Rory Sutherland: Perspective is everything

Translator: Timothy Covell Reviewer: Morton Bast

Translator: Klavdija Cernilogar Reviewer: Irma Sutlic

Tole, kar držim v roki,

What you have here

is an electronic cigarette.

je elektronska cigareta.

Odkar so jo pred letom ali dvema izumili,

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

me je neizmerno osrečila.

has given me untold happiness.

(Laughter)

(smeh)

Malo, se mi zdi, zaradi nikotina,

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

but there's something much bigger than that;

ampak za še nekaj pomembnejšega gre.

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

Odkar so v Veliki Britaniji prepovedali kajenje na javnih mestih,

nisem nikoli več užival na zabavah.

I've never enjoyed a drinks party ever again.

(Laughter)

(smeh)

Šele oni dan sem ugotovil, zakaj je tako.

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

Ko namreč človek gre na zabavo

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

in stoji tam in v roki drži kozarec rdečega vina

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

ter brez prestanka klepeta z ljudmi,

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

v bistvu noče neprestano govoriti.

To je zares utrujajoče.

It's really, really tiring.

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

Včasih bi rad samo tiho stal tam, sam s svojimi mislimi.

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

Včasih bi rad stal v kotu in zrl skozi okno.

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

Če pri tem ne sme kaditi,

pa vseeno stoji tam in zre ven skozi okno,

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

je videti kot nedružaben bedak brez prijateljev.

you're an antisocial, friendless idiot.

(smeh)

(Laughter)

Če pa stoječ zre skozi okno in v rokah drži cigareto,

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

you're a fucking philosopher.

je prekleti filozof.

(Laughter)

(smeh)

(aplavz)

(Applause)

Pomena postavljanja stvari v nove okvire

So the power of reframing things

torej ne gre zanemariti.

cannot be overstated.

Gre za povsem isto stvar, isto aktivnost,

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

but one of them makes you feel great

ampak en način vam daje krasen občutek,

pri drugem pa se, zaradi majhne spremembe,

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

počutite prav bedno.

makes you feel terrible.

In mislim, da je ena od težav klasične ekonomije v tem,

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

da se absolutno preveč ukvarja z realnostjo.

it's absolutely preoccupied with reality.

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

Realnost pa ni posebej dober vodič k sreči.

Zakaj so, na primer,

Why, for example, are pensioners much happier

upokojenci veliko srečnejši

od mladih nezaposlenih ljudi?

than the young unemployed?

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

Obe skupini sta v istem življenjskem položaju.

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

Oba imata preveč časa in malo denarja.

Ampak upokojenci so menda zelo zelo srečni,

But pensioners are reportedly very, very happy,

medtem ko so nezaposleni izjemno nesrečni in depresivni.

whereas the unemployed are extraordinarily unhappy and depressed.

Po moje je razlog v tem, da upokojenci verjamejo, da so se odločili, da bodo upokojenci,

The reason, I think, is that the pensioners believe

they've chosen to be pensioners,

medtem ko se mladim nezaposlenim zdi,

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

da so bili v to pahnjeni.

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

Višji srednji sloj v Angliji je to težavo rešil na popoln način,

saj so nezaposlenosti spremenili oznako.

because they've re-branded unemployment.

Če ste predstavnik angleškega višjega srednjega razreda,

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

you call unemployment "a year off."

boste nezaposlenost poimenovali "prosto leto".

(Laughter)

(smeh)

To pa zato, ker je imeti nezaposlenega sina nekje v Manchestru

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

is really quite embarrassing.

res precej sramotno,

But having a son who's unemployed in Thailand

medtem ko je imeti nezaposlenega sina, ki je na Tajskem,

is really viewed as quite an accomplishment.

videti kot precejšnji dosežek.

(Laughter)

(smeh)

Mislim, da moči spreminjanja oznak stvarem...

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

to understand that our experiences, costs, things

razumevanja, da naše izkušnje, stroški, stvari

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

niso tako odvisni od tega, kar v resnici so,

but on how we view them --

temveč od tega, kako jih vidimo...

