How do you explain when things don't go as we assume? Or better, how do you explain when others are able to achieve things that seem to defy all of the assumptions? For example: Why is Apple so innovative? Year after year, after year, they're more innovative than all their competition. And yet, they're just a computer company. They're just like everyone else. They have the same access to the same talent, the same agencies, the same consultants, the same media. Then why is it that they seem to have something different? Why is it that Martin Luther King led the Civil Rights Movement? He wasn't the only man who suffered in pre-civil rights America, and he certainly wasn't the only great orator of the day. Why him? And why is it that the Wright brothers were able to figure out controlled, powered man flight when there were certainly other teams who were better qualified, better funded -- and they didn't achieve powered man flight, and the Wright brothers beat them to it. There's something else at play here.
Kako razložite, ko se stvari ne odvijajo, kot to predvidevamo? Ali bolje, kako si razložite, kadar so drugi sposobni doseči stvari, ki so domnevno v nasprotju z vsemi predvidevanji? Na primer: Zakaj je Apple tako inovativen? Leto za letom, za letom, za letom, so bolj iznajdljivi, kot vsi njihovi tekmeci. A vendar so le računalniško podjetje. So povsem podobni vsem ostalim. Imajo enak dostop do enakih talentov, enakih agencij, enakih svetovalcev, enakih medijev. Zakaj se torej zdi, da imajo oni nekaj, česar drugi nimajo? Zakaj je Martin Luther King vodil gibanje za državljanske pravice? Ni bil edini človek, ki je trpel v Ameriki pred uvedbo državljanskih pravic. Gotovo tudi ni bil edini veliki govorec tistega časa. Zakaj torej on? Kako to, da sta brata Wright bila sposobna izvesti nadzorovan polet človeka z motorno napravo, ko so gotovo obstajale druge ekipe, ki so bile bolje kvalificirane, bolje financirane, a kljub temu niso bile sposobne izvesti poleta človeka z motorno napravo, in brata Wright sta jih prehitela. Tu se dogaja nekaj drugega.
About three and a half years ago, I made a discovery. And this discovery profoundly changed my view on how I thought the world worked, and it even profoundly changed the way in which I operate in it. As it turns out, there's a pattern. As it turns out, all the great inspiring leaders and organizations in the world, whether it's Apple or Martin Luther King or the Wright brothers, they all think, act and communicate the exact same way. And it's the complete opposite to everyone else. All I did was codify it, and it's probably the world's simplest idea. I call it the golden circle.
Pred približno tremi leti in pol sem nekaj odkril. To odkritje je temeljito spremenilo moj pogled na način, za katerega sem mislil, da po njem deluje svet. Celo način, kako delujem v tem svetu, se je korenito spremenil. Kot kaže, obstaja vzorec. Kot kaže, vsi veliki in navdihujoči voditelji in organizacije tega sveta, bodisi Apple ali Martin Luther King ali brata Wright, vsi razmišljajo, delujejo in komunicirajo na popolnoma enak način. In ta način je popolnoma drugačen od načina vseh ostalih. Jaz sem ga le ubesedil. Verjetno gre za najbolj preprosto zamisel na svetu. Poimenoval sem jo zlati krog.
Why? How? What? This little idea explains why some organizations and some leaders are able to inspire where others aren't. Let me define the terms really quickly. Every single person, every single organization on the planet knows what they do, 100 percent. Some know how they do it, whether you call it your differentiated value proposition or your proprietary process or your USP. But very, very few people or organizations know why they do what they do. And by "why" I don't mean "to make a profit." That's a result. It's always a result. By "why," I mean: What's your purpose? What's your cause? What's your belief? Why does your organization exist? Why do you get out of bed in the morning? And why should anyone care? As a result, the way we think, we act, the way we communicate is from the outside in, it's obvious. We go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest thing. But the inspired leaders and the inspired organizations -- regardless of their size, regardless of their industry -- all think, act and communicate from the inside out.
