cut. You've heard it said before, but it's never been more true than today, that less is more. People are always upset when I say, "Cut." They're always worried they're going to lose shelf space. But in fact, what we're seeing more and more is that if you are willing to cut, get rid of those extraneous redundant options, well there's an increase in sales, there's a lowering of costs, there is an improvement of the choosing experience. When Proctor & Gamble went from 26 different kinds of Head & Shoulders to 15, they saw an increase in sales by 10 percent. When the Golden Cat Corporation got rid of their 10 worst-selling cat litter products, they saw an increase in profits by 87 percent -- a function of both increase in sales and lowering of costs. You know, the average grocery store today offers you 45,000 products. The typical Walmart today offers you 100,000 products. But the ninth largest retailer, the ninth biggest retailer in the world today is Aldi, and it offers you only 1,400 products -- one kind of canned tomato sauce.
第一:精簡 相信你之前早已聽過 「少即是多」這句話 這個說法對現今社會來說再真切合適不過了 當我說「精簡」時,人們總是感到沮喪 他們總是擔心會失去陳列的空間 然而我們發現事實是 如果你願意選擇精簡 捨去那些額外不必要的選項 你的銷售量就會增加 支出會減少 這裡有一項關於選擇而有所進展的故事 當寶僑公司(Proctor & Gamble )將26種不同的海倫仙度絲產品 精簡至15種時 他們發現銷售額增加了百分之十 當黃金貓公司(Golden Cat)捨棄了 10種銷售量最差的商品 他們的獲利成長了 百分之八十七 這是一個能夠增加銷售量 又減少支出的功效 你知道現在平均每一間雜貨店 提供四萬五千種商品 沃爾瑪(Walmart) 超市每天提供你十萬種商品 然而現今世界上 第九大的零售商 阿爾迪超市(Aldi) 只供應你一千四百種商品 其中只包含一種蕃茄醬
Now in the financial savings world, I think one of the best examples that has recently come out on how to best manage the choice offerings has actually been something that David Laibson was heavily involved in designing, which was the program that they have at Harvard. Every single Harvard employee is now automatically enrolled in a lifecycle fund. For those people who actually want to choose, they're given 20 funds, not 300 or more funds. You know, often, people say, "I don't know how to cut. They're all important choices." And the first thing I do is I ask the employees, "Tell me how these choices are different from one another. And if your employees can't tell them apart, neither can your consumers."
在現今理財儲蓄的社會中 我想最好的例子是 最近由David Laibson 在哈佛大學進行的一項計畫 這個計畫是關於 如何用最好的方式來管理選擇 每一位哈佛的教職員 會自動被加入 一項人生規畫基金中 對於那些真正想要選擇的人 他們會有二十種不同的基金 而非三百種或更多的選擇 人們總是說 「我不知道如何精簡, 每一個都是很好的選擇。」 因此,我對這些教職員詢問的第一個問題是: 「告訴我這些選擇有什麼不同? 如果你的教職員都無法分辨了 更別說是你的顧客了。」
Now before we started our session this afternoon, I had a chat with Gary. And Gary said that he would be willing to offer people in this audience an all-expenses-paid free vacation to the most beautiful road in the world. Here's a description of the road. And I'd like you to read it. And now I'll give you a few seconds to read it and then I want you to clap your hands if you're ready to take Gary up on his offer. (Light clapping) Okay. Anybody who's ready to take him up on his offer. Is that all? All right, let me show you some more about this. (Laughter) You guys knew there was a trick, didn't you. (Honk) Now who's ready to go on this trip. (Applause) (Laughter) I think I might have actually heard more hands.
在我們開始這個活動之前 我和Gary有一段對話 Gary告訴我他很樂意提供 在場的聽眾 一個免費前往世界上 最漂亮的公路旅行的機會 這是關於這條路的簡介 給各位參考 現在我給大家一點時間來閱讀 如果你想要得到Gary提供的機會請你拍手 (投影片:這條Stremnaya公路非常的漂亮,有壯麗的群山、懸崖和青草。由於這條公路的極佳景觀,結合了非常狹窄的路和極高的懸崖,因此也有人認為這條公路是世界上最危險的公路。*諷刺的是,公路的危險也成為了自1990年起,旅客最喜歡前往的地點。尤其是愛好山路的騎士將其視為最刺激的下坡道路。 *平均每個月會有兩台腳踏車會從路上摔下來。) (稀少的掌聲) 有人想要得到這個機會嗎? 這是全部了嗎? 好吧!我再讓你多知道一點。 (笑聲) 你們都知道事有玄機 (喇叭聲) 現在,有誰想要參加這趟旅行? (鼓掌) (笑聲) 我想確實有更多人鼓掌了
All right. Now in fact, you had objectively more information the first time around than the second time around, but I would venture to guess that you felt that it was more real the second time around. Because the pictures made it feel more real to you. Which brings me to the second technique for handling the choice overload problem, which is concretization. That in order for people to understand the differences between the choices, they have to be able to understand the consequences associated with each choice, and that the consequences need to be felt in a vivid sort of way, in a very concrete way. Why do people spend an average of 15 to 30 percent more when they use an ATM card or a credit card as opposed to cash? Because it doesn't feel like real money. And it turns out that making it feel more concrete can actually be a very positive tool to use in getting people to save more.