Iskreno mislim, da tega ne moremo preveč poudariti.

I genuinely think can't be overstated.

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

Daniel Pink, se mi zdi, omenja eksperiment,

pri katerem dva psa postavite v škatlo

where you put two dogs in a box

and the box has an electric floor.

z električnim tokom na dnu.

Vsake toliko časa tja spustite elektriko,

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

kar povzroči bolečino psoma.

which pains the dogs.

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

Razlika je samo v tem, da ima eden od psov na svoji polovici škatle majhen gumb.

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

Ko se ga dotakne, električni šok preneha.

Drugi pes nima tega gumba.

The other dog doesn't have the button.

Izpostavljen je povsem enaki ravni bolečine,

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.

le da nima nadzora nad okoliščinami.

V splošnem je lahko prvi pes dokaj zadovoljen.

Generally, the first dog can be relatively content.

Drugi pa pade v popolno depresijo.

The second dog lapses into complete depression.

Okoliščine naših življenj morda za našo srečo niso tako pomembne

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

than the sense of control we feel over our lives.

kot občutek nadzora nad lastnim življenjem.

It's an interesting question.

Gre za zanimivo vprašanje.

Sprašujemo se... celotna razprava v zahodnem svetu

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

is about the level of taxation.

se suče okoli ravni obdavčitve.

Mislim, da je treba zahtevati drugačno razpravo,

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

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

namreč o tem, kakšen nadzor imamo nad svojimi davki.

Nekaj, kar nas stane deset funtov, bo v določenem kontekstu prekletstvo.

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

V drugem kontekstu bo morda istih deset funtov pravi blagoslov.

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

Veste, če plačate 20,000 funtov v zdravstveno blagajno,

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

je to kaplja v morje.

and you're merely feeling a mug.

Pay 20,000 pounds to endow a hospital ward,

Če teh 20,000 funtov podarite bolnišničnemu oddelku,

and you're called a philanthropist.

vas bodo imenovali za dobrotnika.

Verjetno sem v napačni državi, da bi govoril o pripravljenosti za plačevanje davkov.

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

(Laughter)

(smeh)

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

Zato bom povedal nekaj drugega. Res je pomembno, kako formulirate stvari.

Do you call it "The bailout of Greece"?

Je to res reševanje Grčije

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

ali je reševanje neumnih bank, ki so posojale Grčiji?

(Laughter)

Ker v bistvu gre za isto stvar.

Because they are actually the same thing.

To, kako jo poimenujete, vpliva na to,

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

kako nanjo reagirate, instinktivno in moralno.

viscerally and morally.

Če sem pošten, mislim, da je psihološka vrednost nekaj odličnega.

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

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

Moj dober prijatelj, profesor po imenu Nick Chater,

who's the Professor of Decision Sciences in London,

ki uči znanost odločanja v Londonu,

verjame, da bi morali manj časa posvečati

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

raziskovanju skritih globin človeštva

and spend much more time exploring the hidden shallows.

in več časa raziskovati skrite plitkosti.

Mislim, da to drži.

I think that's true, actually.

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

Mislim, da imajo vtisi nor učinek

na to, kar mislimo in kar počnemo.

Ampak nimamo pa res dobrega modela človeške psihologije.

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

at least pre-Kahneman, perhaps,

Vsaj pred Kahnemanom morda

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

nismo imeli res dobrega modela človeške psihologije,

to put alongside models of engineering, of neoclassical economics.

ki bi stal poleg modelov inženirstva in neoklasične ekonomije.

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

Ljudje, ki so verjeli v psihološke rešitve, niso imeli modela.

We didn't have a framework.

Nismo imeli okvira.

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

Temu Charlie Munger, poslovni partner Warrena Buffetta, pravi

"mreža, na katero obešamo svoje ideje".

"a latticework on which to hang your ideas."