Zakaj? Kako? Kaj? Ta preprosta ideja razloži, zakaj so nekatere organizacije in nekateri voditelji v stanju navdihniti, medtem ko druge oziroma drugi niso. Dovolite, da na hitro razložim izraze. Sleherni posameznik kot tudi sleherna organizacija na planetu ve, kaj počne. Stoodstotno. Nekateri vedo, kako to počno, ali to imenujete strategija diferenciacije vrednosti, edinstvene značilnosti produkta ali strategijo osredotočenja. Vendar zelo, zelo malo ljudi ali organizacij ve, zakaj počno, kar počno. In z »zakaj« ne mislim »zaradi dobička«. To je rezultat. To je vedno rezultat. Z »zakaj« mislim: Kaj je vaš namen? Čemu služite? V kaj verjamete? Čemu vaša organizacija obstaja? Zakaj se zjutraj dvignete iz postelje? In zakaj bi moralo biti komurkoli mar? Posledično je način našega razmišljanja, našega ravnanja, našega komuniciranja od zunaj navznoter. Očitno je. Gremo od najjasnejše zadeve k najmanj oprijemljivi. Vendar navdihnjeni voditelji in navdihnjene organizacije, ne glede na svojo velikost in ne glede na vrsto industrije, vsi razmišljajo, ravnajo in komunicirajo od znotraj navzven.
Let me give you an example. I use Apple because they're easy to understand and everybody gets it. If Apple were like everyone else, a marketing message from them might sound like this: "We make great computers. They're beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. Want to buy one?" "Meh." That's how most of us communicate. That's how most marketing and sales are done, that's how we communicate interpersonally. We say what we do, we say how we're different or better and we expect some sort of a behavior, a purchase, a vote, something like that. Here's our new law firm: We have the best lawyers with the biggest clients, we always perform for our clients. Here's our new car: It gets great gas mileage, it has leather seats. Buy our car. But it's uninspiring.
Naj vam dam primer. Uporabljam Apple, ker jih je enostavno razumeti in vsak zadevo dojame. Če bi bil Apple kot vsi ostali, bi se njihovo reklamno sporočilo lahko glasilo takole: »Proizvajamo krasne računalnike. So lepo oblikovani, enostavni za uporabo in so uporabniku prijazni.« Bi kupili kakšnega? Ne. Vendar je to način, kako večina nas komunicira. Na tak način poteka večina trženja. Na tak način poteka večina prodaje. In na tak način poteka večina medosebne komunikacije. Povemo, kaj počnemo, na kakšen način se razlikujemo ali na kakšen način smo boljši, in pričakujemo določen odziv, nakup, privolitev, nekaj takega. Tu je naša nova odvetniška pisarna. Imamo najboljše odvetnike z najpomembnejšimi strankami. Vedno izpolnimo pričakovanja naših strank. Tu je naš novi avto. Ima majhno porabo. Opremljen je z usnjenimi sedeži. Kupite naš avto. Vendar to ne navdihuje.
Here's how Apple actually communicates. "Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo. We believe in thinking differently. The way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. We just happen to make great computers. Want to buy one?" Totally different, right? You're ready to buy a computer from me. I just reversed the order of the information. What it proves to us is that people don't buy what you do; people buy why you do it.
Tu je način, kako Apple resnično komunicira: »Pri vsem, kar počnemo, verjamemo, da lahko spremenimo status quo. Verjamemo v drugačno razmišljanje. Način, kako izzivamo status quo, je ustvarjanje izdelkov, ki so privlačno oblikovani, enostavni za uporabo in uporabniku prijazni. Kot po naključju ustvarjamo izvrstne računalnike.« Bi kupili enega? Popolnoma drugače, kajneda? Pripravljeni ste kupiti računalnik od mene. Vse, kar sem storil, je, da sem obrnil vrstni red informacij. To nam dokazuje, da ljudje ne kupujejo tistega, kar delate, ljudje kupujejo »zakaj« to počnete. Ljudje ne kupujejo, kaj delate; kupujejo, zakaj to delate.
This explains why every single person in this room is perfectly comfortable buying a computer from Apple. But we're also perfectly comfortable buying an MP3 player from Apple, or a phone from Apple, or a DVR from Apple. As I said before, Apple's just a computer company. Nothing distinguishes them structurally from any of their competitors. Their competitors are equally qualified to make all of these products. In fact, they tried. A few years ago, Gateway came out with flat-screen TVs. They're eminently qualified to make flat-screen TVs. They've been making flat-screen monitors for years. Nobody bought one. Dell came out with MP3 players and PDAs, and they make great quality products, and they can make perfectly well-designed products -- and nobody bought one. In fact, talking about it now, we can't even imagine buying an MP3 player from Dell. Why would you buy one from a computer company? But we do it every day. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. The goal is not to do business with everybody who needs what you have. The goal is to do business with people who believe what you believe.
