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 objašnjavate kada stvari ne idu po planu? Ili još bolje, kako objašnjavate kada drugi uspevaju da ostvare ciljeve koji su po svim pretpostavkama bili nemogući? Na primer: Zašto je Epl tako inovativan? Godinu za godinom, godinu za godinom, oni su inovativniji od svoje konkurencije. A ipak, to je samo računarska kompanija. Oni su baš kao i svi drugi. Imaju podjednak pristup istim talentima, istim agencijama, istim konsultantima, istim medijima. Onda, zbog čega se čini da oni imaju nešto drugačije? Zbog čega je Martin Luter King vodio Pokret za građanska prava? On nije bio jedini čovek koji je patio u Americi bez građanskih prava. A sigurno nije bio jedini dobar govornik u to vreme. Zašto on? I zašto su baš braća Rajt bila u stanju da razviju leteću spravu kojom upravlja čovek kada je svakako bilo drugih timova koji su bili kvalifikovaniji, s većim budžetima a ipak nisu uspeli da polete već su ih u tome braća Rajt pobedila. Postoji još nešto u ovoj jednačini.
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.
Pre oko tri i po godine došao sam do jednog otkrića, i to otkriće je suštinski promenlo moj pogled na to kako svet funkcioniše. Čak je duboko uticao na način na koji sam ja funkcionisao u svetu. Kako se ispostavlja - postoji šablon - sve velike i inspirativne vođe i organizacije bilo gde u svetu, bilo da se radi o Eplu ili Martinu Luteru Kingu ili braći Rajt, svi oni misle, delaju i komuniciraju na potpuno isti način. A taj način je potpuno suprotan svima drugima. Ja sam ga samo kodirao. A to je verovatno najjednostavnija ideja na svetu. Zovem je zlatni krug.
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.
Zašto? Kako? Šta? Ova mala ideja objašnjava zašto su neke organizacije i neke vođe u stanju da inspirišu onda kada drugi nisu. Dopustite da vam u kratkim crtama objasnim pojmove. Svaka pojedina osoba, svaka pojedina organizacija na ovoj planeti zna šta radi, 100 posto. Neke od njih znaju i kako to rade, bilo da to nazivaju postavkom razlikujuće vrednosti ili sopstvenim procesom ili svojim jedinstvenim predlogom prodaje. Ali veoma, veoma malo ljudi ili organizacija zna zašto rade to što rade. I pod "zašto" ne mislim na "da bi se zaradilo". To je rezultat. To je uvek rezultat. Pod "zašto", mislim: šta je vaša svrha? Šta je vaš cilj? U šta verujete? Zbog čega vaša organizacija postoji? Zbog čega ustajete ujutro iz kreveta? I zašto bi bilo ko mario za to? Pa, kao rezultat toga, način na koji razmišljamo, delamo, komuniciramo, usmeren je spolja ka unutra. To je očigledno. Idemo od najjasnijih stvari ka manje jasnim. Ali, inspirisane vođe i inspirisane organizacije, bez obzira na svoju veličinu i industriju u kojoj su, misle, delaju i komuniciraju od središta ka spolja.
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.
Daću vam jedan primer. Ja koristim Epl zato što se lako koristi i svako može da ga shvati. Kada bi Epl bio kao i svi ostali, njihova marketinška poruka bi mogla glasiti ovako. "Mi pravimo odlične računare. Oni su prelepog dizajna, jednostavni za korišćenje i prilagođeni korisniku. Želite li da ga kupite?" Meh. I to je način na koji većina nas komunicira. Tako se obavlja veći deo marketinga i prodaje. I to je način na koji većina nas međusobno komunicira. Kažemo šta radimo, po čemu smo drugačiji ili po čemu smo bolji i očekujemo nekakvo ponašanje, kupovinu, glas, nešto tako. Ovo je naša nova advokatska kancelarija. Imamo najbolje advokate i najveće klijente. Uvek se zalažemo za klijente koji rade sa nama. Ovo je naš novi automobil. Ima odličnu potrošnju. Ima kožna sedišta. Kupite naš automobil. Ali, ništa od toga ne inspiriše.