Inženirji, ekonomisti, klasični ekonomisti

Engineers, economists, classical economists

so vsi imeli zelo močno obstoječo mrežo,

all had a very, very robust existing latticework

on which practically every idea could be hung.

na katero so lahko obesili praktično vsako idejo.

We merely have a collection of random individual insights

Mi imamo samo zbirko naključnih posameznih vpogledov

without an overall model.

brez celostnega modela.

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

In to pomeni, da smo pri iskanju rešitev

verjetno preveč prednosti dali

we've probably given too much priority

t.i. tehničnim inženirskim rešitvam, Newtonovskim rešitvam,

to what I call technical engineering solutions, Newtonian solutions,

mnogo premalo pa psihološkim.

and not nearly enough to the psychological ones.

You know my example of the Eurostar:

Saj poznate moj primer Eurostara.

six million pounds spent

Šest milijonov funtov so porabili, da so čas potovanja

to reduce the journey time between Paris and London

med Parizom in Londonom skrajšali za okoli 40 minut.

by about 40 minutes.

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

Za 0,01 odstotka tega denarja bi lahko na vlake namestili brezžični internet,

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

kar ne bi skrajšalo trajanja potovanja,

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

bi pa zelo izboljšalo njegovo uporabnost in počutje med njim.

Za morda deset odstotkov tega denarja

For maybe 10 percent of the money,

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

bi lahko vse največje svetovne moške in ženske supermodele plačali,

da bi se sprehajali po vlaki in potnikom delili brezplačne kozarce Chateau Petrusa.

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

to all the passengers.

(Laughter)

Še vedno bi vam ostalo pet milijard funtov drobiža

You'd still have five million pounds in change,

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

in ljudje bi zahtevali, naj vlak vozi počasneje.

(Laughter)

(smeh)

Zakaj nismo imeli možnosti,

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

da bi ta problem rešili psihološko?

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

Mislim, da zato, ker obstaja neravnotežje, asimetrija

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

med tem, kako obravnavamo kreativne, čustveno utemeljene psihološke ideje,

in tem, kako obravnavamo racionalne, numerične, na tabelah temelječe ideje.

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

Če ste kreativni, mislim da morate upravičeno

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

dati vse svoje zamisli v potrditev ljudem,

you have to share all your ideas for approval

with people much more rational than you.

ki so bolj racionalni od vas.

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

Napraviti morate analizo stroškov in koristi,

študijo izvedljivosti, oceno dobička glede na vložek itd.

a feasibility study, an ROI study and so forth.

In verjetno je tako prav.

And I think that's probably right.

But this does not apply the other way around.

Ampak obratno pa ne velja.

Ljudje z obstoječim okvirom,

People who have an existing framework --

an economic framework, an engineering framework --

naj bo ekonomski, inženirski,

mislijo, da je logika rešitev sama po sebi.

feel that, actually, logic is its own answer.

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

Ne rečejo si: "No, številke se ujemajo,

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

ampak preden predstavim zamisel, jo bom pokazal nekaj res norim ljudem,

da vidim, če si lahko izmislijo kaj boljšega."

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

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

Mislim, da na umeten način dajemo prednost

mehanističnim idejam pred psihološkimi.

what I'd call mechanistic ideas over psychological ideas.

An example of a great psychological idea:

Tole je primer odlične psihološke ideje:

the single best improvement in passenger satisfaction

najpomembnejša izboljšava zadovoljstva potnikov na londonski podzemni železnici glede na vsak vložen funt

on the London Underground,

per pound spent,

se je zgodila brez dodatnih vozil ali spremembe njihove pogostosti,

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 --

temveč ko so na perone uvedli ekrane s točkastimi oznakami položaja vozil.

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

Kajti narava čakanja

ni odvisna samo od njegove numerične lastnosti, njegovega trajanja,

its duration,

temveč od ravni negotovosti, ki jo občutite med čakanjem.

