#1053 - 理查德·肖顿 - 全球顶尖品牌的11个心理学技巧

而且

And

人们被询问关于海报的艺术价值、创意性，以及至关重要的购买意愿。

people are asked about the artistic merit of the poster, the creativity of the poster, and crucially purchase intent.

对于每一个指标，他都看到了相同的模式。

Now for every single metric, he sees the same pattern.

看到手绘标签的人，对这张海报的评价高于看到AI生成标签的群体。

People who saw the hand drawn label, they rate that poster better than the group who saw the AI powered label.

这种差异的幅度相当惊人。

And the scale is quite surprising.

在购买意愿方面，存在61%的差距。

Now when it comes to purchase intent, there is a 61% difference.

米勒对这一现象的解释是努力的错觉。

Now Millet's explanation for this is the illusion of effort.

他说，人们对于Claude或ChatGPT的个人体验是，它们会在几秒钟内给出答案。

He says people's personal experience of Claude or ChatGPT is that they will spit out an answer in a few seconds.

因此我们认为这是低投入的。

So therefore we think it's low effort.

所以如果我们告诉人们我们的产品是由AI创建的，在其他条件相同的情况下，这个产品会被评为不如被告知是手绘或通过人力努力制作的产品。

So if we tell people our product has been created by AI, all things being equal, that product will be rated worse than if people are told that it was hand drawn or made through human effort.

当你在产品中引入AI时，作为企业你必须非常谨慎。

You've gotta be really careful as a business when you're bringing AI into your product.

如果我建议不要这样做，那我就是个反技术者，但你必须意识到努力的错觉，从而转变对话的方向。

Now I'd be a Luddite to suggest don't do that, but what you have to do is be aware of the illusion of effort and therefore shift the conversation.

你要把对话的重点从产品交付的速度，转移到你为建立这个AI系统所投入的前期流程设计和设置上。

You know, shift the conversation away from how quickly the product was delivered to how much effort you put into setting up the process calls and processes to get this AI system set up in the first place.

我认为这正是人们对AI音乐感到反感的原因之一。

I think this is one of the reasons that people have an ick around AI music.

目前这种现象很多。

There's a lot of that at the moment.

Spotify上有许多榜单被AI乐队主导。

Spotify has a bunch of charts that are being dominated by AI bands.

我有一个有趣的领悟，就是你提到的‘努力的错觉’——每个尝试过唱歌或学习新乐器的人都知道，这有多么困难和难以企及。

And an interesting realization I had so the illusion of effort idea that you were talking about, everybody knows everyone that's ever tried to sing or pick up a new instrument realizes just how difficult and inaccessible it is.

我认为，这使得音乐成为了一种被保护的类别，人们觉得它对大多数人来说是遥不可及的。

That, I think, gives music a kind of protected class that people it it's inaccessible to most people.

我不会读乐谱。

I can't read music.

我不明白它是如何运作的。

I don't understand how it works.

我知道我喜欢什么，但我无法重现它。

I know what I like, but I can't recreate it.

如果你给我任何一种乐器，包括我天生就有的、长在脸前的那一种，我也无法发出我喜欢的歌曲的声音。

If you gave me any of the instruments, including the one that I was born with that's at the front of my face, I wouldn't be able to make the sounds of the songs that I like.

我认为，这让人觉得有人轻易跨越它特别令人反感。

And that, I think, makes it feel particularly egregious for someone to jump over it.

我在想，当涉及到艺术时，比如有人在绘画，是否也存在类似的情况？

I wonder whether there's an equivalent where it comes to art as well if somebody's drawing something.

我画画并不特别擅长，但我可以让AI帮我画。

So I'm not particularly good at drawing, I can get an AI to do it.

但事实上，我绕过了那些曾经可靠地体现能力和努力的门槛，这种行为感觉更加不公平。

But the fact that I've skipped the queue of something that used to be a reliably costly signal of competence and effort, the fact that I've circumvented that feels sort of additionally unfair.

是的。

Yeah.

我的意思是，这很可能没错。

I mean, that might well be true.

我的意思是，实验非常清楚地表明，当你看这些指标时，比如你愿意支付多少钱，或者你认为物品的质量有多好。

I mean, what the experiments are very clear on is if you look at these metrics for, you know, how much you're prepared to pay or how good quality you think the item is.

