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.
Si e spjegoni kur gjerat nuk shkojne si ne supozojme? Ose me mire, si e spjegoni kur te tjeret jane ne gjendje per te arritur gjera qe duken se sfidojne te gjitha supozimet? Per shembull: Pse eshte Apple kaq i avancuar? Vit pas viti, pas viti, pas viti, ato jane me te avancuar se te gjithe konkurentet e tyre. Dhe deri tani, ato jane thjesht nje kompani kompjuterash. Ato jane si gjithe te tjeret. Ato kane te njejtin akses tek i njejti talent, te e njejta agjensi, te te njejtet konsulent, e te njejtjen media. Atehere pse eshte ajo, qe ata duken sikur kane dicka ndryshe? Pse ishte Martin Luter Kingu qe udhehoqi levizjen per te drejtat civile? Ai nuk ishte njeriu i vetem qe vuajti para te drejtave civile ne Amerike. Dhe ai me siguri nuk ishte oratori i vetem i madh i dites. Pse ai? Dhe pse eshte qe vellezerit Wright ishin ne gjendje te kuptonin fuqine e kontrollit, drejtimin e fluturimit ku atje kishte me siguri grupe te tjera qe ishin me te kualifikuar, me mire te financuara, dhe ato nuk kishin arritur fluturimin e njeriut te fuqizuar dhe vellezerit Wright i munden ato ne te. Ka dicka tjeter ne loje ketu.
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.
Rreth tre e gjysem vite me pare une bera nje zbulim, dhe ky zbulim thellesisht ndryshoi pikepamjen time ne sesi mendoja une se bota funksiononte. Dhe kjo thellesisht ndryshoi menyren sesi une veproj ne te. Sic rezulton -- ka nje model -- sic rezulton, te gjithe udheheqesit e medhenj e frymezues dhe organizatat ne bote, sic eshte Apple, ose Martin Luter King ose vellezerit Wright, ato te gjithe mendojne, veprojne dhe komunikojne ne te njejten menyre. Dhe kjo eshte e kunderta e plote me te gjithe te tjeret. Gjithcka qe une bera ishte ta kodifikoja ate. Dhe kjo eshte ndoshta ideja me e thjeshte ne bote. Une e quaj kete, rrethin e arte.
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.
Pse? Si? Cfare? Kjo ide e vogel spjegon pse disa organizata dhe disa udheheqes jane ne gjendje te frymezojne nderkohe qe te tjeret nuk munden. Me lejoni te percaktoj termat me te vertete shume shpejt. Cdo person i vetem, cdo organizate ne kete planet dine se cfare ato bejne, 100 perqind. Disa dine sesi ato e realizojne ate, sesi ju e quani ate, vlera e diferencuar e propozimit tuaj ose procesi juaj i pronesimit ose USP juaj. Por, shume shume pak njerez ose organizata dine pse ato bejne ate qe bejne. Dhe duke u nisur nga "pse" une nuk nenkuptoj "per te bere nje fitim". Ky eshte nje rezultat. Eshte gjithmone nje rezultat. Me "pse" une nenkuptoj: cili eshte qellimi juaj? Cili eshte shkaku juaj? Cili eshte besimi juaj? Pse ekziston organizata juaj? Pse ngriheni nga shtrati ne mengjes? Dhe pse duhet dikush te kujdeset? E pra, si rezultat, menyra sesi ne mendojme, menyra sesi ne veprojme, menyra sesi ne komunikojme eshte per se brendshmi. Eshte e qarte. Ne shkojme nga gjerat me te qarta tek gjerat me te turbullta. Por udheheqesit e frymezuar dhe organizatat frymezuese pamvaresisht madhesise se tyre, pamvaresisht industrise se tyre, te gjithe mendojne, veprojne dhe komunikojne nga brenda - jashte.
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.