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

Sedemminutno čakanje na vlak, pod uro, ki odšteva čas,

Waiting seven minutes for a train with a countdown clock

nam gre manj na živce,

is less frustrating and irritating

than waiting four minutes, knuckle biting, going,

kakor če čakamo štiri minute in si grizemo nohte,

ko se sprašujemo, kdaj bo ta presneti vlak že prispel.

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

Tole pa je čudovit primer psihološke rešitve iz Koreje.

Here's a beautiful example of a psychological solution

deployed in Korea.

Red traffic lights have a countdown delay.

Rdeče luči na semaforjih odštevajo čas do spremembe.

To dokazano zmanjšuje število nesreč.

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

Why?

Zakaj? Ker se jeza, nestrpnost in splošna živčnost na cesti

Because road rage, impatience and general irritation are massively reduced

izjemno zmanjšajo, če lahko dejansko vidite, koliko časa morate čakati.

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

In China, not really understanding the principle behind this,

Na Kitajskem tega principa ne razumejo čisto v redu,

they applied the same principle to green traffic lights --

zato so isto načelo vpeljali za zelene luči.

(Laughter)

(smeh)

Kar ni tako odlična zamisel.

which isn't a great idea.

Dvesto metrov ste oddaljeni, vidite, da imate še pet sekund časa, seveda boste pohodili plin.

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

you floor it.

(Laughter)

(smeh)

Korejci so marljivo testirali obe možnosti.

The Koreans, very assiduously, did test both.

Število nesreč se zmanjša, če z merilcem časa označite rdečo luč;

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

če označite zeleno, se poveča.

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

Samo to bi rad dosegel pri človeškem odločanju,

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

da bi upoštevali te tri stvari.

is the consideration of these three things.

Ne zahtevam popolne prevlade enega načina nad drugim.

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

Pravim samo, da ko rešujete probleme,

I'm merely saying that when you solve problems,

enakomerno upoštevajte vse tri

you should look at all three of these equally,

in kolikor je mogoče

and you should seek as far as possible

iščite rešitve, ki so nekje v zlati sredini.

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

Če pogledate kak dober posel,

If you actually look at a great business,

boste skoraj vedno videli preplet vseh teh treh stvari.

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

Really successful businesses --

Res zelo uspešna podjetja...

Google is a great, great technological success,

Google je odličen tehnološki uspeh,

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

a temelji tudi na zelo dobri psihološki bazi:

ljudje verjamejo da je nekaj, kar počne samo eno stvar,

people believe something that only does one thing

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

boljše od nečesa, kar počne to stvar in še nekaj drugega.

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

Gre za prirojeno stvar z imenom redčenje.

Ayelet Fishbach has written a paper about this.

Ayelet Fischbach je o tem napisal članek.

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

V času Googla je bolj ali manj vsak

hotel biti portal.

was trying to be a portal.

Ja, ima iskalnik,

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

ampak ima tudi vreme, šport in kakšno novico.

sports scores, bits of news.

Google je razumel, da če je samo iskalnik,

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

bodo ljudje mislili, da je zelo zelo dober iskalnik.

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,

Saj to veste sami,

od takrat, ko ste šli kupovat televizijo.

Na slabši strani izbora TV-jev z ravnim ekranom

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

lahko najdete prezira vredne zadeve, ki se imenujejo kombinirani TV in DVD predvajalniki.

you can see, are these rather despised things

called "combined TV and DVD players."

Pojma nimamo o kakovosti teh stvari,

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

ampak ko zagledamo kombiniran TV in DVD predvajalnik, rečemo: "Fuj.

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."

Verjetno je skupek zanič televizije in ničvrednega DVD predvajalnika."

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

In iz trgovine odidemo z vsakim posebej.

Google pa je tako psihološki kot tehnološki uspeh.

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

Predlagam, da uporabimo psihologijo za reševanje težav,

I propose that we can use psychology to solve problems

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

za katere sploh nismo vedeli, da so težave.

To je moj predlog, kako ljudi navaditi, da bodo dokončali svoj odmerek antibiotikov.

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

Ne dajte jim 24 belih tablet.