To nam razloži, zakaj je popolnoma vsaki osebi v tem prostoru nadvse sprejemljiva misel, da kupi Applov računalnik. Vendar smo enako voljni kupiti Applov MP3-predvajalnik ali Applov telefon, ali Applov DVR. A kot sem omenil že prej, Apple je le računalniško podjetje. Ničesar ni, kar bi jih strukturno razlikovalo od kateregakoli njihovega tekmeca. Vsi njihovi tekmeci so enako kvalificirani za proizvodnjo vseh teh izdelkov. Pravzaprav so poskusili. Pred nekaj leti je Gateway dal na tržišče TV aparate s ploščatim zaslonom. Za to so vrhunsko kvalificirani. Leta dolgo so proizvajali monitorje s ploščatimi zasloni. Nihče jih ni kupil. Dell se je pojavil z MP3-predvajalniki in dlančniki. Tudi oni proizvajajo visoko kakovostne izdelke. Tudi njihovi izdelki so povsem lepo oblikovani. A vendar jih nihče ni kupil. Če se zdaj o tem pogovarjamo, si niti zamisliti ne moremo, da bi kupili Dellov MP3-predvajalnik. Le kdo bi kupil MP3-predvajalnik od proizvajalca računalnikov? A to počnemo vsak dan. Ljudje ne kupujejo, kaj delate; kupujejo, zakaj to delate. Cilj ni poslovati z vsakomer, ki potrebuje, kar imate. Cilj je poslovati s tistimi ljudmi,
Here's the best part: None of what I'm telling you is my opinion. It's all grounded in the tenets of biology. Not psychology, biology. If you look at a cross-section of the human brain, from the top down, the human brain is actually broken into three major components that correlate perfectly with the golden circle. Our newest brain, our Homo sapien brain, our neocortex, corresponds with the "what" level. The neocortex is responsible for all of our rational and analytical thought and language. The middle two sections make up our limbic brains, and our limbic brains are responsible for all of our feelings, like trust and loyalty. It's also responsible for all human behavior, all decision-making, and it has no capacity for language.
ki verjamejo v to, kar verjamete sami. In najboljše pri tem ... Nič od tega, kar vam pravim, ni moje mnenje. Vse to je utemeljeno z načeli biologije. Ne psihologije, biologije. Če gledate prerez človeških možganov od zgoraj navzdol, vidite, da so človeški možgani dejansko razdeljeni na tri glavne dele, ki popolnoma sovpadajo z zlatim krogom. Naši najnovejši možgani, možgani homo sapiensa, naš neokorteks, sovpada z nivojem "Kaj?". Neokorteks je odgovoren za naše celotno racionalno in analitično razmišljanje ter jezik. Srednja dva predela predstavljata naše limbične možgane. Naši limbični možgani so odgovorni za vse naše občutke, kot sta zaupanje in zvestoba. Prav tako so odgovorni za človekovo vedenje, odločanje in nimajo sposobnosti predstave jezika.
In other words, when we communicate from the outside in, yes, people can understand vast amounts of complicated information like features and benefits and facts and figures. It just doesn't drive behavior. When we can communicate from the inside out, we're talking directly to the part of the brain that controls behavior, and then we allow people to rationalize it with the tangible things we say and do. This is where gut decisions come from. Sometimes you can give somebody all the facts and figures, and they say, "I know what all the facts and details say, but it just doesn't feel right." Why would we use that verb, it doesn't "feel" right? Because the part of the brain that controls decision-making doesn't control language. The best we can muster up is, "I don't know. It just doesn't feel right." Or sometimes you say you're leading with your heart or soul. I hate to break it to you, those aren't other body parts controlling your behavior. It's all happening here in your limbic brain, the part of the brain that controls decision-making and not language.
