TEDSalon London 2010
Rory Sutherland: Sweat the small stuff
Rory Sutherland: 關注細節
Filmed:
Readability: 4.6
1,236,257 views
通常，人們可能認為複雜的問題需要用複雜的方法來解決，但廣告人 Rory Sutherland 認為，令人眼花繚亂、成本高昂的解決方案完全可以用更簡單有效的方法替代。Rory 以行為經濟學的理論及風趣的例子說明他的觀點。
Rory Sutherland - Advertising guru
Rory Sutherland stands at the center of an advertising revolution in brand identities, designing cutting-edge, interactive campaigns that blur the line between ad and entertainment. Full bio
Rory Sutherland stands at the center of an advertising revolution in brand identities, designing cutting-edge, interactive campaigns that blur the line between ad and entertainment. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:15
Those of you who may remember me from TEDGlobal
0
0
2000
那些在 TEDGlobal 對我還有印象的觀眾
00:17
remember me asking a few questions
1
2000
2000
大概會記得我提過的一些問題，
00:19
which still preoccupy me.
2
4000
2000
至今，它們仍然困擾著我。
00:21
One of them was: Why is it necessary to spend
3
6000
2000
有個問題是：為什麼要花費
00:23
six billion pounds
4
8000
2000
六十億英鎊
00:25
speeding up the Eurostar train
5
10000
2000
來提昇歐洲之星的速度，
00:27
when, for about 10 percent of that money,
6
12000
2000
當你只要花費這龐大預算的十分之一
00:29
you could have top supermodels, male and female,
7
14000
2000
就可以請到頂級名模，無論男女，
00:31
serving free Chateau Petrus to all the passengers
8
16000
3000
為乘客免費送上彼德綠堡 (Château Pétrus) 紅酒
00:34
for the entire duration of the journey?
9
19000
2000
讓他們享受整個旅程呢？
00:36
You'd still have five billion left in change,
10
21000
2000
這樣政府還可以省下五十億英鎊的預算，
00:38
and people would ask for the trains to be slowed down.
11
23000
3000
而且乘客還會希望列車跑慢一點。
00:41
Now, you may remember me asking the question as well,
12
26000
2000
你們現在也許會記得 我提出的另一個問題，
00:43
a very interesting observation,
13
28000
2000
一個很有趣的觀察，
00:45
that actually those strange little signs
14
30000
2000
公路上奇特的小標示牌
00:47
that actually flash "35" at you,
15
32000
2000
持續閃爍著數字：「35」
00:49
occasionally accompanying a little smiley face
16
34000
2000
偶爾旁邊還會擺一個笑臉、
00:51
or a frown,
17
36000
2000
或是哭臉，
00:53
according to whether you're within or outside the speed limit --
18
38000
3000
來表示你是否超速——
00:56
those are actually more effective
19
41000
2000
它們其實比測速機
00:58
at preventing road accidents than speed cameras,
20
43000
3000
更能有效預防車禍，
01:01
which come with the actual threat
21
46000
2000
儘管測速機是以實際的罰鍰
01:03
of real punishment.
22
48000
2000
警戒違規者。
01:05
So there seems to be a strange disproportionality at work,
23
50000
3000
所以，這裡就出現了一個奇怪的失衡，
01:08
I think, in many areas of human problem solving,
24
53000
3000
我想，在我們解決各種問題的時候，
01:11
particularly those which involve human psychology,
25
56000
3000
特別是那些涉及人類心理因素的問題，
01:14
which is: The tendency
26
59000
2000
意即，各種組織或機構
01:16
of the organization or the institution
27
61000
2000
往往傾向於
01:18
is to deploy as much force as possible,
28
63000
3000
盡量佈置最多的財力物力 ——
01:21
as much compulsion as possible,
29
66000
2000
施加最大的壓力；
01:23
whereas actually, the tendency of the person
30
68000
2000
但實際上，人們的傾向
01:25
is to be almost influenced
31
70000
3000
所受到的影響
01:28
in absolute reverse proportion
32
73000
2000
和數量卻往往呈現
01:30
to the amount of force being applied.
33
75000
3000
反比關係。
01:33
So there seems to be a complete disconnect here.
