remember me asking a few questions

大概會記得我提過的一些問題，

which still preoccupy me.

至今，它們仍然困擾著我。

One of them was: Why is it necessary to spend

有個問題是：為什麼要花費

six billion pounds

六十億英鎊

speeding up the Eurostar train

來提昇歐洲之星的速度，

when, for about 10 percent of that money,

當你只要花費這龐大預算的十分之一

you could have top supermodels, male and female,

就可以請到頂級名模，無論男女，

serving free Chateau Petrus to all the passengers

為乘客免費送上彼德綠堡 (Château Pétrus) 紅酒

for the entire duration of the journey?

讓他們享受整個旅程呢？

You'd still have five billion left in change,

這樣政府還可以省下五十億英鎊的預算，

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

而且乘客還會希望列車跑慢一點。

Now, you may remember me asking the question as well,

你們現在也許會記得 我提出的另一個問題，

a very interesting observation,

一個很有趣的觀察，

that actually those strange little signs

公路上奇特的小標示牌

that actually flash "35" at you,

持續閃爍著數字：「35」

occasionally accompanying a little smiley face

偶爾旁邊還會擺一個笑臉、

or a frown,

或是哭臉，

according to whether you're within or outside the speed limit --

來表示你是否超速——

those are actually more effective

它們其實比測速機

at preventing road accidents than speed cameras,

更能有效預防車禍，

which come with the actual threat

儘管測速機是以實際的罰鍰

of real punishment.

警戒違規者。

So there seems to be a strange disproportionality at work,

所以，這裡就出現了一個奇怪的失衡，

I think, in many areas of human problem solving,

我想，在我們解決各種問題的時候，

particularly those which involve human psychology,

特別是那些涉及人類心理因素的問題，

which is: The tendency

意即，各種組織或機構

of the organization or the institution

往往傾向於

is to deploy as much force as possible,

盡量佈置最多的財力物力 ——

as much compulsion as possible,

施加最大的壓力；

whereas actually, the tendency of the person

但實際上，人們的傾向

is to be almost influenced

所受到的影響

in absolute reverse proportion

和數量卻往往呈現

to the amount of force being applied.

反比關係。

So there seems to be a complete disconnect here.

這裡就出現一個完全不對頭的情況，

So what I'm asking for is the creation of a new job title --

我認為應該出現一個新型職業 ——

I'll come to this a little later --

稍後我就會提到，

and perhaps the addition of a new word

並且可能會成為英文裡的

into the English language.

一個新名詞。

Because it does seem to me that large organizations

在我看來，多數的大型組織，

including government, which is, of course, the largest organization of all,

包括政府，算是所有組織裡最大型的，

have actually become

實際上，已變得

completely disconnected

完全脫節，

with what actually matters to people.

不能配合群眾的實際需要

Let me give you one example of this.

讓我舉個例子，

You may remember this as the AOL-Time Warner merger, okay,

還記得「美國線上時代華納」的合併吧？

heralded at the time as the largest

當時，它被稱為有史以來最大的

single deal of all time.

單筆交易。

It may still be, for all I know.

據我所知，現在可能還是如此。

Now, all of you in this room, in one form or other,

我想，在座的各位來自不同的領域，

are probably customers of one or both

都有可能是兩間合併公司

of those organizations that merged.

或是其中之一的客戶。

Just interested, did anybody notice anything different

那麼，是否有人注意到

as a result of this at all?

合併所造成的任何變化？

So unless you happened to be a shareholder

所以除非你恰好持有

of one or the other organizations

兩間公司的部分股份

or one of the dealmakers or lawyers involved in the no-doubt lucrative activity,

或是曾經參與這次「高利潤活動」的交易者或律師，

you're actually engaging in a huge piece of activity

否則你實際上不會察覺任何變化，

that meant absolutely bugger-all to anybody, okay?

其實這對各位來說都無關緊要。是吧。

By contrast, years of marketing have taught me

相比之下，多年的行銷經驗讓我瞭解

that if you actually want people to remember you

如果你真的想要其他人記得你

and to appreciate what you do,

並感激你的貢獻的話，

the most potent things are actually very, very small.

最有用的，其實是那些非常、非常細微的事。

This is from Virgin Atlantic upper-class,

這是維珍航空（Virgin Atlantic）的頭等艙

it's the cruet salt and pepper set.

使用的鹽和胡椒罐。

Quite nice in itself, they're little, sort of, airplane things.