Don't give them 24 white pills;

give them 18 white pills and six blue ones

Dajte jim 18 belih in šest modrih

and tell them to take the white pills first,

in jim recite, naj najprej vzamejo bele in nato modre.

and then take the blue ones.

Temu pravimo oblikovanje skupin.

It's called "chunking."

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

Verjetnost, da bodo ljudje prišli do konca, je veliko večja,

when there is a milestone somewhere in the middle.

če nekje v sredini obstaja vmesni cilj.

Menim, da je ena največjih napak ekonomije v tem,

One of the great mistakes, I think, of economics

da ne razume, da je vsaka stvar,

is it fails to understand that what something is --

whether it's retirement, unemployment, cost --

naj bo upokojitev, brezposelnost, strošek,

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

skupek svojih številk in svojega pomena.

Tole je cestninska postaja v Britaniji.

This is a toll crossing in Britain.

Pogosto se tu naredijo kolone.

Quite often queues happen at the tolls.

Sometimes you get very, very severe queues.

Včasih so zelo zelo dolge.

You could apply the same principle, actually,

Isto načelo bi lahko uporabili

to the security lanes in airports.

pri varnostnih pregledih na letališčih.

Kaj bi se zgodilo, če bi lahko plačali dvakrat več za prehod mostu,

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

to cross the bridge,

vendar bi za to ceno lahko odpeljali skozi hitri pas?

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

It's not an unreasonable thing to do;

To ni nerazumno. Je ekonomsko učinkovito.

it's an economically efficient thing to do.

Čas enim pomeni več kot drugim.

Time means more to some people than others.

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

Če ste na poti na razgovor za službo,

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

boste brez dvoma plačali nekaj funtov več, da bi šli na hitrejši pas.

Če ste na poti na obisk k tašči,

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

you'd probably prefer --

boste verjetno raje ostali na levem.

(Laughter)

you'd probably prefer to stay on the left.

Edina težava je v tem, da če uvedete to ekonomsko učinkovito rešitev,

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

jo bodo ljudje sovražili.

people hate it ...

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

Kajti mislili bodo, da namenoma ustvarjate zamude na mostu,

da bi povečali prihodek

in order to maximize your revenue,

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

in "zakaj hudiča naj bi jaz podpiral vašo nesposobnost?"

On the other hand, change the frame slightly

Po drugi strani, če malo spremenite okvir

and create charitable yield management,

in mu dodate dobrodelno noto,

tako da dodaten denar ne gre upravljavcu, ampak dobrodelni ustanovi,

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

it goes to charity ...

se bo pripravljenost plačati povsem spremenila.

and the mental willingness to pay completely changes.

Tako imate ekonomsko učinkovito rešitev,

You have a relatively economically efficient solution,

ki jo javnost podpira

but one that actually meets with public approval

and even a small degree of affection,

in ji je celo malo naklonjena,

rather than being seen as bastardy.

namesto da bi se ji zdela podla.

So where economists make the fundamental mistake

Ekonomisti torej največjo napako naredijo,

is they think that money is money.

ko mislijo, da je denar le denar.

Ampak moja bolečina ob plačilu petih funtov

Actually, my pain experienced in paying five pounds

is not just proportionate to the amount,

ni samo sorazmerna vsoti,

but where I think that money is going.

temveč tudi temu, kam po mojem mnenju ta denar gre.

Razumevanje tega bi prineslo revolucijo v davčno politiko.

And I think understanding that could revolutionize tax policy.

It could revolutionize the public services.

Revolucija bi prišla v javne službe.

It could actually change things quite significantly.

Res bi lahko temeljito spremenila stvari.

[Ludwig Von Mises is my hero.]

Delo tega tipa bi morali vsi prebrati.

Here's a guy you all need to study.

Gre za avstrijskega ekonomista,

He's an Austrian School economist

ki je deloval v prvi polovici 20. stoletja na Dunaju.

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

What was interesting about the Austrian School

Za avstrijsko šolo je zanimivo,

is they actually grew up alongside Freud.

da se je razvila skupaj s Freudom.