34
78000
2000
這裡就出現一個完全不對頭的情況，
01:35
So what I'm asking for is the creation of a new job title --
35
80000
2000
我認為應該出現一個新型職業 ——
01:37
I'll come to this a little later --
36
82000
2000
稍後我就會提到，
01:39
and perhaps the addition of a new word
37
84000
2000
並且可能會成為英文裡的
01:41
into the English language.
38
86000
2000
一個新名詞。
01:43
Because it does seem to me that large organizations
39
88000
3000
在我看來，多數的大型組織，
01:46
including government, which is, of course, the largest organization of all,
40
91000
3000
包括政府，算是所有組織裡最大型的，
01:49
have actually become
41
94000
2000
實際上，已變得
01:51
completely disconnected
42
96000
2000
完全脫節，
01:53
with what actually matters to people.
43
98000
2000
不能配合群眾的實際需要
01:55
Let me give you one example of this.
44
100000
2000
讓我舉個例子，
01:57
You may remember this as the AOL-Time Warner merger, okay,
45
102000
3000
還記得「美國線上時代華納」的合併吧？
02:01
heralded at the time as the largest
46
106000
2000
當時，它被稱為有史以來最大的
02:03
single deal of all time.
47
108000
2000
單筆交易。
02:05
It may still be, for all I know.
48
110000
2000
據我所知，現在可能還是如此。
02:07
Now, all of you in this room, in one form or other,
49
112000
2000
我想，在座的各位來自不同的領域，
02:09
are probably customers of one or both
50
114000
2000
都有可能是兩間合併公司
02:11
of those organizations that merged.
51
116000
2000
或是其中之一的客戶。
02:13
Just interested, did anybody notice anything different
52
118000
3000
那麼，是否有人注意到
02:16
as a result of this at all?
53
121000
2000
合併所造成的任何變化？
02:18
So unless you happened to be a shareholder
54
123000
2000
所以除非你恰好持有
02:20
of one or the other organizations
55
125000
2000
兩間公司的部分股份
02:22
or one of the dealmakers or lawyers involved in the no-doubt lucrative activity,
56
127000
3000
或是曾經參與這次「高利潤活動」的交易者或律師，
02:25
you're actually engaging in a huge piece of activity
57
130000
3000
否則你實際上不會察覺任何變化，
02:28
that meant absolutely bugger-all to anybody, okay?
58
133000
3000
其實這對各位來說都無關緊要。是吧。
02:32
By contrast, years of marketing have taught me
59
137000
2000
相比之下，多年的行銷經驗讓我瞭解
02:34
that if you actually want people to remember you
60
139000
3000
如果你真的想要其他人記得你
02:37
and to appreciate what you do,
61
142000
2000
並感激你的貢獻的話，
02:39
the most potent things are actually very, very small.
62
144000
3000
最有用的，其實是那些非常、非常細微的事。
02:42
This is from Virgin Atlantic upper-class,
63
147000
2000
這是維珍航空（Virgin Atlantic）的頭等艙
02:44
it's the cruet salt and pepper set.
64
149000
2000
使用的鹽和胡椒罐。
02:46
Quite nice in itself, they're little, sort of, airplane things.
65
151000
3000
看起來很可愛的小東西，確實像是可以免費帶走的用品。
02:49
What's really, really sweet is every single person looking at these things
66
154000
3000
有趣的是 當每位乘客看到它們的時候
02:52
has exactly the same mischievous thought,
67
157000
2000
內心都會暗地尋思：
02:54
which is, "I reckon I can heist these."
68
159000
3000
「我猜我可以帶走它們。」
02:57
However, you pick them up and underneath,
69
162000
2000
但是，要是你拿起那些罐子，
02:59
actually engraved in the metal, are the words,
70
164000
2000
會發現底座刻著這段句子：
03:01
"Stolen from Virgin Atlantic Airways upper-class."
71
166000
3000
「竊取自維珍航空頭等艙。」
03:04
(Laughter)
72
169000
2000
（大笑）
03:06
Now, years after
73
171000
2000
多年以後，
03:08
you remember the strategic question
74
173000
2000
當你已經淡忘
03:10
of whether you're flying in a 777 or an Airbus,
75
175000
3000
當年坐的是波音 777 還是空中巴士後，
03:13
you remember those words and that experience.