看起來很可愛的小東西，確實像是可以免費帶走的用品。

What's really, really sweet is every single person looking at these things

有趣的是 當每位乘客看到它們的時候

has exactly the same mischievous thought,

內心都會暗地尋思：

which is, "I reckon I can heist these."

「我猜我可以帶走它們。」

However, you pick them up and underneath,

但是，要是你拿起那些罐子，

actually engraved in the metal, are the words,

會發現底座刻著這段句子：

"Stolen from Virgin Atlantic Airways upper-class."

「竊取自維珍航空頭等艙。」

(Laughter)

（大笑）

Now, years after

多年以後，

you remember the strategic question

當你已經淡忘

of whether you're flying in a 777 or an Airbus,

當年坐的是波音 777 還是空中巴士後，

you remember those words and that experience.

你會記得那段有趣的語句和經驗。

Similarly, this is from a hotel in Stockholm, the Lydmar.

同樣的，這是在斯德哥爾摩的 Lydmar 賓館。

Has anybody stayed there?

有人住過那嗎？

It's the lift, it's a series of buttons in the lift.

那裡的電梯有一串按鈕，

Nothing unusual about that at all,

看似平常，

except that these are actually not the buttons that take you to an individual floor.

然而它們並不是用來指示要到達的樓層。

It starts with garage at the bottom, I suppose, appropriately,

最下面的按鈕是 「Garage（車庫）」，沒錯吧？

but it doesn't go up garage, grand floor, mezzanine, one, two, three, four.

但是上面這些按鈕 並不是寫著「車庫、大廳、夾層、一樓、二樓、三樓、四樓」。

It actually says garage, funk, rhythm and blues.

事實上，它們寫著「車庫、放克、節奏、藍調」。

You have a series of buttons. You actually choose your lift music.

這列按鈕是供你選擇在電梯內播放的音樂。

My guess is that the cost of installing this in the lift

我猜 Lydmar 賓館的電梯裡

in the Lydmar Hotel in Stockholm

安裝這種音樂點播的系統

is probably 500 to 1,000 pounds max.

大約花費五百到一千英鎊。

It's frankly more memorable

但它真的很令人難忘，

than all those millions of hotels we've all stayed at

比起我們住過的其他旅館更加印象深刻，

that tell you that your room has actually been recently renovated

儘管那些旅館常常告訴我們 你的住房才剛全新裝潢

at a cost of 500,000 dollars,

裝修耗資五十萬美元，

in order to make it resemble every other hotel room you've ever stayed in

但那房間與其他旅館的客房相比之下，沒什麼兩樣

in the entire course of your life.

根本就是過眼雲煙。

Now, these are trivial marketing examples, I accept.

這些都是很細微的市場行銷案例。

But I was at a TED event recently and Esther Duflo,

但是，在我最近參與的一次 TED 活動中，經濟學家 Esther Duflo

probably one of the leading experts in,

很可能是當前，在有效消除發展中國家貧困現象的這一領域上

effectively, the eradication of poverty in the developing world,

的主要的專家之一，

actually spoke.

她談到了一個案例。

And she came across a similar example

她提出一個類似的方案

of something that fascinated me

我感到極大的興趣

as being something which, in a business context or a government context,

然而對於企業界和政府機關來說，

would simply be so trivial a solution

這方案是如此微不足道，

as to seem embarrassing.

以至於顯得很尷尬。

It was simply to encourage the inoculation of children

這個方案是提倡兒童的疫苗接種

by, not only making it a social event --

不僅僅是個社會活動 ——

I think good use of behavioral economics in that,

這是對行為經濟學的良好應用。

if you turn up with several other mothers

如果你同另外幾位母親一起

to have your child inoculated,

帶自己的小孩去接種，

your sense of confidence is much greater than if you turn up alone.

你會比獨自前往更有信心。

But secondly, to incentivize that inoculation

但第二點是，為了鼓勵接種，

by giving a kilo of lentils to everybody who participated.

政府會配給每位參與接種的人一公斤扁豆。

It's a tiny, tiny thing.

這是很小很小的事情。

If you're a senior person at UNESCO

如果你是聯合國教科文組織的一個高級官員

and someone says, "So what are you doing

當有人問起：「那你要怎麼

to eradicate world poverty?"

消除當今世界的貧困問題？」

you're not really confident standing up there

你不可能滿懷自信地回答

saying, "I've got it cracked; it's the lentils," are you?

