Rory Sutherland: Perspective is everything

Translator: Timothy Covell Reviewer: Morton Bast

Translator: David J. Kreps Finnemann Reviewer: Anders Finn Jørgensen

Hvad vi har her

What you have here

is an electronic cigarette.

er en elektronisk cigaret.

Det er noget der, siden den blev opfundet for et år eller to siden,

It's something that, since it was invented a year or two ago,

har givet mig usigelig glæde.

has given me untold happiness.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

En smule af det, tror jeg, er nikotin,

A little bit of it, I think, is the nicotine,

but there's something much bigger than that;

men der er noget meget større end det.

which is, ever since, in the UK, they banned smoking in public places,

Som er, at siden de i Storbritannien forbød rygning på offentlige steder,

har jeg ikke nydt et cocktail party igen.

I've never enjoyed a drinks party ever again.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Og grunden til det, regnede jeg først ud forleden,

And the reason, I only worked out just the other day,

hvilket er, at når man tager til et cocktail party

which is: when you go to a drinks party and you stand up

og man bare står op og holder et glas rødvin

and hold a glass of red wine and you talk endlessly to people,

og man snakker uophørligt med folk,

you don't actually want to spend all the time talking.

vil man ikke bruge al tiden på at snakke.

Det er virkelig, virkelig trættende.

It's really, really tiring.

Sometimes you just want to stand there silently, alone with your thoughts.

Nogen gange vil man bare stå der i stilhed, alene med ens tanker.

Sometimes you just want to stand in the corner and stare out of the window.

Nogen gange vil man bare stå i hjørnet og stirre ud af vinduet.

Now the problem is, when you can't smoke,

Problemet er, når man ikke må ryge,

og hvis man står og stirrer ud af vinduet for sig selv,

if you stand and stare out of the window on your own,

er man en asocial, venneløs idiot.

you're an antisocial, friendless idiot.

(Latter)

(Laughter)

Hvis man stirrer ud af vinduet for sig selv, med en cigaret,

If you stand and stare out of the window on your own with a cigarette,

you're a fucking philosopher.

er man en forbandet filosof.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

(Bifald)

(Applause)

Så styrken ved at omfortolke ting

So the power of reframing things

kan ikke blive overdrevet.

cannot be overstated.

Det vi har, er den præcis samme ting, den samme aktivitet,

What we have is exactly the same thing, the same activity,

but one of them makes you feel great

men en af dem får dig til at føle dig fantastisk

og den anden, med blot en lille ændring i kropsholdningen,

and the other one, with just a small change of posture,

får dig til at føle dig forfærdelig.

makes you feel terrible.

Og jeg tror det er et af problemerne ved klassisk økonomi

And I think one of the problems with classical economics is,

er at det er total optaget af virkeligheden.

it's absolutely preoccupied with reality.

And reality isn't a particularly good guide to human happiness.

Og virkeligheden er ikke en speciel god guide til menneskelig lykke.

Hvorfor er, for eksempel,

Why, for example, are pensioners much happier

pensionister meget mere lykkelige

end de unge arbejdsløse?

than the young unemployed?

Both of them, after all, are in exactly the same stage of life.

Begge er, trods alt, i præcis det samme stadie i deres liv.

You both have too much time on your hands and not much money.

Begge har for meget tid til overs og ikke for mange penge.

Men pensionister er angiveligt meget, meget lykkelige,

But pensioners are reportedly very, very happy,

hvorimod de arbejdsløse er ulykkelige og deprimerede.

whereas the unemployed are extraordinarily unhappy and depressed.

Grunden, tror jeg, er at pensionister mener de har valgt at være pensionister,

The reason, I think, is that the pensioners believe

they've chosen to be pensioners,

mens de unge arbejdsløse

whereas the young unemployed feel it's been thrust upon them.

føler at det er noget de er blevet påtvunget.

In England, the upper-middle classes have actually solved this problem perfectly,

I England har den højere middelklasse løst dette problem helt perfekt,

fordi de har re-branded arbejdsløshed.

because they've re-branded unemployment.

Hvis man er en person i den højere middel klasse i England,

If you're an upper-middle-class English person,

you call unemployment "a year off."

kalder man arbejdsløshed "et sabbatår".