76
178000
3000
你會記得那段有趣的語句和經驗。
03:17
Similarly, this is from a hotel in Stockholm, the Lydmar.
77
182000
2000
同樣的，這是在斯德哥爾摩的 Lydmar 賓館。
03:19
Has anybody stayed there?
78
184000
2000
有人住過那嗎？
03:21
It's the lift, it's a series of buttons in the lift.
79
186000
3000
那裡的電梯有一串按鈕，
03:24
Nothing unusual about that at all,
80
189000
3000
看似平常，
03:27
except that these are actually not the buttons that take you to an individual floor.
81
192000
3000
然而它們並不是用來指示要到達的樓層。
03:30
It starts with garage at the bottom, I suppose, appropriately,
82
195000
3000
最下面的按鈕是 「Garage（車庫）」，沒錯吧？
03:33
but it doesn't go up garage, grand floor, mezzanine, one, two, three, four.
83
198000
3000
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」。
03:36
It actually says garage, funk, rhythm and blues.
84
201000
3000
事實上，它們寫著「車庫、放克、節奏、藍調」。
03:40
You have a series of buttons. You actually choose your lift music.
85
205000
3000
這列按鈕是供你選擇在電梯內播放的音樂。
03:44
My guess is that the cost of installing this in the lift
86
209000
3000
我猜 Lydmar 賓館的電梯裡
03:47
in the Lydmar Hotel in Stockholm
87
212000
2000
安裝這種音樂點播的系統
03:49
is probably 500 to 1,000 pounds max.
88
214000
3000
大約花費五百到一千英鎊。
03:52
It's frankly more memorable
89
217000
2000
但它真的很令人難忘，
03:54
than all those millions of hotels we've all stayed at
90
219000
3000
比起我們住過的其他旅館更加印象深刻，
03:57
that tell you that your room has actually been recently renovated
91
222000
3000
儘管那些旅館常常告訴我們 你的住房才剛全新裝潢
04:00
at a cost of 500,000 dollars,
92
225000
2000
裝修耗資五十萬美元，
04:02
in order to make it resemble every other hotel room you've ever stayed in
93
227000
3000
但那房間與其他旅館的客房相比之下，沒什麼兩樣
04:05
in the entire course of your life.
94
230000
3000
根本就是過眼雲煙。
04:09
Now, these are trivial marketing examples, I accept.
95
234000
3000
這些都是很細微的市場行銷案例。
04:12
But I was at a TED event recently and Esther Duflo,
96
237000
3000
但是，在我最近參與的一次 TED 活動中，經濟學家 Esther Duflo
04:15
probably one of the leading experts in,
97
240000
2000
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
04:17
effectively, the eradication of poverty in the developing world,
98
242000
2000
的主要的專家之一，
04:19
actually spoke.
99
244000
2000
她談到了一個案例。
04:21
And she came across a similar example
100
246000
2000
她提出一個類似的方案
04:23
of something that fascinated me
101
248000
2000
我感到極大的興趣
04:25
as being something which, in a business context or a government context,
102
250000
3000
然而對於企業界和政府機關來說，
04:28
would simply be so trivial a solution
103
253000
2000
這方案是如此微不足道，
04:30
as to seem embarrassing.
104
255000
2000
以至於顯得很尷尬。
04:32
It was simply to encourage the inoculation of children
105
257000
3000
這個方案是提倡兒童的疫苗接種
04:35
by, not only making it a social event --
106
260000
2000
不僅僅是個社會活動 ——
04:37
I think good use of behavioral economics in that,
107
262000
2000
這是對行為經濟學的良好應用。
04:39
if you turn up with several other mothers
108
264000
2000
如果你同另外幾位母親一起
04:41
to have your child inoculated,
109
266000
2000
帶自己的小孩去接種，
04:43
your sense of confidence is much greater than if you turn up alone.
110
268000
3000
你會比獨自前往更有信心。
04:46
But secondly, to incentivize that inoculation
111
271000
2000
但第二點是，為了鼓勵接種，
04:48
by giving a kilo of lentils to everybody who participated.