Me lejoni t'ju jap nje shembull. Jam duke marre shembull Apple sepse eshte e thjesht per tu kuptuar dhe cdokush e kupton ate. Nese Apple do te ishte si gjithe te tjeret, nje mesazh marketingu prej tyre do te tingellonte ne kete menyre. "Ne bejme kompjutera te mire. Ato jane te dizenjuara bukur, te lehta ne perdorim dhe komode ne akses. Do te blesh nje? "Blah. Dhe kjo eshte menyra sesi pjesa me e madhe komunikon. Kjo eshte menyra sesi pjesa me e madhe e marketingut realizohet. Kjo eshte menyra sesi shitjet me te medha realiizohen. Dhe sesi pjesa me e madhe prej nesh komunikon Ne themi se cfare bejme, ne themi sesi jemi te ndryshem ose si jemi me te miret dhe ne presim nje lloj sjelljeje, nje blerje, nje vote, dicka te ngjashme me te. Ketu eshte firma jone ligjore e re. Ne kemi avokatet me te mire me klientet me te fuqishem. Ne gjithmone veprojme per klientet tane qe bejne biznes me ne. Kjo eshte makina jone e re. Ajo merr kilometrazh te madh te gazit, Ajo ka ndenjese lekure. Blieni makinen tone. Por kjo nuk eshte frymezuese.
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.
Kjo eshte menyra sesi Apple ne te vertete komunikon. "Cdo gje qe ne bejme, ne besojme ne sfidimin e status quo-s. Ne besojme ne te menduarit ndryshe. Menyra sesi ne sfidojme status quo-ne realizohet duke bere produktet tona te dizenjuara bukur, te lehta ne perdorim dhe komode ne akses. Ne ndodhemi vetem per te bere kompjuterat me te mire. Doni te blini nje?" Shume e ndryshme apo jo? Ju jenu te gatshem per te blere nje kompjuter nga une. Gjithcka qe bera ishte vetem te ndryshoja menyren e dhenies se informacionit Ajo cka na verteton neve eshte qe njerezit nuk blejne cfare ti ben; njerezit blejne pse ti e ben ate. Njerezit nuk blejne cfare ti ben; blejne pse ti e ben ate.
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.
Kjo spjegon psene se cdo person ne kete dhome eshte krejtesisht i qete per te blere nje kompjuter nga Apple. Por ne jemi gjithashtu krejtesisht te qete duke blere nje MP3 nga Apple, ose nje telefon nga Apple ose nje DVR nga Apple. Por sic thashe me pare, Apple eshte vetem nje kompani kompjuteri. Nuk ka asgje qe i dallon ato nga ana strukturore nga cdo konkurent i tyre. Konkurentet e tyre jane te gjithe njelloj te kualifikuar per te bere te gjithe keto produkte. Ne te vertete, ato provuan. Disa vjet me pare, Gateway doli ne treg me TV me ekran te sheshte. Ato jane jashtezakonisht te kualifikuar per te bere TV me ekran te sheshte. Ato kane qene duke bere ekrane te sheshte per vite me rradhe. Askush nuk ka blere. Dell doli ne treg me MP3 dhe PDAs. Dhe ato bejne produkte me kualitet te mire. Dhe ato mund te bejne produkte te dizenjuara shume mire. Dhe askush nuk ka blere. Ne te vertete, duke folur rreth saj tani, ne nuk mund ta imagjinojme te blejme nje MP3 nga Dell. Pse mund te blinit ju nje MP3 nga nje kompani kompjuterash? Por ne e bejme kete perdite. Njerezit nuk blejne cfare ti ben; blejne pse ti e ben ate. Qellimi nuk eshte te besh biznes me cdokend qe ka nevoje cfare ti ke. Qellimi eshte te besh biznes me njerez
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.
qe besojne cfare ti beson. Kjo eshte pjesa me e bukur. Asnjera nga keto qe po ju them s'eshte opinioni im. Eshte e gjitha e bazuar ne parimet e biologjise. Jo psikologjise, biologjise. Nese shikon ne nje nderseksion te trurit te njeriut, duke kerkuar nga lart poshte, Ajo cka ti shikon eshte qe truri i njeriut eshte ne te vertete i shkaterruar ne tri komponente kryesore qe lidhen ne menyre te perkryer me rrethin e arte. Trurit tone te ri, trurit tone homo-sapiens neokorteksit tone, qe korrespondon me nivelin e "cfare". Neokorteksi eshte i pergjegjshem per te gjitha mendimet tona racionale, analitike dhe gjuhesore. Hapesira mes dy seksioneve perben luhatjet tona te trurit. Dhe luhatjet tona trurore jane te pergjegjshem per te gjitha ndjenjat tona, si besimi dhe besnikeria. Eshte gjithashtu pergjegjes per te gjitha sjelljet e njeriut, per te gjitha vendim-marrjet dhe nuk ka kapacitet per gjuhe.