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Og det er fordi, at hvis man har en søn der er arbejdsløs i Manchester,

And that's because having a son who's unemployed in Manchester

is really quite embarrassing.

er det ret pinligt,

But having a son who's unemployed in Thailand

men at have en søn der er arbejdsløs i Thailand

is really viewed as quite an accomplishment.

er faktisk set som en stor bedrift.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Men faktisk er styrken ved at re-brande ting --

But actually, the power to re-brand things --

to understand that our experiences, costs, things

til at forstå at vores oplevelser, udgifter, ting

don't actually much depend on what they really are,

faktisk ikke er afhængige af hvad de i virkeligheden er,

but on how we view them --

men af hvordan vi ser dem --

jeg tror oprigtigt, at det ikke kan overdrives.

I genuinely think can't be overstated.

There's an experiment I think Daniel Pink refers to,

Der er et eksperiment som jeg tror Daniel Pink refererer til

hvor man sætter to hunde i en kasse

where you put two dogs in a box

and the box has an electric floor.

og kassen har et elektrisk gulv.

Ind i mellem bliver der sat elektrisk stød til gulvet

Every now and then, an electric shock is applied to the floor,

som smerter hundene.

which pains the dogs.

The only difference is one of the dogs has a small button in its half of the box.

Den eneste forskel er, at en af hundene har en lille knap på sin halvdel af gulvet.

And when it nuzzles the button, the electric shock stops.

Og når den gnubber knappen, stopper de elektriske stød.

Den anden hund har ikke den knap.

The other dog doesn't have the button.

Den er udsat for præcis den samme mængde smerte som hunden i den første kasse,

It's exposed to exactly the same level of pain as the dog in the first box,

but it has no control over the circumstances.

men den har ikke nogen kontrol over omstændighederne.

Generelt kan den første hund være relativt tilfreds.

Generally, the first dog can be relatively content.

Den anden hund falder ned i fuldkommen depression.

The second dog lapses into complete depression.

Omstændighederne i vores liv kan faktisk have mindre indflydelse på vores lykke

The circumstances of our lives may actually matter less to our happiness

than the sense of control we feel over our lives.

end følelsen af kontrol vi føler over vores liv.

It's an interesting question.

Det er et interessant spørgsmål.

Vi stiller spørgsmålet -- hele debatten i den vestlige verden

We ask the question -- the whole debate in the Western world

is about the level of taxation.

handler om graden af beskatning.

Men jeg tror der er en anden debat der skal spørges til,

But I think there's another debate to be asked,

which is the level of control we have over our tax money,

hvilket er graden af kontrol vi har over vores skattepenge.

Det der koster os 10 pund i en sammenhæng kan være en forbandelse.

that what costs us 10 pounds in one context can be a curse;

Det der koster os 10 pund i en anden sammenhæng kan vi måske hilse velkommen.

what costs us 10 pounds in a different context, we may actually welcome.

I ved, betal 20.000 pund i skat til sundhed

You know, pay 20,000 pounds in tax toward health,

og man føler sig egentlig bare overfaldet.

and you're merely feeling a mug.

Pay 20,000 pounds to endow a hospital ward,

Betal 20.000 pund til at udstyre en hospitals afdeling,

and you're called a philanthropist.

og man bliver kaldet en filantrop.

Jeg er sandsynligvis i det forkerte land, når jeg taler om villigheden til at betale skat.

I'm probably in the wrong country to talk about willingness to pay tax.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

So I'll give you one in return: how you frame things really matters.

Så jeg giver jer et andet eksempel. Hvordan man formulerer ting betyder meget.

Do you call it "The bailout of Greece"?

Kalder man det en redningsaktion af Grækenland,

Or "The bailout of a load of stupid banks which lent to Greece"?

eller en redningsaktion af en masse dumme banker, der lånte penge til Grækenland?

(Laughter)

Fordi de er faktisk den samme ting.

Because they are actually the same thing.

Hvad man kalder dem, påvirker faktisk

What you call them actually affects how you react to them,

hvordan man reagerer på dem, følelsesmæssigt og moralt.

viscerally and morally.

Jeg synes, at psykologisk værdi er fantastisk, hvis jeg skal være helt ærlig.

I think psychological value is great, to be absolutely honest.