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.
Evo kako Epl u stvari komunicira. "Sve što radimo, radimo da bismo menjali status quo. Verujemo da se može drugačije razmišljati. Status quo menjamo kroz stvaranje prelepo dizajniranih proizvoda koji su jednostavni za upotrebu i prilagođeni korisniku. Igrom slučaja - bavimo se proizvodnjom vrhunskih računara. Želite li da kupite jedan?" Potpuno drugačije, zar ne? Spremni ste da od mene kupite računar. A sve što sam uradio jeste promena redosleda datih informacija. Time je dokazano da ljudi ne kupuju ono šta radite; ljudi kupuju ono zbog čega to radite.
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.
Ne kupuju ono šta radite; kupuju ono zbog čega to radite. Ovo objašnjava zbog čega svaka osoba u ovoj prostoriji nema ništa protiv da kupi računar od Epla. Ali, isto tako komotno bi se osećala i da kupi MP3 od Epla ili telefon od Epla, ili DVR od Epla. Ali, kao što sam već rekao, Epl je samo računarska kompanija. Ne postoji ništa što ih strukturno izdvaja od njihove konkurencije. Svi njihovi konkurenti su podjednako kvalifikovani da naprave sve nabrojane proizvode. To su i pokušali. Pre nekoliko godina, Gateway je izbacio flat screen televizore. Oni su potpuno kvalifikovani za proizvodnju flat screen televizora. Pravili su flat screen monitore godinama. Niko nije kupio niti jedan. Dell je počeo sa prodajom MP3 plejera i PDA uređaja. Njihovi proizvodi su vrhunskog kvaliteta. I mogu da osmisle sasvim dobar dizajn za svoje proizvode. Ipak, niko nije kupio nijedan. Zapravo, sada ne možemo ni da zamislimo da kupimo MP3 plejer od kompanije Dell. Zbog čega biste kupovali MP3 od računarske kompanije? Ali, mi to činimo svakog dana. Ljudi ne kupuju ono što radite; ljudi kupuju ono zbog čega radite. Cilj nije da poslujete sa svima kojima je potrebno ono što vi imate. Cilj je da poslujete sa onim ljudima koji veruju u ono u šta vi verujete.
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.
I evo ga najbolji deo priče. Ništa od ovoga što sam vam ispričao nije moje mišljenje. Sve ovo je zasnovano na principima biologije. Ne psihologije, biologije. Ako posmarate presek ljudskog mozga, odozgo na dole, videćete da je ljudski mozak zapravo podeljen u 3 glavna dela koji su u savršenoj korelaciji sa zlatnim krugom. Naš najnoviji mozak, naš homosapienski mozak, naš neokorteks, korespondira sa "šta" nivoom. Neokorteks je odgovoran za sve naše racionalne i analitičke misli kao i za jezik. Dve središnje sekcije čine naš limbički mozak. A naš limbički mozak je odgovoran za sva naša osećanja, kao što su poverenje i lojalnost. Takođe je odgovoran i za sveukupno ljudsko ponašanje, svako donošenje odluka, ali ne poznaje jezik.
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.
Drugim rečima, kada komuniciramo spolja ka unutra da, ljudi mogu razumeti velike količine komplikovanih informacija kao što su činioci, dobiti, činjenice i brojke. Samo to ne pokreće ponašanje. Onda kada komuniciramo iznutra ka spolja, direktno se obraćamo onom delu mozga koji kontroliše ponašanje, a onda dozvoljavamo ljudima da racionalizuju to kroz opipljive stvari koje govorimo i činimo. Odatle dolaze instinktivne odluke. Znate, kao što ponekad možete dati nekome sve podatke, činjenice i brojke, a oni će reći, "Razumem sve činjenice i detalje, ali nekako ne osećam da je to prava stvar." Zbog čega bismo koristili taj glagol, "ne osećam"? Zato što deo mozga koji kontroliše donošenje odluka ne upravlja jezikom. I najbolje što možemo sklepati je: "Ne znam. Nekako ne osećam da je to to." Ili ponekad kažete da se vodite svojim srcem, ili da vas vodi vaša duša. Pa, ne bih da vas razočaram, ali to nisu delovi ti tela koji kontrolišu vaše ponašanje. Sve to se dešava ovde u vašem limbičkom mozgu, delu mozga koji upravlja donošenjem odluka, a ne i 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.