112
273000
3000
政府會配給每位參與接種的人一公斤扁豆。
04:53
It's a tiny, tiny thing.
113
278000
2000
這是很小很小的事情。
04:55
If you're a senior person at UNESCO
114
280000
3000
如果你是聯合國教科文組織的一個高級官員
04:58
and someone says, "So what are you doing
115
283000
2000
當有人問起：「那你要怎麼
05:00
to eradicate world poverty?"
116
285000
2000
消除當今世界的貧困問題？」
05:02
you're not really confident standing up there
117
287000
2000
你不可能滿懷自信地回答
05:04
saying, "I've got it cracked; it's the lentils," are you?
118
289000
3000
「我搞定了，答案就是扁豆。」對吧？
05:08
Our own sense of self-aggrandizement
119
293000
2000
自我優越性往往使我們覺得
05:10
feels that big important problems
120
295000
2000
重要的問題
05:12
need to have big important, and most of all, expensive
121
297000
3000
必須用看起來重大、而且通常很昂貴的
05:15
solutions attached to them.
122
300000
3000
方式才能解決。
05:18
And yet, what behavioral economics shows time after time after time
123
303000
3000
其實不然，行為經濟學一再地表明
05:21
is in human behavioral and behavioral change
124
306000
2000
在人類的行為與行為的改變之間
05:23
there's a very, very strong disproportionality at work,
125
308000
3000
出現非常嚴重的比例失調。
05:26
that actually what changes our behavior
126
311000
3000
那些能夠真正改變我們行為
05:29
and what changes our attitude to things
127
314000
2000
和態度的事
05:31
is not actually proportionate to the degree
128
316000
2000
實際上不需要花費
05:33
of expense entailed,
129
318000
2000
很可觀的財力
05:35
or the degree of force that's applied.
130
320000
3000
或是物力。
05:38
But everything about institutions
131
323000
2000
但所有和機構有關的事物
05:40
makes them uncomfortable
132
325000
2000
都使他們無法適應
05:42
with that disproportionality.
133
327000
2000
這種不等比例的情況。
05:44
So what happens in an institution
134
329000
2000
於是，這就造成機構中
05:46
is the very person who has the power to solve the problem
135
331000
3000
有權解決問題的人
05:49
also has a very, very large budget.
136
334000
2000
往往擁有鉅額的預算。
05:51
And once you have a very, very large budget,
137
336000
2000
一旦你有了鉅額預算，
05:53
you actually look for expensive things to spend it on.
138
338000
3000
解決問題的眼光就會放在較昂貴的事情上。
05:57
What is completely lacking is a class of people
139
342000
2000
如今我們所缺乏的正是
05:59
who have immense amounts of power, but no money at all.
140
344000
3000
有著巨大權力，但身無分文的人。
06:02
(Laughter)
141
347000
2000
（笑聲）
06:04
It's those people I'd quite like to create
142
349000
2000
我希望在這日新月異的世界中
06:06
in the world going forward.
143
351000
2000
能出現這樣的人才。
06:08
Now, here's another thing that happens,
144
353000
2000
還有一個現象，
06:10
which is what I call sometimes "Terminal 5 syndrome,"
145
355000
2000
有時，我會稱它為「第五航廈症候群」，
06:12
which is that big, expensive things
146
357000
2000
它是指，當完成耗資鉅額的重要事件時，
06:14
get big, highly-intelligent attention,
147
359000
3000
人們集中才智、精力，
06:17
and they're great, and Terminal 5 is absolutely magnificent,
148
362000
3000
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，
06:20
until you get down to the small detail, the usability,
149
365000
2000
直到你開始注意小細節與實用性時，
06:22
which is the signage,
150
367000
2000
例如指示牌，
06:24
which is catastrophic.
151
369000
2000
你就會發現，這簡直是個災難。
06:26
You come out of "Arrive" at the airport, and you follow
152
371000
2000
走出機場的入境關口後，你看到
06:28
a big yellow sign that says "Trains" and it's in front of you.
153
373000
3000
眼前有一個標明「列車」的大型黃色指示牌，
06:31
So you walk for another hundred yards,
154
376000
2000
於是你跟隨指示走上幾百碼，
06:33
expecting perhaps another sign,
155
378000
2000
搜尋著新的指示牌，
06:35
that might courteously be yellow, in front of you and saying "Trains."