One of my great friends, a professor called Nick Chater,

En af mine gode venner, en professor ved navn Nick Chater,

who's the Professor of Decision Sciences in London,

der er professor ved Beslutningsvidenskab i London,

mener at vi burde bruge væsentlig mindre tid

believes we should spend far less time looking into humanity's hidden depths,

på at kigge ind i menneskets skjulte dybder,

and spend much more time exploring the hidden shallows.

og bruge meget mere tid på at udforske det skjulte i lavvandet.

Jeg mener faktisk det er sandt.

I think that's true, actually.

I think impressions have an insane effect on what we think and what we do.

Jeg mener, at indtryk har en kæmpe effekt

på hvad vi tænker og hvad vi gør.

Men hvad vi ikke har, er en rigtig god model af menneskelig psykologi.

But what we don't have is a really good model of human psychology --

at least pre-Kahneman, perhaps,

I det mindste pre-Kahneman måske,

we didn't have a really good model of human psychology

havde vi ikke en rigtig god model af menneskelig psykologi

to put alongside models of engineering, of neoclassical economics.

til at sætte ved siden af modeller af ingeniørvidenskab, af neoklassisk økonomi.

So people who believed in psychological solutions didn't have a model.

Så folk der troede på psykologiske løsninger havde ikke en model.

We didn't have a framework.

Vi havde ikke en struktur.

This is what Warren Buffett's business partner Charlie Munger calls

Det er hvad Warren Buffet's forretningspartner, Charlie Munger, kalder

"et tremmeværk som man kan hænge sine ideer på".

"a latticework on which to hang your ideas."

Ingeniører, økonomer, klassiske økonomer

Engineers, economists, classical economists

havde alle et eksisterende meget, meget robust tremmeværk

all had a very, very robust existing latticework

on which practically every idea could be hung.

som praktisk talt alle ideer kunne hænges op på.

We merely have a collection of random individual insights

Vi har kun en samling tilfældige individuelle indsigter

without an overall model.

uden en overordnet model.

And what that means is that, in looking at solutions,

Og det betyder, at når man kigger på løsninger,

har vi formentlig givet for høj en prioritet

we've probably given too much priority

til hvad jeg kalder fagteknisk ingeniørvidenskabelige løsninger, Newtonske løsninger,

to what I call technical engineering solutions, Newtonian solutions,

og ikke tæt på at være nok, i forhold til de psykologiske.

and not nearly enough to the psychological ones.

You know my example of the Eurostar:

I kender mit eksempel omkring Eurostar.

six million pounds spent

Seks millioner pund blev brugt til at reducere rejsetiden

to reduce the journey time between Paris and London

mellem Paris og London med omkring 40 minutter.

by about 40 minutes.

For 0.01 percent of this money, you could have put wi-fi on the trains,

For 0.01 procent af denne udgift, kunne man have installeret WiFi i togene,

which wouldn't have reduced the duration of the journey,

hvilket ikke ville have reduceret rejsens længde,

but would have improved its enjoyment and its usefulness far more.

men det ville have forbedret dens nydelse og dens anvendelighed betydeligt.

For måske 10 procent af udgiften,

For maybe 10 percent of the money,

you could have paid all of the world's top male and female supermodels

kunne man have betalt alle verdens bedste mandlige og kvindelige supermodeller

til at gå igennem toget og dele gratis Chateau Petrus til alle passagererne.

to walk up and down the train handing out free Château Pétrus

to all the passengers.

(Laughter)

Man ville stadig have 5 milliarder pund til overs,

You'd still have five million pounds in change,

and people would ask for the trains to be slowed down.

og folk ville bede om, om togene kunne sætte farten ned.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Hvorfor blev vi ikke tilbudt

Why were we not given the chance to solve that problem psychologically?

at løse problemet psykologisk?

I think it's because there's an imbalance,

Jeg tror det er fordi der er en ubalance, en asymmetri,

an asymmetry in the way we treat creative, emotionally driven psychological ideas

i måden vi behandler kreative, følelsesdrevne psykologiske ideer

kontra måden vi behandler rationelle, talmæssig regnearksdrevne ideer.

versus the way we treat rational, numerical, spreadsheet-driven ideas.

Hvis man er en kreativ person, tror jeg med god grund,

If you're a creative person, I think, quite rightly,

at man skal dele alle sine ideer til godkendelse

you have to share all your ideas for approval

with people much more rational than you.

med folk der er meget mere rationelle end en selv.