Z drugimi besedami: če komuniciramo od zunaj navznoter, da, ljudje so sposobni razumeti velikanske količine zapletenih informacij, kot so funkcije, prednosti in dejstva ter številke. Vendar to ne določa vedenja. Kadar lahko sporočamo od znotraj navzven, neposredno nagovarjamo tisti del možganov, ki nadzira vedenje, in potem dovolimo ljudem, da stvari razumsko opredelijo z oprijemljivimi stvarmi, ki jih povemo in počnemo. Od tu prihajajo odločitve »iz želodca«. Veste, včasih lahko posredujete nekomu vsa dejstva in številke in rekli bodo: »Poznam vsa dejstva in podrobnosti, vendar nimam pravega občutka.« Zakaj bi uporabili glagol »občutiti«? Zato, ker tisti del možganov, ki upravlja z odločanjem, ne upravlja z jezikom. In najboljše, kar zmoremo, je: »Ne vem, nimam pravega občutka.« Ali včasih pravite, da sledite srcu ali da vas vodi duša. Nerad vam povem, da to niso drugi deli telesa, ki obvladujejo vaše vedenje. Vse to se dogaja tu, v vaših limbičnih možganih, tistem delu možganov, ki upravlja z odločanjem in ne z jezikom.
But if you don't know why you do what you do, and people respond to why you do what you do, then how will you ever get people to vote for you, or buy something from you, or, more importantly, be loyal and want to be a part of what it is that you do. The goal is not just to sell to people who need what you have; the goal is to sell to people who believe what you believe. The goal is not just to hire people who need a job; it's to hire people who believe what you believe. I always say that, you know, if you hire people just because they can do a job, they'll work for your money, but if they believe what you believe, they'll work for you with blood and sweat and tears. Nowhere else is there a better example than with the Wright brothers.
A če ne veste, zakaj počnete, kar počnete, in se ljudje odzivajo na to, zakaj počnete, kar počnete, kako lahko potem sploh pripravite ljudi, da vas podpirajo ali kupijo kaj od vas Ali, bolj pomembno, da bodo zvesti in želeli biti del tega, kar počnete vi. Da ponovim: cilj ni zgolj prodajati ljudem, ki potrebujejo, kar imate, temveč prodajati ljudem, ki verjamejo, kar verjamete sami. Cilj ni zgolj zaposliti ljudi, ki potrebujejo službo; cilj je zaposliti ljudi, ki verjamejo, kar verjamete vi. Vedno pravim: veste, če zaposlite ljudi le zaradi tega, ker znajo opraviti delo, delajo za vaš denar. Vendar če zaposlite ljudi, ki verjamejo, kar verjamete vi, bodo delali za vas in ob tem točili solze in potili krvavi pot. In ni ga boljšega primera za to
Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont Langley.
kot brata Wright.
And back in the early 20th century, the pursuit of powered man flight was like the dot com of the day. Everybody was trying it. And Samuel Pierpont Langley had, what we assume, to be the recipe for success. Even now, you ask people, "Why did your product or why did your company fail?" and people always give you the same permutation of the same three things: under-capitalized, the wrong people, bad market conditions. It's always the same three things, so let's explore that. Samuel Pierpont Langley was given 50,000 dollars by the War Department to figure out this flying machine. Money was no problem. He held a seat at Harvard and worked at the Smithsonian and was extremely well-connected; he knew all the big minds of the day. He hired the best minds money could find and the market conditions were fantastic. The New York Times followed him around everywhere, and everyone was rooting for Langley. Then how come we've never heard of Samuel Pierpont Langley?
Večina ljudi ne ve za Samuela Pierponta Langleyja. Svoj čas na začetku dvajsetega stoletja je bilo prizadevanje za motoriziran človeški polet enako kot spletno podjetništvo današnjega dne. Vsakdo se je poskusil v tem. In Samuel Pierpont Langley je imel domnevno vse, kar bi lahko imenovali recept za uspeh. Tudi danes, kadar vprašate ljudi: »Zakaj je propadel vaš izdelek ali zakaj je propadlo vaše podjetje?« vam ljudje dajo vedno enako različico istih treh dejavnikov: premalo kapitala, napačni ljudje, slabe tržne razmere. Vedno so iste tri reči. No, pa raziščimo to. Samuelu Pierpontu Langleyju je vojno ministrstvo dalo 50.000 dolarjev, da pride do dna temu letečemu stroju. Denar ni bilo vprašanje. Imel je položaj na Harvardu ter delal na Inštitutu Smithsonian in imel izredne veze. Poznal je vse velike ume tistega časa. Najel je najboljše možgane, ki se jih je dalo dobiti za denar. In tržne razmere so bile fantastične. New York Times mu je sledil na vsakem koraku. In vsi so navijali za Langleyja. Kako potem to, da še nikoli niste slišali za Samuela Pierpont Langleyja?