156
380000
3000
你希望在前方找到另一個黃色的「列車」指示，
06:38
No, no, no, the next one is actually blue, to your left,
157
383000
2000
但，錯了。下一個指示牌其實是藍色的，且位置在你左方，
06:40
and says "Heathrow Express."
158
385000
2000
上面是寫「希斯路機場快線」。
06:42
I mean, it could almost be rather like that scene from the film "Airplane."
159
387000
3000
這實在太像喜劇電影《空前絕後滿天飛》（Airplane）的搞笑片段了，
06:45
A yellow sign? That's exactly what they'll be expecting.
160
390000
3000
黃色的指示牌？這正是他們所期待的。
06:48
Actually, what happens in the world increasingly --
161
393000
2000
實際上，這種情況在世上可是層出不窮 ——
06:50
now, all credit to the British Airport Authority.
162
395000
2000
全歸功於英國機場管理局（對細節的忽略）。
06:52
I spoke about this before,
163
397000
2000
我以前就談過這問題了，
06:54
and a brilliant person got in touch with me and said, "Okay, what can you do?"
164
399000
3000
當時一個聰明的人當面跑來問我說：「好，那你會怎麼做？」
06:57
So I did come up with five suggestions, which they are actually actioning.
165
402000
3000
於是我給他五個建議，而且已經付諸實行了。
07:00
One of them also being,
166
405000
2000
其中一個建議
07:02
although logically it's quite a good idea
167
407000
2000
儘管在邏輯上說來是個好點子 ——
07:04
to have a lift with no up and down button in it,
168
409000
2000
一個沒有「上」與「下」鍵的電梯。
07:06
if it only serves two floors,
169
411000
2000
但如果電梯只在二層樓間運行的話，
07:08
it's actually bloody terrifying, okay?
170
413000
3000
真的那樣做其實蠻恐怖的，是吧。
07:11
Because when the door closes
171
416000
2000
因為當門關上後，
07:13
and there's nothing for you to do,
172
418000
2000
你根本就不用動手，
07:15
you've actually just stepped into a Hammer film.
173
420000
2000
彷彿一腳踏進恐怖電影的場景裡。
07:17
(Laughter)
174
422000
2000
（大笑）
07:19
So these questions ... what is happening in the world
175
424000
2000
這些問題都說明了當今世界發生的
07:21
is the big stuff, actually,
176
426000
2000
真正重要的問題，
07:23
is done magnificently well.
177
428000
2000
我們都能妥善解決。
07:25
But the small stuff, what you might call the user interface,
178
430000
3000
但細節問題，比如使用者介面，
07:28
is done spectacularly badly.
179
433000
2000
就處理得糟糕透頂。
07:30
But also, there seems to be a complete sort of gridlock
180
435000
3000
同時，人們往往陷入一種僵局
07:33
in terms of solving these small solutions.
181
438000
3000
以致於更難以解決這些細節問題。
07:36
Because the people who can actually solve them
182
441000
2000
因為能真正解決問題的人們
07:38
actually are too powerful and too preoccupied
183
443000
2000
往往位高權重，時常流於
07:40
with something they think of as "strategy" to actually solve them.
184
445000
3000
思考「策略性」的問題而非實際解決。
07:43
I tried this exercise recently, talking about banking.
185
448000
2000
我最近遇到這樣一件事，我和銀行業的一些人談話。
07:45
They said, "Can we do an advertising campaign?
186
450000
2000
他們問「我們能夠以廣告競爭嗎？
07:47
What can we do and encourage more online banking?"
187
452000
3000
如何推廣網路銀行業務？」
07:50
I said, "It's really, really easy."
188
455000
2000
我回答：「相當容易。」
07:52
I said, "When people login to their online bank
189
457000
2000
比如「當人們登入到網路銀行中，
07:54
there are lots and lots of things they'd probably quite like to look at.
190
459000
3000
是為了查看各種訊息，
07:57
The last thing in the world you ever want to see is your balance."