其實 事實上, 客觀來說 你們在第一回合時較第二回合時有更多的訊息 但是我大膽猜測 你們在第二回合時有更真實的感覺 因為這些照片讓一切都變得 更加真實 因此這讓我有了第二個處理 過多選擇問題的技巧 那就是「具體化」 這會幫助人們理解 每一樣選擇之間的差異處 他們必須了解 每一個選擇所帶來的結果 還有這些結果需要讓人如臨其境 需要非常的具體 為什麼人們使用金融卡或是信用卡時 比用現金時 平均多花費了百分之15到30以上的費用? 因為那樣讓人們感覺不像在花真的錢 結果顯示 讓事情更具體 能夠有效地幫助人們 節省更多
So a study that I did with Shlomo Benartzi and Alessandro Previtero, we did a study with people at ING -- employees that are all working at ING -- and now these people were all in a session where they're doing enrollment for their 401(k) plan. And during that session, we kept the session exactly the way it used to be, but we added one little thing. The one little thing we added was we asked people to just think about all the positive things that would happen in your life if you saved more. By doing that simple thing, there was an increase in enrollment by 20 percent and there was an increase in the amount of people willing to save or the amount that they were willing to put down into their savings account by four percent.
我和Shlomo Benartzi、Alessandro Previter 做了一項研究 研究的樣本是 ING安泰人壽的員工 這些人現在正為了自己的401退休福利計畫 來參與會議 在會議期間 我們讓這個會議照原有的方式進行 其中只有一個小小的不同 這個不同是我們增加了一個問題 我們問大家 試著想想看,在你的人生中 所有可能會發生的好事 僅就這一件小事 就提高了百分之二十的參與率 有意願儲蓄的人們也大幅地增加了 大約有百分之四的人們 也願意存更多錢在戶頭裡了
The third technique: Categorization. We can handle more categories than we can handle choices. So for example, here's a study we did in a magazine aisle. It turns out that in Wegmans grocery stores up and down the northeast corridor, the magazine aisles range anywhere from 331 different kinds of magazines all the way up to 664. But you know what? If I show you 600 magazines and I divide them up into 10 categories, versus I show you 400 magazines and divide them up into 20 categories, you believe that I have given you more choice and a better choosing experience if I gave you the 400 than if I gave you the 600. Because the categories tell me how to tell them apart.
第三個方法是:分類 相較於處理選擇 我們更能處理分類 舉例來說 我們在雜誌走道中做了一個實驗 結果顯示 在Wegmans 雜貨店東北處的樓梯區 到處都是雜誌 總計有331到664種 不同的雜誌 但是你知道嗎? 如果我向你展示六百種雜誌 然後將他們分為十類 又或者是 我將四百種不同的雜誌分為二十類 相較於我先給你四百本之後 再給你六百本雜誌 你會認為我提供你更多良好的選擇 以及更好的選擇經驗 因為分類讓我知道如何分辨它們
Here are two different jewelry displays. One is called "Jazz" and the other one is called "Swing." If you think the display on the left is Swing and the display on the right is Jazz, clap your hands. (Light Clapping) Okay, there's some. If you think the one on the left is Jazz and the one on the right is Swing, clap your hands. Okay, a bit more. Now it turns out you're right. The one on the left is Jazz and the one on the right is Swing, but you know what? This is a highly useless categorization scheme. (Laughter) The categories need to say something to the chooser, not the choice-maker. And you often see that problem when it comes down to those long lists of all these funds. Who are they actually supposed to be informing?