Ali ako ne znate zašto radite to što radite, a ljudi reaguju na to zašto se nešto radi, kako onda uopšte pridobiti ljude da glasaju za vas ili da kupe nešto od vas, ili još bitnije, da budu verni i da žele da budu deo onoga što vi radite. Da ponovim, cilj nije prodati nešto ljudima kojima je to potrebno; cilj je prodati ljudima koji veruju u ono u šta vi verujete. Cilj nije samo zaposliti ljude kojima je posao potreban; već zaposliti ljude koji veruju u ono u šta vi verujete. Uvek kažem da, znate već, ako zaposlite ljude samo zato što umeju da obavljaju posao, oni će raditi za vaš novac, ali ako zaposlite ljude koji veruju u ono šta i vi, oni će raditi za vas sa krvlju, znojem i suzama.
Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont Langley. 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?
A najbolji primer za to nalazimo u radu braće Rajt. Većina ljudi ne zna za Semjuela Pirponta Lenglija. No, početkom 20. veka, trka za razvoj leteće sprave kojom bi upravljao čovek bila je u centru pažnje. Svako je pokušavao. A Semjuel Pirpoint Lengli je imao sve ono što smatramo receptom za uspeh. Mislim na to da uvek kada pitamo, "Zašto je vaš proizvod ili vaša kompanija doživela neuspeh?" odgovori su uvek ista kombinacija ista 3 činioca, manjak kapitala, pogrešni ljudi, loši uslovi na tržištu. Uvek su te tri iste stvari u pitanju, pa hajde da istražimo to. Semjuelu Pirpont Lengliju je Odsek za rat isplatio 50.000 američkih dolara da bi konstruisao tu "leteću mašinu". Novac nije bio problem. Bio je profesor na Harvardu a radio je na institutu Smitsonian, te je bio izuzetno dobro povezan. Poznavao je sve velike umove toga doba. Zaposlio je najbolje stručnjake koje se novcem mogu platiti. A tržišni uslovi bili su fantastični. The New York Times pratio ga je svuda. I svi su ga bodrili. Kako onda da nikada niste čuli za Semjuela Pirpont Lenglija?
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.
Nekoliko stotina milja dalje, u Dejtonu u Ohaju, su Orvil i Vilbur Rajt, koji nisu imali ništa od onog što se smatra receptom za uspeh. Nisu imali novac. Svoj san su gradili sa novcem zarađenim u radnji za bicikle. Niti jedna osoba u timu braće Rajt nije imala fakultetsko obrazovanje, pa čak ni Orvil ni Vilbur. A New York Times ih nije pratio nigde.
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 leži u tome, što su Orvil i Vilbur vođeni vizijom, svrhom, verovanjem. Verovali su da ako bi uspeli da konstruišu ovu leteću mašinu, da bi taj izum promenio tok sveta. Semjuel Pirpont Lengli je bio drugačiji. On je želeo da bude bogat i želeo je da bude poznat. On je jurio rezultat. On je jurio bogatstvo. Pazite sad šta se desilo. Ljudi koji su verovali u san braće Rajt radili su sa njima uz krv, znoj i suze. Članovi drugog tima radili su samo za platu. A oni pričaju anegdote o tome kako su braća Rajt svaki put sa sobom nosili pet kompleta delova, zato što bi se toliko puta srušili pre nego što bi se vratili kući na večeru.
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.
I konačno, 17. decembra 1903, braća Rajt su poletela po prvi put, i niko nije bio prisutan da to doživi. Za to se saznalo nekoliko dana kasnije. A dalji dokaz da je Lengli bio motivisan pogrešnim stvarima, jeste to što je dao otkaz onog dana kada su braća Rajt imala svoj prvi let. Mogao je da kaže, "To je neverovatan izum, momci, i ja ću vaš izum dodatno unaprediti", ali nije. Nije bio prvi, nije se obogatio, nije postao slavan, pa je odustao.