A few hundred miles away in Dayton, Ohio, Orville and Wilbur Wright, they had none of what we consider to be the recipe for success. They had no money; they paid for their dream with the proceeds from their bicycle shop. Not a single person on the Wright brothers' team had a college education, not even Orville or Wilbur. And The New York Times followed them around nowhere.
Nekaj sto milj stran v Daytonu v Ohiu, Orville in Wilbur Wright nista imela ničesar, čemur bi lahko rekli recept za uspeh. Nista imela denarja. Svoje sanje sta financirala z izkupičkom iz svoje prodajalne koles. Nihče iz ekipe bratov Wright ni imel več kot srednješolsko izobrazbo, niti Orville ali Wilbur. In New York Times jima ni sledil nikamor.
The difference was, Orville and Wilbur were driven by a cause, by a purpose, by a belief. They believed that if they could figure out this flying machine, it'll change the course of the world. Samuel Pierpont Langley was different. He wanted to be rich, and he wanted to be famous. He was in pursuit of the result. He was in pursuit of the riches. And lo and behold, look what happened. The people who believed in the Wright brothers' dream worked with them with blood and sweat and tears. The others just worked for the paycheck. They tell stories of how every time the Wright brothers went out, they would have to take five sets of parts, because that's how many times they would crash before supper.
Razlika je bila, da je Orvilla in Wilburja gnal cilj, namen, gnalo ju je prepričanje. Verjela sta, da če jima uspe dognati delovanje letečega stroja, da bo to spremenilo tok sveta. Samuel Pierpont Langley je bil drugačen. Želel je biti bogat in želel je biti slaven. Prizadeval si je za rezultat. Prizadeval si je za bogastvo. In glej in se čudi, kaj se je zgodilo. Ljudje, ki so verjeli v sanje bratov Wright, so delali z njima, točili solze in potili krvavi pot. Ostali so delali le za denar. Krožijo tudi zgodbe, kako sta brata Wright vsakič, ko sta šla na teren, vzela pet kompletov delov, kajti tolikokrat sta strmoglavila, preden sta se vrnila na večerjo.
And, eventually, on December 17th, 1903, the Wright brothers took flight, and no one was there to even experience it. We found out about it a few days later. And further proof that Langley was motivated by the wrong thing: the day the Wright brothers took flight, he quit. He could have said, "That's an amazing discovery, guys, and I will improve upon your technology," but he didn't. He wasn't first, he didn't get rich, he didn't get famous, so he quit.
In končno sta 17. decembra 1903 brata Wright poletela, pa niti ni bilo nikogar poleg, da bi bil priča temu. O tem smo slišali nekaj dni pozneje. Nadaljnji dokaz, da je bil Langley motiviran z napačnimi vzgibi, je dejstvo, da je isti dan, ko sta brata Wright poletela, odnehal. Lahko bi rekel: »To je osupljivo odkritje fanta, izboljšal bom vajino tehnologijo,« vendar tega ni storil. Ni bil prvi, ni obogatel, ni postal slaven in je odnehal.
People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. If you talk about what you believe, you will attract those who believe what you believe.
Ljudje ne kupujejo, kaj delate; kupujejo, zakaj to delate. In če govorite o tem, kaj verjamete, boste pritegnili tiste, ki verjamejo, kar verjamete sami.
But why is it important to attract those who believe what you believe? Something called the law of diffusion of innovation, if you don't know the law, you know the terminology. The first 2.5% of our population are our innovators. The next 13.5% of our population are our early adopters. The next 34% are your early majority, your late majority and your laggards. The only reason these people buy touch-tone phones is because you can't buy rotary phones anymore.