You have to go in and have a cost-benefit analysis,

Man skal gå ind og lave en cost-benefit analyse,

en forundersøgelse, en investeringsafkast analyse og så videre.

a feasibility study, an ROI study and so forth.

Og jeg mener det formentlig er rigtigt.

And I think that's probably right.

But this does not apply the other way around.

Men dette gælder ikke den anden vej rundt.

Folk der har en eksisterende struktur,

People who have an existing framework --

an economic framework, an engineering framework --

en økonomisk struktur, en ingeniørvidenskabelig struktur,

føler faktisk at logik er sit egen begrundelse.

feel that, actually, logic is its own answer.

What they don't say is, "Well, the numbers all seem to add up,

Hvad de ikke siger er, "Jamen, alle talene ser ud til at passe,

but before I present this idea, I'll show it to some really crazy people

men før jeg fremlægger denne ide, vil jeg vise den til nogle rigtig skøre mennesker,

for at se om de kan finde på noget bedre".

to see if they can come up with something better."

And so we -- artificially, I think -- prioritize

Så vi, kunstigt tror jeg, prioriterer

hvad jeg kalder mekanistiske ideer frem for psykologiske ideer.

what I'd call mechanistic ideas over psychological ideas.

An example of a great psychological idea:

Et eksempel på en stor psykologisk ide:

the single best improvement in passenger satisfaction

Den bedste forbedring i passager tilfredshed i metroen i London per pund,

on the London Underground,

per pound spent,

kom ikke da de tilføjede ekstra toge eller ændrede hyppigheden på togene,

came when they didn't add any extra trains,

nor change the frequency of the trains;

they put dot matrix display boards on the platforms --

de satte prikmatrix display tavler på perronerne.

because the nature of a wait is not just dependent on its numerical quality,

Fordi ventetidens karakter

ikke kun er afhængig dens numeriske kvalitet, dens varighed,

its duration,

men graden af usikkerhed man oplever, imens man venter.

but on the level of uncertainty you experience during that wait.

At vente syv minutter på et tog med et nedtællingsur

Waiting seven minutes for a train with a countdown clock

er mindre frustrerende og irriterende

is less frustrating and irritating

than waiting four minutes, knuckle biting, going,

end at vente fire minutter, neglebidende

og føle, "Hvornår kommer det forbandede tog?"

"When's this train going to damn well arrive?"

Her er et smukt eksempel på en psykologisk løsning der bruges i Korea.

Here's a beautiful example of a psychological solution

deployed in Korea.

Red traffic lights have a countdown delay.

Røde trafiklys har en nedtællingsviser.

Det er bevist i forsøg, at det reducerer hyppigheden af ulykker.

It's proven to reduce the accident rate in experiments.

Why?

Hvorfor? Fordi road rage, utålmodighed og generel irritation

Because road rage, impatience and general irritation are massively reduced

bliver massivt reduceret når man faktisk kan se hvor lang tid man skal vente.

when you can actually see the time you have to wait.

In China, not really understanding the principle behind this,

I Kina, uden egentlig at kunne forstå princippet bag dette,

they applied the same principle to green traffic lights --

brugte de det samme princip på grønne trafiklys.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Hvilket ikke er en god ide.

which isn't a great idea.

Man er 200 meter væk, man ser der kun er fem sekunder tilbage, så giver man fuld gas.

You're 200 yards away, you realize you've got five seconds to go,

you floor it.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Koreanerne testede, meget ihærdigt, begge dele.

The Koreans, very assiduously, did test both.

Hyppigheden af ulykker falder når man bruger dette på røde trafiklys;

The accident rate goes down when you apply this to red traffic lights;

den stiger når man bruger det på grønne trafiklys.

it goes up when you apply it to green traffic lights.

Det eneste jeg egentlig beder om, ved menneskelig beslutningstagning

This is all I'm asking for, really, in human decision making,

er at disse tre ting bliver taget i betragtning.

is the consideration of these three things.

Jeg beder ikke om fuldstændig forrang af den ene frem for den anden.

I'm not asking for the complete primacy of one over the other.

Jeg siger kun, at når man løser problemer,

I'm merely saying that when you solve problems,

bør man kigge på disse tre, på lige vilkår

you should look at all three of these equally,

og man bør så vidt som muligt prøve på

and you should seek as far as possible

at finde løsninger der sidder i smørhullet, lige i midten.

to find solutions which sit in the sweet spot in the middle.