191
462000
3000
而最不願意看的訊息就是自己的結餘。」
08:01
I've got friends who actually
192
466000
2000
我有一些朋友
08:03
never use their own bank cash machines
193
468000
2000
從來不用銀行的提款機，
08:05
because there's the risk that it might display
194
470000
2000
僅僅是因為不願看到
08:07
their balance on the screen.
195
472000
2000
自己的結餘顯示在螢幕上。
08:09
Why would you willingly expose yourself to bad news?
196
474000
3000
誰願意讓自己得知壞消息呢？
08:12
Okay, you simply wouldn't.
197
477000
2000
對，你當然不願意。
08:14
I said, "If you make, actually, 'Tell me my balance.'
198
479000
2000
我告訴他們:「如果將『顯示結餘』
08:16
If you make that an option rather than the default,
199
481000
3000
從自動顯示改為使用者自行選擇的話，
08:19
you'll find twice as many people log on to online banking,
200
484000
3000
你會發現，使用網路銀行的用戶將會增長一倍，
08:22
and they do it three times as often."
201
487000
2000
而且登入頻率也會增加兩倍。」
08:24
Let's face it, most of us -- how many of you
202
489000
2000
說實話，我們之間有多少人
08:26
actually check your balance before you remove cash from a cash machine?
203
491000
3000
會在提款前查看自己的結餘？
08:30
And you're pretty rich by the standards of the world at large.
204
495000
3000
更不用說以世界平均衡量，你們相當富裕。
08:33
Now, interesting that no single person does that,
205
498000
2000
看吧，在場沒有一位會看的，
08:35
or at least can admit to being so anal as to do it.
206
500000
3000
或是說，即使會看也不敢讓別人知道。
08:39
But what's interesting about that suggestion
207
504000
2000
關於這個提議，有趣的是
08:41
was that, to implement that suggestion wouldn't cost 10 million pounds;
208
506000
3000
執行的花費不會超過一千萬英鎊，
08:44
it wouldn't involve large amounts of expenditure;
209
509000
2000
實際上，開支非常少，
08:46
it would actually cost about 50 quid.
210
511000
2000
不過五十英鎊左右。
08:48
And yet, it never happens.
211
513000
2000
然而它至今從未實行。
08:50
Because there's a fundamental disconnect, as I said,
212
515000
3000
這就回到我所說的嚴重脫節的問題上，
08:53
that actually, the people with the power
213
518000
2000
即，有權的人，
08:55
want to do big expensive things.
214
520000
2000
只想做巨大、浪費錢的事。
08:57
And there's to some extent a big strategy myth
215
522000
2000
然而，現在有一種策略上的迷思
08:59
that's prevalent in business now.
216
524000
2000
在企業界很普遍。
09:01
And if you think about it, it's very, very important
217
526000
2000
如果多加思考就會發現，非常、非常重要的一點是
09:03
that the strategy myth is maintained.
218
528000
2000
這個策略迷思仍然普遍維持著。
09:05
Because, if the board of directors convince everybody
219
530000
3000
因為，董事會必須說服公司成員
09:08
that the success of any organization
220
533000
2000
任何共同成就
09:10
is almost entirely dependent on the decisions made by the board of directors,
221
535000
3000
幾乎都得完全歸功於董事會的決策，
09:13
it makes the disparity in salaries
222
538000
3000
這才能使薪資的巨大差異
09:16
slightly more justifiable
223
541000
2000
顯得更合理，
09:18
than if you actually acknowledge that quite a lot of the credit for a company's success
224
543000
3000
而不會承認公司的成功有大多數
09:21
might actually lie somewhere else,
225
546000
2000
其實都在於別的方面，
09:23
in small pieces of tactical activity.
226
548000
2000
比如那些細微的策略運作。
09:26
But what is happening is that effectively --
227
551000
2000
但，現在的實際情況是 ——
09:28
and the invention of the spreadsheet hasn't helped this;
228
553000
2000
試算表軟體的發明與此無關，
09:30
lots of things haven't helped this --
229
555000
2000
許多事情和它絲毫沒有一點關聯 ——
09:32
business and government suffers from a kind of physics envy.
230
557000
3000
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，
09:35
It wants the world to be the kind of place where
231
560000
3000
他們希望這個世界是
09:38
the input and the change are proportionate.