如果人们看到完全相同的产品，但改变了标签，就会得到不同的评分。

If people see exactly the same products, you change this labeling and you get a different score.

而且这种现象并不仅限于音乐。

And it does extend beyond music.

所以你有米勒特在艺术方面的研究。

So you've got millets work with, you know, art.

我曾和迈克尔·艾伦·弗lickr合作，给人们展示一个虚假的新品牌。

I did something with Michael Aaron Flickr, just showing people a fake new brand.

我们没有说这是个虚假的新品牌，但展示了名为‘Black Sheet Vodka’的这款酒的图片。

We didn't say it was a fake new brand, but we showed them these pictures of a brand called Black Sheet Vodka.

有时我们会说，设计师一共经历了143次迭代。

And sometimes we said, look, the designer went through 143 iterations.

其他时候，我们只是给他们看酒瓶的图片。

Other times we just showed them the picture of the bottle.

那些听到努力背后故事的人，认为酒瓶设计更美观，明显比没听到这个故事的人觉得更美。

And the people that saw that story of effort, they thought the bottle design was more beautiful, significantly more beautiful than the people that didn't hear that story of effort.

因此，这种现象显然不仅限于我们通常认为的艺术领域，还延伸到了商业设计，甚至房产中介服务也被证明有类似效果。

So it certainly seems to extend beyond what we might think of as art into commercial design all the way through to estate agent services have been shown to have a similar effect.

关于健力士的那个例子，你怎么看待把‘g’拆开的做法？

On the Guinness thing, what do you make of splitting the g?

你见过这个吗？

Have you seen this?

我看过这个，你呢？

You've seen this I have.

我去过健力士酒厂游客中心，就是都柏林那个超大的啤酒厂参观项目。

My I went to the Guinness Storehouse, the giant, you know, kind of brewery tour you can do in Dublin.

我和我儿子一起去的。

I went with my son.

我想是去年夏天，或者前年夏天，那时我第一次了解到这个做法。

I think it was last summer and that's, maybe summer before, that's when I was introduced to this.

他想教我怎么操作。

He was trying to show me how to do it.

这给体验增添了一些趣味。

I mean, it's adding a bit of fun to the experience.

我认为健力士官方并不想推广这个，因为从安全饮酒的角度来看，这可能有点可疑，但我认为这是一种自发形成的风气，能让人们谈论这个品牌，增添一些刺激和不确定性。

I think Guinness themselves try not to promote it because it's probably a little bit dubious in terms of kind of safe drinking, but I think it's an organic thing that gets the brand talked about, adds a bit of excitement and uncertainty.

而且

And

我对这些自下而上、近乎反营销的活动非常着迷。

I'm I'm fascinated by these things that are bottom up, almost anti marketing campaigns.

我觉得这就像一个品牌的永动机。

I think that it it's a kinda like a perpetual motion machine for a brand.

我觉得目前白象能量饮料也有类似的玩法。

I think, white monster energy has the equivalent at the moment as well.

这几乎是一种元迷因。

It's almost a meta meme.

这是一种美国文化。

It's Americana.

这是九十年代的WWF。

It's WWF from the nineties.

这是克里德和新金属乐。

It's Creed and New Metal.

这是NFL中的重拳出击。

It's it's heavy hits in the NFL.

它是林肯公园和变形金刚，早期的那些电影。

It's Lincoln Park and transformers, the early the early movies.

这些都是所有这些元素的集合。

It it's all of these things.

据我所见，Monster能量饮料从未像健力士把字母G分开那样，主动推广过这款白色Monster产品。

And at no point, as far as I can see, has monster energy pushed this white monster thing in the same way as splitting the g from Guinness.

他们只是没有在酒杯侧面印上‘健力士’这个词，而那个位置正好是两口半深的地方，力度刚好足够让人难以忽视，但又不至于难以下咽。

Just they did not place the word Guinness on the side of that pint glass at the point that would be mouthfuls, two and a half mouthfuls deep, hard enough to make it hard, not so hard that you have to drink it.

这纯粹就是一种自然而然的做法。

They it's just the way it's done.