And so they're predominantly interested in psychology.

Zato pripadnike zanima predvsem psihologija.

They believed that there was a discipline called praxeology,

Verjamejo, da obstaja disciplina z imenom prakseologija,

which is a prior discipline to the study of economics.

ki je bila predhodnica ekonomije.

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

Prakseologija je veda o človekovi izbiri, delovanju in odločanju.

I think they're right.

Mislim, da imajo prav.

Mislim, da je naša današnja nevarnost to,

I think the danger we have in today's world

da ekonomija kot veda

is we have the study of economics

sebe razume kot prednico psihologije človeka.

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

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

A kot pravi Charlie Munger: "Če ekonomija ni vedenjska,

potem ne vem, kaj je."

I don't know what the hell is."

Von Mises, zanimivo, verjame, da je ekonomija samo podvrsta psihologije.

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

I think he just refers to economics

Mislim, da ekonomijo označuje kot

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

"študij človekove prakseologije v razmerah pomanjkanja".

Von Mises, kot mnogi drugi,

But Von Mises, among many other things,

po moje uporablja analogijo, ki je verjetno najboljša utemeljitev in razlaga

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

for the value of marketing, the value of perceived value

pomena marketinga, pomena zaznane vrednosti,

ter dejstva, da bi jo morali razumeti kot povsem enakovredno

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

to any other kind of value.

katerikoli drugi vrednosti.

Vsi mi - celo tisti, ki delajo v marketingu - smo nagnjeni

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

k razumevanju vrednosti z dveh vidikov.

think of value in two ways:

Eno je realna vrednost,

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

tisto, kar naredite v tovarni ali storitev, ki jo nudite,

drugo je nekakšna dvomljiva vrednost,

or provide a service,

and then there's a dubious value,

tisto, kar ustvarite s spreminjanjem človeškega pogleda na stvari.

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

Von Mises je to delitev popolnoma zavrnil.

Von Mises completely rejected this distinction.

Uporabil je naslednji primer.

And he used this following analogy:

Skliceval se je na čudne ekonomiste z imenom francoski fiziokrati,

he referred to strange economists called the French physiocrats,

ki so verjeli,da je edina prava vrednost tisto, kar pridobite iz zemlje.

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

Če ste ovčar ali delavec v kamnolomu ali kmet,

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

you created true value.

ustvarjate pravo vrednost.

If however, you bought some wool from the shepherd

Če pa ste od ovčarja kupili nekaj volne,

jo spremenili v kapo in izdelku dodali maržo,

and charged a premium for converting it into a hat,

v resnici niste dodajali vrednosti,

you weren't actually creating value,

you were exploiting the shepherd.

ampak izkoriščali ovčarja.

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

Von Mises pravi, da moderni ekonomisti delajo enako napako

v zvezi z oglaševanjem in marketingom.

with regard to advertising and marketing.

He says if you run a restaurant,

Pravi, da če imate restavracijo,

there is no healthy distinction to be made

ne more biti prave razlike

med vrednostjo, ki jo ustvarite s kuhanjem

between the value you create by cooking the food

and the value you create by sweeping the floor.

in tisto, ki jo ustvarite s pometanjem.

Ena morda napravi primarni izdelek,

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

the thing we think we're paying for --

tisto, kar gost plača,

druga pa ustvari okolje,

the other one creates a context within which we can enjoy

v katerem lahko ta izdelek uživamo.

and appreciate that product.

Prepričanje, da bi ena morala biti pomembnejša od druge,

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

je v temelju zgrešeno.

is fundamentally wrong.

Try this quick thought experiment:

Napravimo tale hitri miselni poskus.

imagine a restaurant that serves Michelin-starred food,

Predstavljajte si restavracijo, ki nudi hrano, nagrajeno z Michelin zvezdicami,

restavracija sama pa smrdi po odtoku

but where the restaurant smells of sewage

in na tleh so človeški izločki.

and there's human feces on the floor.