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.
Ljudi ne kupuju ono šta radite; oni kupuju ono zbog čega radite. A ako govorite o onome u šta verujete, privući ćete one koji veruju u isto ono u šta vi verujete.
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.
Ali, zašto je važno privući one koji veruju u ono u šta sami verujemo? U pitanju je nešto što zovemo zakonom difuzije inovacija. A ako ne poznajete teoriju, definitivno poznajete terminologiju. Prva dva i po procenta naše populacije jesu naši inovatori. Sledećih 13,5 procenata naše populacije jesu rani prihvatioci. Sledeća 34 procenta jeste rana većina, kasna većina i oni koji kasne. Jedini razlog zbog čega ovi ljudi kupuju digitalne telefone jeste taj što se više ne mogu kupiti roto-telefoni.
(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."
Svi se u različitim trenucima nalazimo na različitim mestima ove skale, ali ono što nam zakon difuzije inovacija govori jeste da ako hoćete uspeh na masovnom tržištu ili masovno prihvatanje neke ideje, ne možete to ostvariti dok ne dosegnete ovaj prelaz između 15 i 18 procenta penetracije tržišta. I onda sistem funkcioniše. Volim da pitam kompanije: "Koji procenat kupaca ste ostvarili?" A one vole da odgovore ponosno, "O, pa već oko 10 odsto". Pa, svako se može spotaći na 10 posto kupaca. Svi mi imamo tih 10 procenata koji naprosto "kapiraju". To je kao onaj instinktivni osećaj, "O, oni jednostavno kapiraju".
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 u sledećem: kako naći one koji kapiraju pre nego što poslujete s njima, nasuprot onima koji ne kapiraju? Dakle, govorim o ovom malom prostoru između, koji morate popuniti, "prevazići rascep", kako bi to rekao Džefri Mur. Zato što, znate, rana većina neće probati nešto dok neko drugi to već nije probao. A ovi drugi, inovatori i rani prihvatioci, oni su vrlo slobodni u donošenju tih intuitivnih odluka. Oni su mnogo slobodniji u donošenju onih intuitivnih odluka koje proizlaze iz njihovih ličnih uverenja o svetu, a ne jednostavno iz dostupnosti proizvoda na tržištu. To su oni koji su stajali u redu šest sati kako bi kupili iPhone čim bi se pojavio, iako su mogli da ušetaju u radnju sledeće nedelje i uzmu jedan sa police. Ovo su ljudi koji su potrošili 40.000 dolara na TV sa ravnim ekranom, onda kada su se tek pojavili, iako je tehnologija izrade bila ispod standarda. I da se zna, oni nisu kupovali televizore zbog odlične tehnologije. Oni su to učinili za sebe. Zato što su hteli da budu prvi. Ljudi ne kupuju ono šta radite; oni kupuju ono zbog čega to radite. A ono što radite jednostavno dokazuje to u šta verujete. Činjenica je, ljudi će raditi ono što potvrđuje njihova uverenja. Razlog zbog kog je ta osoba kupila iPhone tokom prvih šest sati prodaje, i stajala u redu šest sati jeste njen pogled na svet, i kako želi da je svi vide. Oni su bili prvi. Ljudi ne kupuju ono šta radite; oni kupuju ono zbog čega to radite.
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.
Dopustite da vam predočim poznati primer, jedan poznat neuspeh i jedan poznat uspeh zakona difuzije inovacija. Najpre, poznati neuspeh. U pitanju je komercijalni primer. Kao što smo ranije utvrdili, recept za uspeh čine novac, pravi ljudi i pravi uslovi na tržištu. Onda bi trebalo da uspete. Pogledajte TiVo. Od kada se TiVo pojavio, pre oko osam ili devet godina, do dana današnjeg, oni su jedinstven najkvalitetniji proizvod na tržištu, kapa dole, tu nema spora. Bili su izuzetno dobro finansirani. Uslovi na tržištu su bili fantastični. Mislim, TiVo koristimo kao glagol. Stalno tivujem stvari na svom đubretu od Time Warner DVR-a.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Ali, TiVo predstavlja komercijalni neuspeh. Nikada nisu zaradili novac. I kada su krenuli sa inicijalnom javnom ponudom, cena njihove akcije je bila oko 30 ili 40 dolara a onda se stropoštala i nikada nije trgovana iznad 10. Ustvari, mislim da nije trgovana za više od šest, izuzev u par navrata.