而现在，这种做法已经被广泛推广了。

And then this now has been pushed out so much.

我不知道你有没有看到去年夏天英国的一些报道。

I don't know whether you saw the stories from last summer in The UK.

一些酒吧规定，顾客必须先购买两到三杯其他饮品，才能购买一杯健力士。

Some pubs made people buy two or three drinks before they could buy a Guinness.

你不被允许

You weren't allowed

我不知道

No idea

关于那件事。

about that.

因为当时健力士啤酒严重短缺。

Allowed to because they had Guinness shortages.

他们当时健力士啤酒短缺得厉害。

They had such a Guinness shortage.

他们不得不精确控制对顾客的供应量。

They had to fucking titrate the supply to customers.

是的。

Yeah.

所以这里有两件事。

So so two things there.

首先，我想知道是否存在这样一种情况，你知道的，我觉得这是高尔夫球手阿诺德·帕尔默说过的一句话：我越努力练习，运气就越好。

The first, I wonder if there's an element of, you know, that supposed I think it's Arnold Palmer, the golfer's phrase, you know, the harder I practice, the luckier I get.

我想知道在品牌领域是否也有类似的现象。

I wonder if there's something akin to that in the world of brands.

品牌越大，人们越觉得它的传播内容令人愉悦，品牌越有亲和力，我认为这些自发的想法就越容易涌现。

In the bigger you get, the more enjoyable people find your kind of communications, the warmth of the brand, I think the more likely these spontaneous ideas are gonna spring up.

人越多，就越有可能有饮酒者想到这个点子。

Like more people, more chance a drinker comes up with the idea.

而且我认为，如果人们对品牌有好感，他们就更愿意这么做。

And also I think if there's warmth towards the brand, they're more likely to do it.

所以我觉得，这可能是一种马太效应——最好的品牌，会获得最好的自发创意。

So I think that, you know, you might have this kind of Matthew effect of to the best brands, you get the best organic ideas.

但你提到的第二点是关于短缺的问题。

But that second point you mentioned is around the shortage.

我绝不是说健力士真的这么做过，但我想，如果我是某个品牌，我偶尔确实会忍不住散布一些短缺的谣言。

Now I'm not claiming in any way that Guinness actually did this, But I think if I was a brand, I would certainly be tempted occasionally to spread rumors of a shortage.

供应

Supply

但行为科学中最有力的理念之一，当心理学家尝试对这些偏见进行比较排序时，反复位居榜首的就是稀缺性。

of But the the most powerful ideas in behavioral science, the one that when psychologists try and do comparative ranking of some of these biases, The one that comes out towards the top again and again is scarcity.

你知道，我们想要那些得不到的东西。

You know, we want what we can't have.

有一句非常精彩的G.K.切斯特顿的话，他说：热爱任何事物的方法，就是意识到它可能会失去。

There's this amazing GK Chesterton phrase where he says, the way to love anything is to realize it might be lost.

我认为，媒体上关于即将短缺的报道会进一步推高需求，因为那种错失恐惧、那种认为很多人想要这个东西的恐惧或信念，会强化人们对它的渴望。

And I think you get these stories in the press about they're gonna be a shortage and then it will drive even greater demand because that fear of missing out, that fear of, or that belief that lots of other people want this thing, You know, it it it powers the desire for it.

在我们继续之前，我非常支持减少酒精摄入，但历史上，无酒精啤酒的味道简直像屎。

Before we continue, I am a massive fan of reducing your alcohol intake, but historically, nonalcoholic brews taste like ass.

你不需要来一次彻底的重启。

You don't need to be doing some big reset.

也许你只是想喝一杯冰镇啤酒，第二天早上却不觉得难受，这正是我如此推崇Athletic Brewing Co的原因。

Maybe you just want to crack a cold one without feeling like garbage the next morning, which is why I am such a huge fan of Athletic Brewing Co.

他们提供了50多种无酒精饮品，包括IPA、金色啤酒，甚至还有鸡尾酒灵感的帕洛玛和莫斯科骡子等限量版。

They've got 50 types of NAs, including IPAs, Goldens, and even limited releases like a cocktail inspired Paloma and Moscow Mule.