Toda zakaj je pomembno, da pritegnete tiste, ki verjamejo, kar verjamete sami? To je nekaj, kar se imenuje zakon širjenja inovacij. Če ne poznate zakona samega, vam je gotovo znano izrazoslovje. Dvainpol odstotka prebivalstva predstavlja naše inovatorje. Naslednjih 13,5 odstotka prebivalstva so zgodnji posvojitelji. Sledi jim 34 odstotkov zgodnje večine, pozna večina in naši zamudniki. Edini razlog, da ti ljudje kupujejo telefone s tipkovnico, je ta, da se tistih z vrtečo ploščo nad številčnico ne dobi več.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
We all sit at various places at various times on this scale, but what the law of diffusion of innovation tells us is that if you want mass-market success or mass-market acceptance of an idea, you cannot have it until you achieve this tipping point between 15 and 18 percent market penetration, and then the system tips. I love asking businesses, "What's your conversion on new business?" They love to tell you, "It's about 10 percent," proudly. Well, you can trip over 10% of the customers. We all have about 10% who just "get it." That's how we describe them, right? That's like that gut feeling, "Oh, they just get it."
Vsi zavzemamo različna mesta ob različnih trenutkih na tej osi, vendar je to, kar nam zakon širitve inovacij pove, da če želite širok tržni uspeh ali množično sprejetje neke zamisli, tega ne morete doseči, dokler ne dosežete kritične točke med 15 in 18 odstotki tržnega deleža. In takrat se sistem prevesi. Rad vprašam poslovneže: »Kolikšen je tržni delež vašega novega posla?« In radi vam s ponosom povedo: »Okoli deset odstotkov!« No, lahko se spotaknete ob deset odstotkov strank. Vsi imamo okoli deset odstotkov tistih, ki »dojamejo«. Saj jih opisujemo tako, kajneda? Podobno je tistemu občutku v želodcu, »No, saj so dojeli.«
The problem is: How do you find the ones that get it before doing business versus the ones who don't get it? So it's this here, this little gap that you have to close, as Jeffrey Moore calls it, "Crossing the Chasm" -- because, you see, the early majority will not try something until someone else has tried it first. And these guys, the innovators and the early adopters, they're comfortable making those gut decisions. They're more comfortable making those intuitive decisions that are driven by what they believe about the world and not just what product is available. These are the people who stood in line for six hours to buy an iPhone when they first came out, when you could have bought one off the shelf the next week. These are the people who spent 40,000 dollars on flat-screen TVs when they first came out, even though the technology was substandard. And, by the way, they didn't do it because the technology was so great; they did it for themselves. It's because they wanted to be first. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it and what you do simply proves what you believe. In fact, people will do the things that prove what they believe. The reason that person bought the iPhone in the first six hours, stood in line for six hours, was because of what they believed about the world, and how they wanted everybody to see them: they were first. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.
Problem je, kako najti tiste, ki dojamejo stvar, še preden se spustite v posel z njimi, in ne s tistimi, ki ne dojemajo? Gre za to tu, to majhno vrzel, ki jo morate zapolniti, kot pravi Jeffrey Moore: »Prečenje prepada.« Poglejte, zgodnja večina namreč ne bo poskusila nečesa, dokler nekdo drugi tega ni poskusil pred njimi. In ti ljudje, inovatorji in zgodnji posvojitelji, nimajo težav s sprejemanjem odločitev iz »želodca«. Lažje sprejemajo tovrstne intuitivne odločitve, ki so osnovane na njihovem prepričanju o svetu in ne zgolj na tem, kateri izdelki so razpoložljivi. To so tisti ljudje, ki so šest ur stali v vrsti, da bi kupili iPhone v trenutku, ko se je pojavil, ko bi z lahkoto zakorakali v trgovino teden pozneje in ga kupili s police. To so tisti ljudje, ki so plačali 40.000 dolarjev za TV sprejemnik s ploščatim zaslonom, ko so se prvič pojavili, čeprav je bila tehnologija pod standardom. In mimogrede: tega niso storili, ker bi bila tehnologija tako veličastna. To so storili zase. Zato, ker so hoteli biti prvi. Ljudje ne kupujejo, kaj delate; kupujejo, zakaj to delate. To, kar počnete, zgolj dokazuje, kar verjamete. Pravzaprav bodo ljudje počeli stvari, ki potrjujejo, kar verjamejo. Razlog, zakaj je nekdo kupil iPhone v prvih šestih urah in zavoljo tega stal v vrsti šest ur, je njegova predstava o svetu in način, kako bi želel, da ga drugi vidijo. Bili so prvi. Ljudje ne kupujejo, kaj delate; kupujejo, zakaj to delate.