這裡,我們有兩種不同的珠寶展示 一種稱為「爵士」,另一種稱為「搖擺」 如果你認為左邊的這個是「搖擺」 右邊的這個是「爵士」 請鼓掌 (些許掌聲) 聽起來有一些掌聲 如果你認為左邊的這個是「爵士」,右邊的是「搖擺」 請鼓掌 聽起來比較多一點 結果顯示你答對了 左邊的這個是「爵士」,右邊的這個是「搖擺」 但是你知道嗎? 這是非常沒有用的分類方式 (笑聲) 分類需要告訴 選擇者一些事情,而不是製作選擇的人 而你們通常會在這些基金的冗長名單中 見到這種類型的問題 這些訊息預設要提供給誰訊息呢?
My fourth technique: Condition for complexity. It turns out we can actually handle a lot more information than we think we can, we've just got to take it a little easier. We have to gradually increase the complexity. I'm going to show you one example of what I'm talking about. Let's take a very, very complicated decision: buying a car. Here's a German car manufacturer that gives you the opportunity to completely custom make your car. You've got to make 60 different decisions, completely make up your car. Now these decisions vary in the number of choices that they offer per decision. Car colors, exterior car colors -- I've got 56 choices. Engines, gearshift -- four choices. So now what I'm going to do is I'm going to vary the order in which these decisions appear. So half of the customers are going to go from high choice, 56 car colors, to low choice, four gearshifts. The other half of the customers are going to go from low choice, four gearshifts, to 56 car colors, high choice.
我的第四個技巧是:由簡入繁 結果是 我們可以確實的掌握比我們想像中更多的訊息 我們需要讓事情變得更簡單 我們必須逐步地增加複雜性 接下來你們可以看到一些相關的例子 讓我們來做一個非常非常複雜的決定: 買車 這裡有一間德國汽車製造廠 他們可以為你客製化一部屬於你獨有的汽車 你需要做六十種不同的決定 來製造你的汽車 每一個決定將會各自提供你 不同的選項 車子的顏色、車子外部的顏色-- 有五十六個選擇 引擎、變速排檔:有四個選擇 接下來我要做的是 改變這些決定出現的順序 有半數的顧客要從選擇多的決定開始 五十六種車子的顏色 到較少選擇的決定:四種變速排檔 另外一半的顧客 要從較少的選擇開始決定-四種變速排檔 一直到五十六種車子的顏色
What am I going to look at? How engaged you are. If you keep hitting the default button per decision, that means you're getting overwhelmed, that means I'm losing you. What you find is the people who go from high choice to low choice, they're hitting that default button over and over and over again. We're losing them. They go from low choice to high choice, they're hanging in there. It's the same information. It's the same number of choices. The only thing that I have done is I have varied the order in which that information is presented. If I start you off easy, I learn how to choose. Even though choosing gearshift doesn't tell me anything about my preferences for interior decor, it still prepares me for how to choose. It also gets me excited about this big product that I'm putting together, so I'm more willing to be motivated to be engaged.
我要看的是什麼呢? 你們投入的程度 如果你持續在每一個決定中按下略過的按鈕 這將表示你將會逐步被打敗 你將退出這個活動 你將會發現 那些從較多選擇到較少選擇的人 會持續按下略過的按鈕 然後他們就會退出了 那些從較少選擇到較多選擇的人 會持續參與 兩者提供了一樣的訊息,同樣數量的選擇 唯一不同的是 我們改變了 訊息出現的順序 如果讓你從簡單的開始 學著如何去選擇 即使變速排檔的選擇 對於我選擇車身顏色沒有任何影響 但它仍舊讓我學著如何去選擇 要把這個龐大的商品組合起來也讓我感到興奮 也因此我更有動力 參與其中
So let me recap. I have talked about four techniques for mitigating the problem of choice overload -- cut -- get rid of the extraneous alternatives; concretize -- make it real; categorize -- we can handle more categories, less choices; condition for complexity. All of these techniques that I'm describing to you today are designed to help you manage your choices -- better for you, you can use them on yourself, better for the people that you are serving. Because I believe that the key to getting the most from choice is to be choosy about choosing. And the more we're able to be choosy about choosing the better we will be able to practice the art of choosing.
簡而言之 我提到了四個技巧 來減輕過多選擇帶來的問題 精簡-捨去不必要的選擇 具體化-讓事情更真實 分類-我們可以處理較多的分類 較少複雜的選擇情況 今天我告訴你們的這些方法 都是設計來幫助你管理你的選擇 更適合你,你可以用在自己身上 更適合你所服務的人們 因為我相信 要從眾多選擇中挑選出最好的方法是 對選擇挑剔 當我們對選擇更加挑剔 我們愈能夠 學習選擇的藝術
Thank you very much.
謝謝
(Applause)
(掌聲)