关键是这一点。

And here's the thing.

你可以随时饮用。

You can drink them anytime.

深夜、清晨、看球赛、打球，都没关系。

Late nights, early mornings, watching sports, playing sports, doesn't matter.

没有宿醉。

No hangover.

无需妥协。

No compromise.

这就是我与他们合作的原因。

And that is why I partnered with them.

你可以在附近的超市或酒类商店找到Athletic Brewing Co的畅销系列，或者更好的选择是，直接订购包含四种口味的完整混装包，送货上门。

You can find Athletic Brewing Co's best selling lineup at grocery or liquor stores near you, or best option, get a full variety pack of four flavors shipped right to your door.

现在，通过访问下方描述中的链接或前往 athleticbrewing.com/modernwisdom，您可以享受首单15%的折扣。

Right now, you can get 15% off your first online order by going to the link in the description below or heading to athleticbrewing.com/modernwisdom.

就是 athleticbrewing.com/modernwisdom。

That's athleticbrewing.com/modernwisdom.

说到另一个非常有趣的品牌，红牛、健力士、Liquid Death，我觉得作为一家水公司，它们的颠覆性很强。

Speaking of another pretty interesting brand, Red Bull, Guinness, Liquid Death, pretty disruptive, I think, for a water company.

我知道它们现在正拓展到许多其他产品领域。

I know they're now moving into a lot of other products.

你对 Liquid Death 有什么看法？

What what what's your perspective on Liquid Death?

我的看法是，这简直是一个绝佳的营销案例，因为如果有什么因素能抓住注意力，那就是与众不同。

So, I mean, I think it's a fantastic Martin case study because if there is one factor that captures attention, it's behaving distinctively.

关于这一点的最初研究可以追溯到1933年，由一位名叫赫德维希·冯·里斯特夫的德国心理学家在柏林大学完成。

So the original studies into this were done all the way back in 1933 by a German psychologist called Hedwig von Ristorff, who was at the University of Berlin.

她当时的做法是——当然做了一些调整——会给人们一些单词列表。

And what she basically did, I mean, with a bit of changing, she'd kind of give people lists of words.

所以我可能会写下，比如说10个词，然后给你。

So I might write down, let's say 10 words, give them to you.

其中九个是家具类的物品。

Nine of them would be items of furniture.

其中一个会是动物。

One of them would be an animal.

然后我会把这些列表拿走，问你能记住什么。

And then I would take those lists away, ask you what you could remember.

大多数人更有可能记住那个独特的动物，而不是那九件家具。

And overwhelmingly people were much more likely to remember the distinctive animal rather than the kind of nine bits of furniture.

所以她的观点是，我们天生就容易注意到与众不同的东西。

So her argument was we are hardwired to notice what's distinctive.

这是一个非常非常著名的发现。

Now that is a very, very well known finding.

在过去大约九十年里，这个发现被反复验证过。

It's been repeated over the last kind of ninety odd years.

但如果你想想大量的广告，品牌最终都会模仿竞争对手的行为。

But if you think about an awful lot of advertising, brands end up aping the behavior of their competitors.

你看那些手表广告，它们都遵循同样的套路；还有汽车广告，在英国，总是一幅中欧尘土飞扬的山区场景，车子拐过弯角。

You know, you look at watch ads, you know, they all follow the same formula or car ads, you know, in Britain, it's always a kind of seems to be a kind of central European dusty mountainous scene with them going round the corner.

如此反复，行为规范不断涌现。

Now again and again, norms of behavior spring up.

说到水，一些传统被每一家品牌，比如巴黎水和其他品牌，都严格遵守，那就是你得用透明的玻璃瓶，让人觉得这是纯净的产品。

And when it comes to water, there were some traditions that every brand like Perrier or all the others seem to adhere to, which is, you know, you've got to have clear glass that people consider purity products.

你得展示自然风光。

You've got to have shots of nature.

你得有阿尔卑斯山的景色和练瑜伽的妈妈们。

You've got to have Alpine scenes and yoga moms.

我认为Liquid Death做得特别出色的地方在于，它意识到这一切都只是出于传统的惯性。

And I think what Liquid Death did so brilliantly is realize, you know, all this stuff is just there for tradition sake.