So let me give you a famous example, a famous failure and a famous success of the law of diffusion of innovation. First, the famous failure. It's a commercial example. As we said before, the recipe for success is money and the right people and the right market conditions. You should have success then. Look at TiVo. From the time TiVo came out about eight or nine years ago to this current day, they are the single highest-quality product on the market, hands down, there is no dispute. They were extremely well-funded. Market conditions were fantastic. I mean, we use TiVo as verb. I TiVo stuff on my piece-of-junk Time Warner DVR all the time.
Naj vam dam slaven primer, »slaven« propad in slavno zmago zakona širitve inovacije. Najprej »slaven« propad. Gre za tržni primer. Kot smo rekli ravnokar: recept za uspeh so denar, pravi ljudje in prave tržne razmere. Prav. Potem bi morali biti uspešni. Poglejte TiVo. Odkar se je pojavil TiVo, pred kakšnimi osmimi ali devetimi leti, do današnjega dne, predstavlja edini tovrstni izdelek najvišje kakovosti na tržišču. O tem ni dvoma, ni kaj. Bili so izredno dobro financirani. Tržne razmere so bili čudovite. Saj besedo TiVo uporabljamo kot glagol. Sam neprestano »tivam« zadeve na svoji kripi videorekorderski.
(Laughter)
But TiVo's a commercial failure. They've never made money. And when they went IPO, their stock was at about 30 or 40 dollars and then plummeted, and it's never traded above 10. In fact, I don't think it's even traded above six, except for a couple of little spikes.
Vendar TiVo s tržnega vidika predstavlja polomijo. Nikoli niso nič zaslužili. Ko so se pojavile njihove delnice, so bile vredne 30 ali 40 dolarjev. Po tem je vrednost strmo padla in se ni več dvignila nad deset. Pravzaprav dvomim, da dosežejo več kot šest, razen nekaj malih konic.
Because you see, when TiVo launched their product, they told us all what they had. They said, "We have a product that pauses live TV, skips commercials, rewinds live TV and memorizes your viewing habits without you even asking." And the cynical majority said, "We don't believe you. We don't need it. We don't like it. You're scaring us."
Kajti, ko je TiVo ponudil svoj izdelek, so nam povedali vse, kar zmore. Rekli so: »Imamo izdelek, ki lahko da na pavzo prenos v živo, preskoči reklame, lahko »nazaj prevrti« oddaje v živo ter si zapomni vaše gledalske navade, ne da bi vas moral za to vprašati.« In cinična večina je odgovorila: »Ne verjamemo vam. Ne potrebujemo tega. Ni nam všeč. Strašite nas.«
What if they had said, "If you're the kind of person who likes to have total control over every aspect of your life, boy, do we have a product for you. It pauses live TV, skips commercials, memorizes your viewing habits, etc., etc." People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it, and what you do simply serves as the proof of what you believe.
Kaj, ko bi rekli: »Če ste človek, ki želi imeti popolni nadzor nad slehernim vidikom svojega življenja, fant, imamo izdelek točno za vas. Lahko da na pavzo prenos v živo, si zapomni vaše gledalske navade itn. itn.« Ljudje ne kupujejo, kaj delate; kupujejo, zakaj to delate. In kar počnete, je le dokaz za to, kar verjamete.
Now let me give you a successful example of the law of diffusion of innovation. In the summer of 1963, 250,000 people showed up on the mall in Washington to hear Dr. King speak. They sent out no invitations, and there was no website to check the date. How do you do that? Well, Dr. King wasn't the only man in America who was a great orator. He wasn't the only man in America who suffered in a pre-civil rights America. In fact, some of his ideas were bad. But he had a gift. He didn't go around telling people what needed to change in America. He went around and told people what he believed. "I believe, I believe, I believe," he told people. And people who believed what he believed took his cause, and they made it their own, and they told people. And some of those people created structures to get the word out to even more people. And lo and behold, 250,000 people showed up on the right day at the right time to hear him speak.