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.
Me fjale te tjera, kur ne komunikojme per se brendshmi njerezit mund te kuptojne sasi te medha informacionesh te komplikuara si karakteristikat dhe perfitimet dhe faktet dhe figurat. Kjo thjeshte nuk drejton sjelljen. Kur ne mund te komunikojme nga brenda - jashte, ne jemi duke folur drejtperdrejte me pjesen e trurit qe kontrollon sjelljen, dhe me pas lejojme njerezit per ta arsyetuar ate, me gjerat e prekshme qe themi dhe bejme. Kjo eshte ajo nga te cilat vendimet e brendshme vijne. Ju e dine, qe ndonjehere ju mund ti jepni dikujt te gjitha faktet dhe figurat, dhe ato te thone, "Une e di cfare te gjitha faktet dhe detajet thone, por kjo thjesht nuk eshte e drejte". Pse duhet ne te perdorim foljen, nuk "ndihet" e drejte? Sepse pjesa e trurit qe kontrollon vendim - marrjet, nuk kontrollon gjuhen. Dhe me e mira qe ne mund te grumbullojme eshte, "Nuk e di. Ajo thjesht nuk ndihet e drejte". Ose ndonjehere ti thua je duke udhehequr me zemren tende, ose je duke udhehequr me shpirtin tend. Por, une urrej ta thyej ate per ju, ato nuk jane pjese te parendesishme te trupit qe kontrollojne sjelljen tuaj. Gjithcka ndodh ketu ne luhatjet tone trurore, pjese e trurit qe kontrollon vendim - marrjet dhe jo gjuhen.
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.
Por nese nuk di pse e ben ate qe ben, dhe njerezit pergjigjen me pse e ben ate qe ben, atehere si ju i merrni njerezit te votojne per ju, ose te blejne dicka nga ju, ose, me e rendesishmja, ji besnik dhe do te jesh pjese e asaj qe eshte ajo qe ben ti. Perseri, qellimi nuk eshte vetem ti shesesh njerezve qe kane nevoje ate qe ti ke; qellimi eshte ti shesesh njerezve qe besojne ate cfare ti beson. Qellimi nuk eshte vetem te punesosh njerez qe kane nevoje per pune; eshte te punesosh njerez qe besojne ate cfare ti beson. Une gjithmone e them kete, nese puneson njerez vetem sepse ato dine te bejne punen, ato do te punojne per leket e tua, por nese puneson njerez qe besojne cfare ti beson, ato do te punojne per ty me gjak, djerse dhe lot Dhe ne asnje vend tjeter nuk ka nje shembull me te mire te kesaj
Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont Langley.
sesa me vellezerit 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?
Shume njerez nuk dine rreth Samuel Pierpont Langley. Dhe po te kthehemi ne fillimet e shekullit 20, ndjekja e fuqizimit te njeriut te fluturues ishte si faqja e webit te dites. Cdokush po e provonte ate. Dhe Samuel Pierpont Langley kishte, ate qe ne supozonim, per te qene receta e suksesit. Ajo qe dua te them, eshte qe edhe tani ju pyesni njerezit. "Pse produkti ose pse kompania juaj falimentoi?" dhe njerezit gjithmone te japin nderrim te njejte te tre gjerave te njejta, nen - kapitalizimi, njerezit e gabuar, kushtet e keqija te tregut. Jane gjithmone tre gjera te njejta, le ti zbulojme ato. Samuel Pierpont Langley-it i eshte dhene 50,000 dollar nga Departamenti i Luftes per te zbuluar makinen fluturuese. Paraja nuk ishte problem. Ai kishte nje pozicion ne Harvard dhe punonte tek Smithsoanian dhe ishte i mire lidhur. Ai dinte te gjitha mendjet e medha te dites. Ai punesoi mendjet me te mira qe paraja mund te gjente. Dhe kushtet e tregut ishin fantastike. New York Times e ndoqi ate gjithandej. Dhe cdonjeri e kishte qellimin per Langley. Atehere si ka mundesi qe asnjehere nuk keni degjuar rreth Samuel Pierpont Langley?