「我搞定了，答案就是扁豆。」對吧？

Our own sense of self-aggrandizement

自我優越性往往使我們覺得

feels that big important problems

重要的問題

need to have big important, and most of all, expensive

必須用看起來重大、而且通常很昂貴的

solutions attached to them.

方式才能解決。

And yet, what behavioral economics shows time after time after time

其實不然，行為經濟學一再地表明

is in human behavioral and behavioral change

在人類的行為與行為的改變之間

there's a very, very strong disproportionality at work,

出現非常嚴重的比例失調。

that actually what changes our behavior

那些能夠真正改變我們行為

and what changes our attitude to things

和態度的事

is not actually proportionate to the degree

實際上不需要花費

of expense entailed,

很可觀的財力

or the degree of force that's applied.

或是物力。

But everything about institutions

但所有和機構有關的事物

makes them uncomfortable

都使他們無法適應

with that disproportionality.

這種不等比例的情況。

So what happens in an institution

於是，這就造成機構中

is the very person who has the power to solve the problem

有權解決問題的人

also has a very, very large budget.

往往擁有鉅額的預算。

And once you have a very, very large budget,

一旦你有了鉅額預算，

you actually look for expensive things to spend it on.

解決問題的眼光就會放在較昂貴的事情上。

What is completely lacking is a class of people

如今我們所缺乏的正是

who have immense amounts of power, but no money at all.

有著巨大權力，但身無分文的人。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

It's those people I'd quite like to create

我希望在這日新月異的世界中

in the world going forward.

能出現這樣的人才。

Now, here's another thing that happens,

還有一個現象，

which is what I call sometimes "Terminal 5 syndrome,"

有時，我會稱它為「第五航廈症候群」，

which is that big, expensive things

它是指，當完成耗資鉅額的重要事件時，

get big, highly-intelligent attention,

人們集中才智、精力，

and they're great, and Terminal 5 is absolutely magnificent,

成果看起來就會很棒，而（倫敦希斯路機場）第五航廈的確是華麗壯觀，

until you get down to the small detail, the usability,

直到你開始注意小細節與實用性時，

which is the signage,

例如指示牌，

which is catastrophic.

你就會發現，這簡直是個災難。

You come out of "Arrive" at the airport, and you follow

走出機場的入境關口後，你看到

a big yellow sign that says "Trains" and it's in front of you.

眼前有一個標明「列車」的大型黃色指示牌，

So you walk for another hundred yards,

於是你跟隨指示走上幾百碼，

expecting perhaps another sign,

搜尋著新的指示牌，

that might courteously be yellow, in front of you and saying "Trains."

你希望在前方找到另一個黃色的「列車」指示，

No, no, no, the next one is actually blue, to your left,

但，錯了。下一個指示牌其實是藍色的，且位置在你左方，

and says "Heathrow Express."

上面是寫「希斯路機場快線」。

I mean, it could almost be rather like that scene from the film "Airplane."

這實在太像喜劇電影《空前絕後滿天飛》（Airplane）的搞笑片段了，

A yellow sign? That's exactly what they'll be expecting.

黃色的指示牌？這正是他們所期待的。

Actually, what happens in the world increasingly --

實際上，這種情況在世上可是層出不窮 ——

now, all credit to the British Airport Authority.

全歸功於英國機場管理局（對細節的忽略）。

I spoke about this before,

我以前就談過這問題了，

and a brilliant person got in touch with me and said, "Okay, what can you do?"

當時一個聰明的人當面跑來問我說：「好，那你會怎麼做？」

So I did come up with five suggestions, which they are actually actioning.

於是我給他五個建議，而且已經付諸實行了。

One of them also being,

其中一個建議

although logically it's quite a good idea

儘管在邏輯上說來是個好點子 ——

to have a lift with no up and down button in it,

一個沒有「上」與「下」鍵的電梯。

if it only serves two floors,

但如果電梯只在二層樓間運行的話，

it's actually bloody terrifying, okay?

真的那樣做其實蠻恐怖的，是吧。

Because when the door closes

因為當門關上後，

and there's nothing for you to do,

你根本就不用動手，

you've actually just stepped into a Hammer film.

彷彿一腳踏進恐怖電影的場景裡。

(Laughter)

（大笑）

So these questions ... what is happening in the world

這些問題都說明了當今世界發生的

is the big stuff, actually,

真正重要的問題，

is done magnificently well.

我們都能妥善解決。

But the small stuff, what you might call the user interface,

但細節問題，比如使用者介面，

is done spectacularly badly.