Hvis man egentlig kigger på en god virksomhed,

If you actually look at a great business,

vil man næsten altid se at disse tre ting vil forekomme.

you'll nearly always see all of these three things coming into play.

Really successful businesses --

Virkelig, virkelig succesfulde virksomheder --

Google is a great, great technological success,

Google er en stor, stor teknologisk succes,

but it's also based on a very good psychological insight:

men det er også baseret på en rigtig god psykologisk indsigt:

Mennesker tror at noget der kun gør én ting,

people believe something that only does one thing

is better at that thing than something that does that thing and something else.

er bedre end noget der gør den ting og noget andet.

It's an innate thing called "goal dilution."

Det er en instinktiv ting kaldet målsætningsfortynding.

Ayelet Fishbach has written a paper about this.

Ayelet Fishback har skrevet en artikel omkring dette.

Everybody else at the time of Google, more or less,

Samtidig med Google, prøvede alle andre, mere eller mindre,

at være en portal.

was trying to be a portal.

Ja, der er en søgefunktion,

Yes, there's a search function, but you also have weather,

men der er også vejrudsigt, sportsresultater, lidt nyheder.

sports scores, bits of news.

Google forstod at hvis man kun er en søgemaskine,

Google understood that if you're just a search engine,

antager mennesker, at man er en meget, meget god søgemaskine.

people assume you're a very, very good search engine.

All of you know this, actually, from when you go in to buy a television,

I kan alle genkende det

fra når I er ude og købe et fjernsyn.

Og i den lurvede ende af rækker med fladskærme

and in the shabbier end of the row of flat-screen TVs,

kan man se en ret foragtet ting kaldet en kombineret tv og dvdafspiller.

you can see, are these rather despised things

called "combined TV and DVD players."

Og vi har ikke nogen anelse om, hvordan kvalitet af disse ting er,

And we have no knowledge whatsoever of the quality of those things,

men vi kigger på et kombineret tv og dvdafspiller, og vi siger, "Uck.

but we look at a combined TV and DVD player and we go, "Uck.

It's probably a bit of a crap telly and a bit rubbish as a DVD player."

Det er sikkert et ret dårligt tv og en ret elendig dvdafspiller".

So we walk out of the shops with one of each.

Så vi går ud af butikken med en af hver.

Google er lige så meget en psykologisk succes, som en teknologisk .

Google is as much a psychological success as it is a technological one.

Jeg foreslår, at vi kan bruge psykologi til at løse nogle problemer

I propose that we can use psychology to solve problems

that we didn't even realize were problems at all.

som vi ikke engang troede var problemer.

Dette er mit forslag til at få folk til at færdiggøre deres antibiotika behandling.

This is my suggestion for getting people to finish their course of antibiotics.

Lad være med at give dem 24 hvide piller.

Don't give them 24 white pills;

give them 18 white pills and six blue ones

Giv dem 18 hvide piller og seks blå,

and tell them to take the white pills first,

og fortæl dem at de skal tage de hvide piller først, og derefter de blå.

and then take the blue ones.

Det kaldes chunking.

It's called "chunking."

The likelihood that people will get to the end is much greater

Sandsynligheden for at folk vil nå at færdiggøre det, er meget større

when there is a milestone somewhere in the middle.

når der er delmål et sted i midten.

En af de store fejltagelser, tror jeg, i økonomi

One of the great mistakes, I think, of economics

er at det ikke formår at forstå, hvad noget er,

is it fails to understand that what something is --

whether it's retirement, unemployment, cost --

hvad enten det er pensionering, arbejdsløshed, udgifter

is a function, not only of its amount, but also its meaning.

er en funktion, ikke kun af dens sum, men også dens betydning.

Det her er en afgiftsanlæg i Storbritannien.

This is a toll crossing in Britain.

Der kommer ret ofte køer ved anlæggene.

Quite often queues happen at the tolls.

Sometimes you get very, very severe queues.

Nogen gange er der meget, meget lange køer.

You could apply the same principle, actually,

Man kunne bruge det samme princip faktisk, hvis du vil,

to the security lanes in airports.

som ved sikkerhedskontrollen i lufthavnen.

Hvad ville der ske hvis man kunne betale dobbelt så mange penge for at komme over broen,

What would happen if you could actually pay twice as much money

to cross the bridge,

men køre gennem en vejbane der er et hurtigvejbane?

but go through a lane that's an express lane?