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.
Disa qindra kilometra larg ne Dayton Ohio, Orville dhe Wilbur Wright nuk kishte asgje nga ajo qe ne konsiderojme per te qene receta e suksesit. Ato nuk kishin para. Ato paguanin per endrrat e tyre me te ardhurat nga dyqani i tyre i bicikletave. Asnje person i vetem nga skuadra e vellezerve Wright s'kishte nje edukim nga universiteti, as edhe Orville ose Wilbur. Dhe New York Times i ndoqi ato rreth asgjeje.
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.
Ndryshimi ishte, Orville dhe Wilbur u debuan nga nje shkak, nga nje qellim, nga nje besim. Ato besuan qe nese ato do te mund te zbulonin kete makine fluturuese, kjo do te ndryshonte rrjedhen e botes. Samuel Pierpont Lngley ishte ndryshe. Ai donte te behej i pasur, dhe ai donte te behej i famshem. Ai ishte ne ndjekje te rezultatit. Ai ishte ne ndjekje te pasurimit. Dhe pak e nga pak, shikoni cfare ndodhi. Njerezit qe besuan ne endrren e vellezerve Wright, punuan me to me gjak, djerse dhe lot. Te tjeret punuan sa per te ardhurat. Dhe ato tregojne histori sesi vellezerit Wright cdo here qe dilnin, u duhej te merrnin pese grupe pjesesh, sepse ky ishte numri qe sa here ato do te perplaseshin perpara se te vinin aty per darke.
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.
Dhe, perfundimisht, ne 17 Dhjetor, 1903 vellezerit Wright bene nje fluturim dhe asnje nuk ishte aty edhe vetem per ta perjetuar ate. Ne zbuluam rreth saj disa dite me vone. Dhe me tej u vertetua qe Langley ishte i motivuar nga nje gje e gabuar, dita qe vellezerit Wright nisen fluturimin, ai hoqi dore. Ai mund te kishte thene, "Ky eshte nje zbulim i mrekullueshem djema, dhe une do ta permiresoj me teknologji," por ai se beri. Ai nuk ishte i pari, ai nuk u pasurua, ai nuk u be i famshem, keshtu qe hoqi dore.
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.
Njerezit nuk blejne cfare ti ben; ato blejne pse ti e ben ate. Dhe nese ti flet rreth asaj cfare ti beson, ti do te terheqesh ato qe besojne cfare ti beson.
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.
Po pse eshte e rendesishme te terheqesh ato qe besojne cfare ti beson? Dicka e quajtur ligji i shperndarjes se inovacionit. Dhe nese ti nuk e di ligjin, ti pa dyshim di terminologjine. E para dy e gjysem perqind e popullise tone jane novatoret tone. 13 e ardhshem dhe gjysem perqind e popullsise tone jane adaptuesit tone te hershem. 34 perqindjet e tjere jane shumica juaj e fillimit, shumica juaj e fundit dhe prapambjetjet tuaja. Arsyeja e vetme qe keta njerez blejne telefona me prekje eshte sepse ju nuk mund te bline me telefona me rrotullim.
(Laughter)
(Qeshje)
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."
Ne te gjithe ulemi ne vende te ndryshme ne kohe te ndryshme ne kete shkalle, por cfare ligji i shperndarjes se inovacionit na tregon neve eshte qe nese ju doni sukses masiv te tregut ose pranim masiv te tregut te ndonje ideje ju nuk mund ta keni ate derisa ju te arrini kete pike kthese ndermjet 15 dhe 18 perqind depertim te tregut. Dhe me pas keshillat e sistemit. Dhe une adhuroj te pyes bizneset, "Cfare eshte konvertimi juaj ne biznes te ri?" Dhe ato adhurojne te te thone, "Oh, eshte rreth 10 perqind," me krenari. E pra, ju mund te taksoni mbi 10 perqind te klienteve. Ne te gjithe kemi rreth 10 perqind qe vetem e "marrim ate". Kjo eshte menyra sesi ne i pershkruajme ato, ne te vertete. Kjo eshte si ajo ndjenja e thelle, "Oh, ato vetem e marrin ate."