就處理得糟糕透頂。

But also, there seems to be a complete sort of gridlock

同時，人們往往陷入一種僵局

in terms of solving these small solutions.

以致於更難以解決這些細節問題。

Because the people who can actually solve them

因為能真正解決問題的人們

actually are too powerful and too preoccupied

往往位高權重，時常流於

with something they think of as "strategy" to actually solve them.

思考「策略性」的問題而非實際解決。

I tried this exercise recently, talking about banking.

我最近遇到這樣一件事，我和銀行業的一些人談話。

They said, "Can we do an advertising campaign?

他們問「我們能夠以廣告競爭嗎？

What can we do and encourage more online banking?"

如何推廣網路銀行業務？」

I said, "It's really, really easy."

我回答：「相當容易。」

I said, "When people login to their online bank

比如「當人們登入到網路銀行中，

there are lots and lots of things they'd probably quite like to look at.

是為了查看各種訊息，

The last thing in the world you ever want to see is your balance."

而最不願意看的訊息就是自己的結餘。」

I've got friends who actually

我有一些朋友

never use their own bank cash machines

從來不用銀行的提款機，

because there's the risk that it might display

僅僅是因為不願看到

their balance on the screen.

自己的結餘顯示在螢幕上。

Why would you willingly expose yourself to bad news?

誰願意讓自己得知壞消息呢？

Okay, you simply wouldn't.

對，你當然不願意。

I said, "If you make, actually, 'Tell me my balance.'

我告訴他們:「如果將『顯示結餘』

If you make that an option rather than the default,

從自動顯示改為使用者自行選擇的話，

you'll find twice as many people log on to online banking,

你會發現，使用網路銀行的用戶將會增長一倍，

and they do it three times as often."

而且登入頻率也會增加兩倍。」

Let's face it, most of us -- how many of you

說實話，我們之間有多少人

actually check your balance before you remove cash from a cash machine?

會在提款前查看自己的結餘？

And you're pretty rich by the standards of the world at large.

更不用說以世界平均衡量，你們相當富裕。

Now, interesting that no single person does that,

看吧，在場沒有一位會看的，

or at least can admit to being so anal as to do it.

或是說，即使會看也不敢讓別人知道。

But what's interesting about that suggestion

關於這個提議，有趣的是

was that, to implement that suggestion wouldn't cost 10 million pounds;

執行的花費不會超過一千萬英鎊，

it wouldn't involve large amounts of expenditure;

實際上，開支非常少，

it would actually cost about 50 quid.

不過五十英鎊左右。

And yet, it never happens.

然而它至今從未實行。

Because there's a fundamental disconnect, as I said,

這就回到我所說的嚴重脫節的問題上，

that actually, the people with the power

即，有權的人，

want to do big expensive things.

只想做巨大、浪費錢的事。

And there's to some extent a big strategy myth

然而，現在有一種策略上的迷思

that's prevalent in business now.

在企業界很普遍。

And if you think about it, it's very, very important

如果多加思考就會發現，非常、非常重要的一點是

that the strategy myth is maintained.

這個策略迷思仍然普遍維持著。

Because, if the board of directors convince everybody

因為，董事會必須說服公司成員

that the success of any organization

任何共同成就

is almost entirely dependent on the decisions made by the board of directors,

幾乎都得完全歸功於董事會的決策，

it makes the disparity in salaries

這才能使薪資的巨大差異

slightly more justifiable

顯得更合理，

than if you actually acknowledge that quite a lot of the credit for a company's success

而不會承認公司的成功有大多數

might actually lie somewhere else,

其實都在於別的方面，

in small pieces of tactical activity.

比如那些細微的策略運作。

But what is happening is that effectively --

但，現在的實際情況是 ——

and the invention of the spreadsheet hasn't helped this;

試算表軟體的發明與此無關，

lots of things haven't helped this --

許多事情和它絲毫沒有一點關聯 ——

business and government suffers from a kind of physics envy.

在企業界和政府部門中都承受一種類似物理欽羨（physics envy）的心理，

It wants the world to be the kind of place where

他們希望這個世界是

the input and the change are proportionate.

有一分投注就有一分收穫的。

It's a kind of mechanistic world

如果世界是符合機械理論的

that we'd all love to live in

我們應該都會樂見於此，

where, effectively, it sits very nicely on spreadsheets,

像是所有的事物都可以在試算表軟體上

everything is numerically expressible,

以數據形式清晰地顯示出來，

and the amount you spend on something is proportionate