It's not an unreasonable thing to do;

Det er ikke en urimelig ting at gøre. Det er en økonomisk effektiv ting at gøre.

it's an economically efficient thing to do.

Tid betyder mere for nogle mennesker end andre.

Time means more to some people than others.

If you're waiting trying to get to a job interview,

Hvis man prøver at nå en jobsamtale,

you'd patently pay a couple of pounds more to go through the fast lane.

ville man tydeligvis betale et par pund ekstra, for at køre i den hurtige vejbane.

Hvis man er på vej for at besøge sin svigermor,

If you're on the way to visit your mother-in-law,

you'd probably prefer --

ville man nok foretrække at holde sig til venstre.

(Laughter)

you'd probably prefer to stay on the left.

Det eneste problem er, hvis man introducerer denne økonomisk effektive løsning,

The only problem is if you introduce this economically efficient solution,

hader folk den.

people hate it ...

because they think you're deliberately creating delays at the bridge

Fordi de tror man med vilje skaber forsinkelse ved broen

for at maksimere ens indtægt,

in order to maximize your revenue,

and, "Why on earth should I pay to subsidize your incompetence?"

og "Hvorfor skulle jeg betale for at subsidiere din inkompetence?"

On the other hand, change the frame slightly

På den anden side, ændr udformningen lidt

and create charitable yield management,

og lav en velgørenhedsafkast administration,

så de ekstra penge man får ikke går til selskabet der ejer broen, det går til velgørenhed,

so the extra money you get goes not to the bridge company,

it goes to charity ...

og den mentale villighed til at betale ændres fuldstændig.

and the mental willingness to pay completely changes.

Man har en relativt effektiv økonomisk løsning,

You have a relatively economically efficient solution,

men en der faktisk imødekommer den offentlige billigelse

but one that actually meets with public approval

and even a small degree of affection,

og endda en lille grad af kærlighed,

rather than being seen as bastardy.

i stedet for at blive set som en skiderik.

So where economists make the fundamental mistake

Så der hvor økonomerne begår en fundamental fejltagelse

is they think that money is money.

er, at de tror at penge er penge.

Faktisk opleves min smerte ved at betale fem pund

Actually, my pain experienced in paying five pounds

is not just proportionate to the amount,

ikke kun proportionalt med beløbet,

but where I think that money is going.

men hvad jeg tror pengene går til.

Og jeg tror, at forståelsen af dette, kunne revolutionere skattepolitik.

And I think understanding that could revolutionize tax policy.

It could revolutionize the public services.

Det kunne revolutionere den offentlige administration.

It could actually change things quite significantly.

Det kunne virkelig ændre ting betydeligt.

[Ludwig Von Mises is my hero.]

Her er en fyr I alle bør studere.

Here's a guy you all need to study.

Han er en økonom fra den østrigske skole,

He's an Austrian School economist

der var aktiv i den første halvdel af det tyvende århundrede i Wien.

who was first active in the first half of the 20th century in Vienna.

What was interesting about the Austrian School

Hvad der var interessant omkring den østrigske skole

is they actually grew up alongside Freud.

var, at de faktisk voksede op sideløbende med Freud.

And so they're predominantly interested in psychology.

Så de er overvejende interesserede i psykologi.

They believed that there was a discipline called praxeology,

De mente, at der var en disciplin kaldet praxeologi,

which is a prior discipline to the study of economics.

som er en tidligere disciplin i at studere økonomi.

Praxeology is the study of human choice, action and decision-making.

Praxeologi er studiet af menneskelige valg, handling og beslutningstagning.

I think they're right.

Jeg mener de har ret.

Jeg tror, at faren vi har i nutidens verden

I think the danger we have in today's world

er at vi har økonomistudier

is we have the study of economics

der ser sig selv som en tidligere disciplin i at studere den menneskelige psykologi.

considers itself to be a prior discipline to the study of human psychology.

But as Charlie Munger says, "If economics isn't behavioral,

Men som Charlie Munger siger, "Hvis økonomi ikke er adfærdsbestemt,

så ved jeg ikke hvad den er."

I don't know what the hell is."

Von Mises, interessant nok, mener at økonomi bare er en underdel af psykologi.

Von Mises, interestingly, believes economics is just a subset of psychology.