232
563000
3000
有一分投注就有一分收穫的。
09:41
It's a kind of mechanistic world
233
566000
2000
如果世界是符合機械理論的
09:43
that we'd all love to live in
234
568000
2000
我們應該都會樂見於此，
09:45
where, effectively, it sits very nicely on spreadsheets,
235
570000
3000
像是所有的事物都可以在試算表軟體上
09:48
everything is numerically expressible,
236
573000
2000
以數據形式清晰地顯示出來，
09:50
and the amount you spend on something is proportionate
237
575000
3000
而你在事物上所投入的時間
09:53
to the scale of your success.
238
578000
2000
會完全回饋於你的收效上。
09:55
That's the world people actually want.
239
580000
2000
大家都渴望這樣的世界。
09:57
In truth, we do live in a world that science can understand.
240
582000
2000
而實際上，我們也生活在一個以科學為基礎的世界；
09:59
Unfortunately, the science is probably closer to being climatology
241
584000
3000
不幸的是，這種科學很可能更類似氣象學。
10:02
in that in many cases,
242
587000
2000
在許多情況下，
10:04
very, very small changes
243
589000
2000
非常、非常微小的變動
10:06
can have disproportionately huge effects,
244
591000
2000
就可以造成翻天覆地的變化。
10:08
and equally, vast areas of activity, enormous mergers,
245
593000
3000
相反的，大範圍活動、大企業合併，
10:11
can actually accomplish absolutely bugger-all.
246
596000
3000
到頭來不過是無關痛癢。
10:15
But it's very, very uncomfortable for us
247
600000
2000
但我們很難實際地
10:17
to actually acknowledge that we're living in such a world.
248
602000
3000
承認世界就是如此不合邏輯。
10:20
But what I'm saying is we could just make things
249
605000
2000
我想說的是，許多事情
10:22
a little bit better for ourselves
250
607000
2000
都能變得更加容易，
10:24
if we looked at it in this very simple four-way approach.
251
609000
3000
只要我們將此分成四個大類。
10:28
That is actually strategy, and I'm not denying that strategy has a role.
252
613000
3000
這是「策略」方面，當然不否認每個策略都有實用的地方。
10:31
You know, there are cases where you spend quite a lot of money
253
616000
2000
要知道，畢竟有些事情確實需要耗資不斐
10:33
and you accomplish quite a lot.
254
618000
2000
才有可觀的成果。
10:35
And I'd be wrong to dis that completely.
255
620000
3000
我不否認這種可能。
10:38
Moving over, we come, of course, to consultancy.
256
623000
2000
然後我們來說一下，沒錯，「諮詢」方面。
10:40
(Laughter)
257
625000
3000
（大笑）
10:44
I thought it was very indecent of Accenture
258
629000
2000
在我看來，埃森哲（管理諮詢公司）這樣草率地
10:46
to ditch Tiger Woods in such
259
631000
2000
棄 Tiger Woods 不顧，
10:48
a sort of hurried and hasty way.
260
633000
2000
是一件很不光彩的事。
10:50
I mean, Tiger surely was actually obeying the Accenture model.
261
635000
3000
因為 Tiger 實際上遵循了埃森哲的服務模式。
10:53
He developed an interesting outsourcing model for sexual services,
262
638000
3000
他建立一個很有趣的性服務外包服務，
10:56
(Laughter)
263
641000
2000
（笑聲）
10:58
no longer tied to a single monopoly provider,
264
643000
3000
不再被單一的「供應商」壟斷，
11:01
in many cases, sourcing things locally,
265
646000
3000
在多數情況下本地「採購」，
11:04
and of course, the ability to have between one and three girls delivered at any time
266
649000
3000
同時，在任何時候都有一到三個女生持續供應服務
11:07
led for better load-balancing.
267
652000
3000
使負載更加平衡。
11:10
So what Accenture suddenly found so unattractive about that, I'm not sure.
268
655000
3000
所以埃森哲為什麼突然不喜歡 Tiger 了？真是難以理解。
11:13
Then there are other things that don't cost much and achieve absolutely nothing.
269
658000
3000
還有一類事情雖然花費不高，卻也沒什麼成效。
11:16
That's called trivia.