Zdaj mi dovolite, da vam dam primer uspeha zakona širjenja inovacij. Poleti leta 1963, se je pojavilo 250.000 ljudi v parku v Washingtonu, da bi slišali govor dr. Kinga. Niso razposlali vabil in ni bilo spletne strani, da bi preverili datum. Kako naredite to? No, dr. King ni bil edini veliki govorec v Ameriki. Ni bil edini v Ameriki, ki je trpel v obdobju pred uvedbo državljanskih pravic. Pravzaprav je imel nekaj slabih idej. Vendar je imel dar. Ni šel naokoli in govoril ljudem, kaj bi bilo treba spremeniti v Ameriki. Šel je naokoli in govoril ljudem, v kar je verjel. »Verjamem. Verjamem. Verjamem,« je govoril ljudem. In ljudje, ki so verjeli, kar je verjel, so prevzeli njegov cilj in si ga postavili kot svojega in ga delili z ljudmi. Nekateri od teh ljudi so osnovali strukture, da bi širili besedo med še več ljudi. In glej in se čudi, 250.000 ljudi se je pojavilo na pravi dan ob pravem času,
How many of them showed up for him?
da bi slišali njegove besede.
Zero. They showed up for themselves. It's what they believed about America that got them to travel in a bus for eight hours to stand in the sun in Washington in the middle of August. It's what they believed, and it wasn't about black versus white: 25% of the audience was white.
Koliko njih se je pojavilo zaradi njega? Niti eden. Pojavili so se zaradi sebe. Zaradi tega, kar so verjeli o Ameriki, kar jih je pripravilo do tega, da so potovali po osem ur z busom, da so stali na soncu v Washingtonu sredi avgusta. Šlo je za to, kar so verjeli in ni bilo o črnih proti belim. 25 odstotkov poslušalcev je bilo belih.
Dr. King believed that there are two types of laws in this world: those that are made by a higher authority and those that are made by men. And not until all the laws that are made by men are consistent with the laws made by the higher authority will we live in a just world. It just so happened that the Civil Rights Movement was the perfect thing to help him bring his cause to life. We followed, not for him, but for ourselves. By the way, he gave the "I have a dream" speech, not the "I have a plan" speech.
Dr. King je verjel, da sta dve vrsti zakonov na tem svetu, tisti, ki so postavljeni od neke višje avtoritete, in tisti, ki jih je postavil človek. In šele, ko bodo zakoni človeka v skladu z zakoni, postavljenimi s strani višje avtoritete, bomo živeli v pravičnem svetu. Slučajno se je zgodilo, da je gibanje za državljanske pravice nudilo popolno osnovo, ki mu je pomagala, da oživi svoje stremljenje. Sledili smo mu. Ne zavoljo njega, temveč zavoljo sebe. In mimogrede: Imel je govor »Sanjam ...« in ne »Načrtujem ...«.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Listen to politicians now, with their comprehensive 12-point plans. They're not inspiring anybody. Because there are leaders and there are those who lead. Leaders hold a position of power or authority, but those who lead inspire us. Whether they're individuals or organizations, we follow those who lead, not because we have to, but because we want to. We follow those who lead, not for them, but for ourselves. And it's those who start with "why" that have the ability to inspire those around them or find others who inspire them.
Poslušajte politike danes, z njihovimi razumljivimi 12-točkovnimi načrti. Nikogar ne navdihnejo, saj so voditelji in so tisti, ki vodijo. Voditelji zavzemajo položaje moči ali avtoritete. Vendar nas tisti, ki vodijo, navdihujejo, bodisi so to posamezniki ali organizacije, sledimo tistim, ki vodijo, ne, ker moramo, temveč, ker tako želimo. Sledimo tistim, ki vodijo, ne zavoljo njih, temveč zavoljo sebe. In tisti, ki začnejo z »zakaj« imajo sposobnost, da navdihnejo tiste okoli sebe ali najdejo tiste, ki navdihnejo njih.
Thank you very much.
Hvala lepa.
(Applause)
(Aplavz)