(Laughter)

The best thing you can do there to create value

Največ, kar lahko naredite, da bi temu dodali vrednost,

ni da izboljšate hrano,

is not actually to improve the food still further,

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

ampak da restavracijo očistite in odstranite smrad.

Ključno je, da to razumemo.

And it's vital we understand this.

Če se vam to zdi kot nekaj čudnega in nejasnega...

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

britanska pošta je imela 98-odstoten uspeh

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

at delivering first-class mail the next day.

pri dostavi pošte prvega razreda v naslednjem dnevu.

Odločili so se, da to ni dovolj

They decided this wasn't good enough,

in so hoteli doseči 99 odstotkov.

and they wanted to get it up to 99.

Ta trud je organizacijo skoraj uničil.

The effort to do that almost broke the organization.

Če bi hkrati vprašali ljudi,

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

kolikšen odstotek prvorazredne pošte prispe naslednji dan,

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

bi bil povprečni odgovor med 50 in 60 odstotki.

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

Če je vaša predstava veliko slabša od realnosti,

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

zakaj hudiča bi spreminjali realnost?

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

To je isto kot izboljšanje hrane v restavraciji, ki smrdi.

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

Najprej morate

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

povedati ljudem,

da 98 odstotkov prvorazredne pošte pride do naslovnika naslednji dan.

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

That's pretty good.

To je precej dobro.

V Britaniji je še boljša primerjava,

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

če ljudem poveste,

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

da naslednji dan prispe več prvorazredne pošte

tu kot v Nemčiji.

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

Kajti v splošnem Britance lahko zadovoljite z nečim,

if you want to make us happy about something,

že če jim poveste, da so boljši kot Nemci.

just tell us we do it better than the Germans.

(smeh)

(Laughter)

(aplavz)

(Applause)

Izberite svoj okvir in dojeto vrednost

Choose your frame of reference and the perceived value,

and therefore, the actual value is completely transformed.

in to bo povsem spremenilo dejansko vrednost.

Glede Nemcev moram reči,

It has to be said of the Germans

that the Germans and the French are doing a brilliant job

da oni in Francozi odlično opravljajo svoje delo

pri oblikovanju enotne Evrope.

of creating a united Europe.

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

Edino, česar ne pričakujejo, je, da Evropo združuje

through a shared mild hatred of the French and Germans.

rahlo sovraštvo do nemcev in francozov, ki si ga deli.

Ampak jaz sem Britanec in to nam je všeč.

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

(Laughter)

Opazili boste tudi, da je naša percepcija v vsakem primeru nepopolna.

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

Ne poznamo razlike med kakovostjo hrane

in okoljem, v katerem jo užijemo.

and the environment in which we consume it.

Vsi ste ta pojav videli,

All of you will have seen this phenomenon

če ste odpeljali avto v avtopralnico ali ga pustili, da vam ga parkirajo.

if you have your car washed or valeted.

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

Ko ste se odpeljali stran, ste imeli občutek, da se avto lepše vozi.

(Laughter)

Razlog za to,

And the reason for this --

razen če so vmes skrivoma zamenjali olje

unless my car valet mysteriously is changing the oil

in opravili delo, ki ga nismo plačali in ne vemo zanj,

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

je v tem, da je naše dojemanje v vsakem primeru nepopolno.

is because perception is, in any case, leaky.

Analgesics that are branded are more effective at reducing pain

Analgetiki znanih znamk bolj učinkovito odpravljajo bolečino

than analgesics that are not branded.

kot analgetiki neznanih znamk.

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

In to ne samo glede na poročila o zmanjšanju bolečine,

ampak glede na dejanske meritve zmanjšanja.

actual measured pain reduction.

And so perception actually is leaky in any case.

Dojemanje je res nepopolno.

Če torej storite kaj, kar je v določenem smislu dojeto kot slabo,

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

lahko drugim napravite škodo.

you can damage the other.

Thank you very much.

Hvala lepa.

(Applause)

(aplavz)