I think he just refers to economics

Jeg mener, at han bare refererer til økonomi som

as "the study of human praxeology under conditions of scarcity."

"studiet af menneskelig praxeologi i mangelsituationer."

Men von Mises, blandt mange andre,

But Von Mises, among many other things,

tror jeg bruger en analogi, der formentlig er den bedste begrundelse og forklaring

I think uses an analogy which is probably the best justification and explanation

for the value of marketing, the value of perceived value

på værdien af marketing, værdien af den opfattede værdi

og faktummet at vi faktisk burde behandle det som værende den absolutte ækvivalent

and the fact that we should treat it as being absolutely equivalent

to any other kind of value.

til enhver anden slags værdi.

Vi har en tendens til, vi alle har -- selv os der arbejder med marketing --

We tend to, all of us, even those of us who work in marketing,

til at tænke på værdi på to måder.

think of value in two ways:

Der er en rigtige værdi,

the real value, which is when you make something in a factory

som er når man laver noget i en fabrik og når man yder en service,

og så er der en tvivlsom værdi,

or provide a service,

and then there's a dubious value,

som man laver ved at ændre måden hvorpå folk opfatter ting.

which you create by changing the way people look at things.

Von Mises afviser denne skelnen fuldstændig.

Von Mises completely rejected this distinction.

Og han bruger denne analogi.

And he used this following analogy:

Han refererede faktisk til nogle mærkelige økonomer kaldet de Franske Fysiokrater,

he referred to strange economists called the French physiocrats,

der mente at den eneste sande værdi er hvad man udvinder af jorden.

who believed that the only true value was what you extracted from the land.

Så hvis man er en fårehyrde eller arbejder i et stenbrud eller er landmand,

So if you're a shepherd or a quarryman or a farmer,

you created true value.

skaber man ægte værdi.

If however, you bought some wool from the shepherd

Hvis derimod, man køber noget uld af fårehyrden,

og tager en merpris for at omdanne det til en hat,

and charged a premium for converting it into a hat,

så skaber man faktisk ikke en værdi,

you weren't actually creating value,

you were exploiting the shepherd.

man udnytter fårehyrden.

Now, Von Mises said that modern economists make exactly the same mistake

Men von Mises sagde, at moderne økonomer begår præcis den samme fejltagelse

med hensyn til annoncering og marketing.

with regard to advertising and marketing.

He says if you run a restaurant,

Han siger, at hvis man har en restaurant,

there is no healthy distinction to be made

er der ikke nogen fornuftig skelnen

mellem værdien man skaber ved at lave maden

between the value you create by cooking the food

and the value you create by sweeping the floor.

og værdien man skaber ved at feje gulvet.

En af dem skaber, måske, det primære produkt

One of them creates, perhaps, the primary product --

the thing we think we're paying for --

den ting vi tror vi betaler for --

den anden skaber en kontekst

the other one creates a context within which we can enjoy

hvori vi kan nyde og værdsætte det produkt.

and appreciate that product.

Og ideen om at den ene skulle have en fortrinsret frem for den anden

And the idea that one of them should have priority over the other

er fundamental forkert.

is fundamentally wrong.

Try this quick thought experiment:

Prøv at udføre dette hurtige tankeeksperiment.

imagine a restaurant that serves Michelin-starred food,

Forestil Jer en restaurant der serverer Michelinstjernet mad,

men hvor restauranten lugter af kloak

but where the restaurant smells of sewage

og der er menneskelig afføring på gulvet.

and there's human feces on the floor.

(Laughter)

The best thing you can do there to create value

Det bedste man kan gøre der for at skabe værdi,

er ikke at forbedre maden yderligere,

is not actually to improve the food still further,

it's to get rid of the smell and clean up the floor.

det er at fjerne lugten og gøre gulvet rent.

Og det er meget vigtigt at vi forstår dette.

And it's vital we understand this.

Hvis det virker som en ting der er mærkelig og svær at forstå,

If that seems like a sort of strange, abstruse thing --

i Storbritannien, havde postvæsnet en succesrate på 98 procent

in the UK, the post office had a 98 percent success rate

at delivering first-class mail the next day.

med at aflevere a-post dagen efter.

De besluttede sig for, at dette ikke var godt nok

They decided this wasn't good enough,

og de ville bringe det op på 99 procent.

and they wanted to get it up to 99.