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."
A to je zato što je TiVo, kada je lansirao svoj proizvod, rekao sve što je imao da kaže. Rekli su, "Imamo proizvod koji pauzira žive TV programe, preskače reklame, premotava unazad emisije koje idu uživo i pamti vaše gledalačke navike čak i bez vašeg zahteva". Cinična većina je rekla, "Ne verujemo. Nije nam potrebno. Ne sviđa nam se. Plašite 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.
A šta bi bilo da su rekli, "Ako ste osoba koja voli da ima potpunu kontrolu nad svakim aspektom svog života, o, onda mi imamo pravi proizvod za vas. Pauzira žive TV programe, preskače reklame, pamti vaše gledalačke navike, itd, itd." Ljudi ne kupuju ono što radite; nego ono zbog čega to radite. A ono šta radite jednostavno služi kao dokaz onoga u šta verujete.
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.
Sad ću vam dati jedan uspešan primer zakona difuzije inovacija. U leto 1963, 250.000 ljudi se pojavilo na šetalištu u Vašingtonu da čuje govor dr. Kinga. Niko nije poslao pozivnice, nije postojao veb-sajt za potvrdu datuma. Kako se to postiže? Pa, dr. King nije bio jedini čovek u Americi sa izvrsnim govorničkim sposobnostima. On nije bio jedini čovek u Americi koji je patio u Americi bez civilnih prava. U stvari, neke njegove ideje su bile loše. Ali, on je imao dar. On nije išao unaokolo govoreći ljudima šta je potrebno promeniti u Americi. On je išao unaokolo i govorio ljudima u šta veruje. "Ja verujem. Ja verujem. Ja verujem", govorio je ljudima. A ljudi koji su verovali u ono u šta je on verovao preuzeli su njegov pokret i učinili ga svojim, i pričali su ljudima. A neki od ovih ljudi su stvorili mehanizme prenošenja priče još većem broju ljudi. I pogledajte, 250.000 ljudi se pojavilo pravog dana, u pravi čas, da čuje njegov govor.
How many of them showed up for him? 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 se ljudi pojavilo zbog njega? Nula. Došli su zbog sebe. Zbog svojih uverenja o Americi oni su putovali u autobusu osam sati, kako bi stajali u usijanom Vašingtonu u sred avgusta. Zbog onog u šta su verovali, a nije bio u pitanju sukob crnih i belih. 25 odsto publike su bili belci.
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 verovao da postoje dve vrste zakona na ovom svetu, oni koje je stvorio viši autoritet i oni koje je stvorio čovek. I tek kada se svi zakoni koje je stvorio čovek usaglase sa zakonima koje je stvorio viši autoritet živećemo u pravednom svetu. Samo je slučajno Pokret za građanska prava bio savršen za to da mu pomogne u oživljavanju njegovog pokreta. Mi nismo pratili njega, već same sebe. I usput budi rečeno, on je održao govor "Ja imam san", a ne "Ja imam plan".
(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.
Slušajte političare sada sa njihovim sveobuhvatnim planovima u 12 tačaka. Oni nikoga ne inspirišu. Zato što postoje vođe i postoje oni koji vode. Vođe imaju poziciju moći ili autoriteta. Ali oni koji vode jesu oni koji nas inspirišu. Bilo da su to pojedinci ili organizacije, mi pratimo one koji vode, ne zato što moramo, već zato što hoćemo. Mi pratimo one koji vode, ne zbog njih, već zbog sebe samih. I oni koji započnu jedno "zašto" jesu oni koji imaju sposobnost da inspirišu one oko sebe ili da nađu one koji će ih inspirisati.
Thank you very much.
Hvala vam najlepše.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)