270
661000
2000
人們稱之「瑣事」。
11:18
But there's a fourth thing.
271
663000
2000
但最後還有第四類事情。
11:20
And the fundamental problem is we don't actually have a word for this stuff.
272
665000
3000
根本的問題是 我們沒有語詞來形容這類事情。
11:23
We don't know what to call it.
273
668000
2000
我們不知道該如何稱呼它。
11:25
And actually we don't spend nearly enough money
274
670000
3000
而且我們很少花費資金
11:28
looking for those things,
275
673000
2000
來尋找這類事物。
11:30
looking for those tiny things that may or may not work,
276
675000
3000
儘管它們微不足道，但卻可能帶來大的改變。
11:33
but which, if they do work,
277
678000
2000
如果確實起了作用，
11:35
can have a success absolutely out of proportion
278
680000
2000
那麼它們取得的成功絕對會遠超
11:37
to their expense, their efforts
279
682000
2000
當初所投入的人力、物力
11:39
and the disruption they cause.
280
684000
2000
以及實行中造成的干擾。
11:41
So the first thing I'd like
281
686000
2000
因此，首先我希望
11:43
is a competition -- to anybody watching this as a film --
282
688000
2000
每一個看過這次演講的人都來參與一個競賽
11:45
is to come up with a name for that stuff on the bottom right.
283
690000
3000
就是為右下角第四項事項命名。
11:48
And the second thing, I think,
284
693000
2000
其次，我認為，
11:50
is that the world needs to have people in charge of that.
285
695000
2000
這個世界需要有人來掌握這類事情。
11:52
That's why I call for the "Chief Detail Officer."
286
697000
2000
這就是為何我呼籲「細節總監」的設立。
11:54
Every corporation should have one,
287
699000
2000
每個公司都該有這個職位，
11:56
and every government should have a Ministry of Detail.
288
701000
3000
而每個政府都該設立「細節部門」。
11:59
The people who actually have no money,
289
704000
2000
擔任此職的人不能有太多錢，
12:01
who have no extravagant budget,
290
706000
2000
不能有龐大的預算，
12:03
but who realize that actually
291
708000
2000
並且要能意識這一點:
12:05
you might achieve greater success in uptake
292
710000
2000
付出雙倍的津貼有可能
12:07
of a government program
293
712000
2000
在政府工作中
12:09
by actually doubling the level of benefits you pay,
294
714000
2000
取得更大的績效；
12:11
but you'll probably achieve exactly that same effect
295
716000
3000
但要取得同樣的效果，你通常
12:14
simply by redesigning the form
296
719000
2000
只需要重新設計表格
12:16
and writing it in comprehensible English.
297
721000
2000
並以更明白的英文表示。
12:18
And if actually we created a Ministry of Detail
298
723000
3000
如果政府真的設立了細節部門，
12:21
and business actually had Chief Detail Officers,
299
726000
2000
而企業有細節總監，
12:23
then that fourth quadrant,
300
728000
2000
那麼這個第四類領域，
12:25
which is so woefully neglected at the moment,
301
730000
2000
這個時常不幸遭人漠視的事項，
12:27
might finally get the attention it deserves.
302
732000
2000
到時大概就會得到應有的關注。
12:29
Thank you very much.
303
734000
2000
非常感謝大家。
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Rory Sutherland - Advertising guruRory Sutherland stands at the center of an advertising revolution in brand identities, designing cutting-edge, interactive campaigns that blur the line between ad and entertainment.
Why you should listen
From unlikely beginnings as a classics teacher to his current job as Vice Chairman of Ogilvy Group, Rory Sutherland has created his own brand of the Cinderella story. He joined Ogilvy & Mather's planning department in 1988, and became a junior copywriter, working on Microsoft's account in its pre-Windows days. An early fan of the Internet, he was among the first in the traditional ad world to see the potential in these relatively unknown technologies.
An immediate understanding of the possibilities of digital technology and the Internet powered Sutherland's meteoric rise. He continues to provide insight into advertising in the age of the Internet and social media through his blog at Campaign's Brand Republic site, his column "The Wiki Man" at The Spectator and his busy Twitter account.
Rory Sutherland | Speaker | TED.com