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.
Problemi eshte: Si do ti gjeni ato qe e marrin ate perpara se te jesh duke bere biznes me to kunder atyre qe nuk e kuptojne ate? Pra kjo eshte ketu, ky boshllek i vogel, qe ti duhet te mbyllesh, ashtu si Jeffrey Moore e quan ate, "te kalosh humneren". Sepse, ju e shihni, shumica e hershme nuk do te provoj dicka derisa dikush tjeter ta kete provuar ate perpara. Dhe keto djem, Inovatoret dhe adaptuesit e hershem, ato jane rehat duke marre keto vendime te thella. Ato jane me rehat duke marre keto vendime intuitive qe drejtohen nga cfare ti beson rreth botes dhe jo vetem ndaj cfare produkti eshte i disponueshem. Ato jane njerezit qe qendruan ne rradhe per gjashte ore per te blere nje iPhone kur ai doli ne treg, kur mund te kalonin ne dyqan vetem javen tjeter dhe te blinin nje nga rafti. Keto jane njerezit 40,000 dollare ne ekranet e sheshta te TV kur ato dolen per here te pare dhe pse teknologjia ka qene nen standart. Dhe, meqe ta fjala, ato nuk e bene ate sepse teknologjia ishte shume e mire. Ato e bene ate per veten e tyre. Eshte sepse ato donin te ishin te paret. Njerezit nuk blejne cfare ti ben: ato blejne pse ti e ben ate. Dhe ajo cfare ti ben thjeshtesisht verteton cfare ti beson. Ne te vertete, njerezit do te bejne gjerat qe vertetojne cfare ato besojne. Arsyeja qe ai njeri bleu iPhonin ne gjashte oret e para, duke qendruar ne rradhe per gjashte ore, ishte per shkak te asaj cfare ato besonin rreth botes, dhe sesi ato donin qe cdonjeri ti shihte ato. Ato ishin te paret. Njerezit nuk blejne cfare ti ben; ato blejne pse ti e ben ate.
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.
Keshtu qe me lejoni t'ju jap nje shembull te famshem, nje deshtim te famshem dhe nje sukses te famshem te ligjit te shperndarjes se inovacionit. Se pari, deshtimin e famshem. Kjo eshte nje shembull reklamash. Sic thame me pare, nje sekond me pare, receta per sukses eshte paraja dhe njerezit e duhur dhe kushtet e pershtatshme te tregut. Apo jo? Ju duhet te keni sukses me pas. Shikoni TiVo. Nga koha qe TiVo doli ne skene, rreth tete ose nente vite me pare nga dita e sotme, ato jane produkti i thjeshte me kualitet te larte ne treg, duart poshte, nuk ka asnje mosmarreveshje. Ato ishin shume mire financuar. Kushtet e tregut ishin fantastike. Dua te them, e perdorim tani TiVo-n si folje. Une shkarkoj video ne video regjistruesin tim te vjeteruar po thuaj cdo kohe
(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.
Por TiVo eshte nje reklame e deshtuar. Ato nuk kane bere asnjehere para. Dhe kur ata kaluan ne IPO, aksionet e tyre ishin rreth 30 ose 40 dollare dhe me pas rane, dhe ajo kurre nuk eshte tregtuar me mbi 10. Ne te vertete, une as nuk mendoj qe eshte tregtuar me mbi 6, me perjashtim te disa pjeseve te vogla.
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."
Sepse sic e shihni, kur TiVo nisi produktin e tyre, ato na treguan neve gjithcka cfare ato kishin. Ato thane, "Ne kemi nje produkt qe e stopon ne moment TV, qe kalon reklamat, qe leviz perpara ate cfare po sheh ne TV dhe qe memorizon shprehjet tuaja te shikimit edhe pa e pyetur." Dhe shumica cinike tha, "Ne nuk te besojme ty. Ne nuk e duam ate. Ne nuk e pelqejme ate. Ti je duke na frikesuar ne."