Indsatsen med at gøre dette, ødelagde næsten organisationen.

The effort to do that almost broke the organization.

Hvis man på samme tidspunkt havde spurgt folk,

If, at the same time, you'd gone and asked people,

"Hvor stor en procentdel af a-posten bliver afleveret dagen efter?"

"What percentage of first-class mail arrives the next day?"

ville det gennemsnitlige svar have været mellem 50 og 60 procent.

the average answer, or the modal answer, would have been "50 to 60 percent."

Men hvis ens opfattelse er meget værre end ens virkelighed,

Now, if your perception is much worse than your reality,

hvad i al verden er man så i gang med, når man prøver at ændre virkeligheden?

what on earth are you doing trying to change the reality?

Det er ligesom at prøve at forbedre maden i en restaurant der stinker.

That's like trying to improve the food in a restaurant that stinks.

Hvad men bør gøre

What you need to do is, first of all, tell people

er først og fremmest at fortælle folk

at 98 procent af posten bliver afleveret dagen efter, a-posten.

that 98 percent of first-class mail gets there the next day.

That's pretty good.

Det er temmelig godt.

Jeg vil hævde, at der i Storbritannien er en meget bedre referenceramme,

I would argue, in Britain, there's a much better frame of reference,

hvilket er at fortælle folk

which is to tell people that more first-class mail arrives the next day

at der bliver afleveret mere a-post dagen efter,

i Storbritannien end i Tyskland.

in the UK than in Germany, because generally, in Britain,

Fordi generelt, hvis man vil gøre os glade for noget i Storbritannien,

if you want to make us happy about something,

så bare fortæl os at vi gør noget bedre end tyskerne.

just tell us we do it better than the Germans.

(Latter)

(Laughter)

(Bifald)

(Applause)

Vælg din referenceramme og den opfattede værdi

Choose your frame of reference and the perceived value,

and therefore, the actual value is completely transformed.

og derfor er den faktiske værdi fuldstændig forvandlet.

Det skal siges om tyskerne,

It has to be said of the Germans

that the Germans and the French are doing a brilliant job

at tyskerne og franskmændene gør et glimrende stykke arbejde

med at skabe et forenet Europa.

of creating a united Europe.

The only thing they didn't expect is they're uniting Europe

Det eneste de ikke forventer, er at de forener Europa

through a shared mild hatred of the French and Germans.

gennem et mildt fælles had til franskmændene og tyskerne.

Men jeg er britisk, og det er sådan vi kan lide det.

But I'm British; that's the way we like it.

(Laughter)

Hvad man også vil se er, at i enhver sammenhæng er vores opfattelse hullet.

What you'll also notice is that, in any case,

our perception is leaky.

We can't tell the difference between the quality of the food

Vi kan ikke se forskellen mellem fødevarekvaliteten,

og omgivelserne hvori vi fortærer det.

and the environment in which we consume it.

I vil allesammen have set dette fænomen

All of you will have seen this phenomenon

hvis man får sin bil vasket eller parkeret.

if you have your car washed or valeted.

When you drive away, your car feels as if it drives better.

Når man kører væk, føles det som om bilen kører bedre.

(Laughter)

Og grunden til dette er,

And the reason for this --

medmindre min parkeringstjener på mystisk vis skifter olien

unless my car valet mysteriously is changing the oil

og udfører et stykke arbejde som jeg ikke betaler ham for, og som jeg er uvidende om,

and performing work which I'm not paying him for and I'm unaware of --

fordi opfattelsen under alle omstændigheder er hullet.

is because perception is, in any case, leaky.

Analgesics that are branded are more effective at reducing pain

Smertestillende medicin der har et bestemt mærke, er mere effektive til at reducere smerte,

than analgesics that are not branded.

end smertestillende medicin der ikke har et brand.

I don't just mean through reported pain reduction --

Jeg mener ikke kun gennem berettet smertereduktion,

men reel målt smertereduktion.

actual measured pain reduction.

And so perception actually is leaky in any case.

Så opfattelsen er faktisk hullet under alle omstændigheder.

Så hvis man gør noget der er forkert opfattelsesmæssigt i en sammenhæng,

So if you do something that's perceptually bad in one respect,

kan man beskadige den anden.

you can damage the other.

Thank you very much.

Mange tak.

(Applause)

(Bifald)