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.
Por nese ato do te thonin, "Nese ju jeni tipi i njeriut qe pelqen te kete kontroll te plote ne cdo aspekt te jetes, djale, a kemi ne nje produkt per ty. Kjo stopon ne moment TV, kalon reklamat, memorizon shprehjet e tua te shikimit, etj....etj." Njerezit nuk blejne cfare ti ben; ato blejne pse ti e ben ate. Dhe ajo cfare ti ben vetem na sherben neve te vertetojme ate cfare ti beson.
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.
Tani me lini t'ju jap nje shembull te suksesshem te ligjit te shperndarjes se inovacionit. Ne veren e 1963, 250,000 njerez u shfaqen ne qendren tregtare ne Washington per te degjuar fjalimin e Dr. King. Ato nuk derguan ftesa dhe nuk kishte nje website per te kontrolluar daten. Si e ben kete? E pra, Dr. King nuk ishte burri i vetem ne Amerike qe ishte nje orator i madh. Ai nuk ishte burri i vetem ne Amerike qe vuajti para te drejtave civile ne Amerike. Ne te vertete, disa prej ketyre ideve ishin te gabuar. Por ai kishte nje dhurate. Ai nuk shkonte perreth per ti treguar njerezve cfare nevojitej per te ndryshuar Ameriken. Ai shkonte perreth dhe i tregonte njerezve ate cfare ai besonte. "Une besoj. Une besoj, Une besoj," i thoshte njerezve. Dhe njerezit qe besonin cfare ai besonte moren ceshtjen e tij, dhe e bene te tyren, dhe i thane njerezve. Dhe disa prej ketyre njerezve krijuan struktura per te marre fjalen edhe te me shume njerezve. Dhe pak e nga pak, 250,000 njerez u shfaqen ne diten e sakte, ne oren e sakte,
How many of them showed up for him?
per te degjuar fjalimin e tij.
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.
Sa prej tyre u shfaqen aty per ate? Zero. Ato u shfaqen aty per veten e tyre. Eshte cfare ato besonin per Ameriken qe i beri ato te udhetonin me autobus per tete ore, e te qendronin ne diell ne Washington ne mes te gushtit. Eshte cfare ato besojne, dhe nuk ishte rreth te zezakeve kunder te bardheve. 25 perqind e audiences ishte e bardhe.
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 besonte qe jane dy tipe ligjesh ne bote, ato qe jane te ndertuar nga nje autoritet i larte dhe ato qe jane te ndertuar nga njeriu. Dhe jo derisa te gjitha ligjet qe jane te ndertuara nga njeriu jane ne perputhje me ligjet qe jane bere nga autoritet e larta. ne do te jetojme ne nje bote te drejte. Kjo ka ndodhur vetem ne menyre qe Levizja per te Drejtat Civile te ishte gjeja perfekte per ta ndihmuar ate qe te sillte ceshtjen e tij ne jete. Ne e ndoqem, jo per ate, por per veten tone. Dhe sa per ta ditur, ai na tha fjalimin e "Une kam nje enderr", jo fjalimin e "Une kam nje plan".
(Laughter)
(Qeshje)
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.
Degjoni politikanet tani me planet e tyre te plote prej 12 - pikave. Ato nuk jane duke frymezuar askend. Sepse aty ka drejtues dhe ka nga ato qe drejtojne. Udheheqesit kane nje pozicion fuqie ose autoriteti. Por ato qe udheheqin na frymezojne neve. Edhe nese ato jane individe ose organizata, ne i ndjekim ato qe udheheqin, jo sepse ne duhet ti ndjekim, por sepse ne duam. Ne i ndjekim ato qe udheheqin, jo per ate, por per veten tone. Dhe eshte kjo ajo qe fillon me "pse" qe ka aftesine per te frymezuar ato rreth nesh ose te gjej te tjere qe frymezojne ato.
Thank you very much.
Shume faleminderit.
(Applause)
(Duartrokitje)