你根本不需要用这种方式来传达信息。

You don't need to communicate in that way.

实际上，如果我们采取完全相反的做法，像精酿啤酒或能量饮料那样，制作一些极其血腥的广告，还有那种离经叛道的幽默，就能脱颖而出，吸引注意力。

And actually, if we take the polar opposite approach and we behave like a a craft beer or an energy drink and have these outrageously gory ads and, you know, kind of out there humor, that will stand out, it'll get attention.

坦白说，如果你连注意力都得不到，你在营销传播上做的其他一切都不过是纸上谈兵。

And frankly, if you don't have attention, everything else you do in marketing communication is academic.

所以我认为，他们坚持不懈地追求独特性，而且关键在于以一贯的方式保持独特。

So I think that relentless pursuit of being distinctive and then crucially being distinctive in a consistent way.

他们没有一次广告走一个极端方向，下一次又完全转向另一个方向。

They didn't have one ad that was out there in a certain direction and then a completely different one the next time.

所有广告都围绕着一个主题：像重金属乐队或精酿啤酒品牌那样行事。

They all had this theme of kind of behaving like a heavy metal band or a craft beer brand.

因此，他们形成了一种可识别的打破常规的方式。

So they had this recognizable way of breaking conventions.

我认为这正是他们在美国取得成功的核心所在。

I think that is at the heart of their American success.

幽默有多重要？

How important is humor?

幽默。

Humor.

是的，绝对如此。

Yeah, absolutely.

所以Liquid Death的创始人迈克·塞萨里奥提到，他觉得奇怪的是，啤酒、薯片和糖果在广告中都充满乐趣，而健康、正经的产品却在传播上显得过于严肃刻板。

So Mike Cesario, the founder of Liquid Death, he talks about the fact that he found it strange that beers and crisps and candies, they had all the fun when it came to advertising and the healthy virtuous goods were all a bit hair shirt ish in their communication.

因此，他们确实进一步强化了幽默和搞笑的风格。

So they have definitely doubled down on being funny and humorous.

而且，这确实是吸引注意力的绝佳方式。

And again, you know, it's a great way of attracting attention.

‘广告’（advert）这个词的词源来自拉丁语，我想意思是‘转向’。

The etymology of advert is the Latin, I think, for turn towards.

那么，人们会转向什么呢？

And what do people turn towards?

他们会转向那些带给他们快乐和幸福的事物。

They turn towards things that bring them pleasure and happiness.

人们会避开枯燥乏味的信息。

They turn away from dry, dusty information.

所以，要想吸引注意力，最好的方法之一就是逗人开心。

So to get attention, one of the best things you can do is amuse people.

那哈根达斯呢？

What about Haagen Dazs?

我在美国时几乎忘了这个品牌，因为我觉得它在这里的分销规模没那么大。

That's a brand that I kind of forgot about in The US because I don't think that Distro is as big, quite as big over here.

本杰瑞和冰激凌大致可以分为三类。

Ben and Jerry's and there's sort of three buckets of ice cream.

有一类是非常实验性的产品。

There's very sort of experimental stuff.

本杰瑞就属于这一类。

The Ben and Jerry's would go into that.

还有一类是健康、手工制作、更有利于健康的，比如艾米的冰激凌这类产品。

There's healthy craft better for you, Amy's ice cream type stuff.

还有高蛋白、更健康、低卡路里的类型。

And then there's the high protein good for you, lower calorie.

所以哈根达斯，我差点忘了，但我知道它是个庞大的品牌。

So Haagen Dazs, I forget about, but I know that they're a monster of a brand.

是的。

Yeah.

哈根达斯的起源故事我觉得很有趣，但也有点可疑。

So the origin story of Haagen Dazs is, I think, fascinating, and it is a little bit dubious.

我并不是说我会推荐别人完全照搬他们的做法，但他们在上世纪四十年代，也许是五十年代初，于布朗克斯创立了这个品牌。

I'm not saying I would recommend exactly what they do to other people, but they were set up in The Bronx in the nineteen forties, maybe the very early fifties.

它是由一对从乌克兰和俄罗斯移民而来的犹太夫妇创立的。

And they were set up by a Jewish couple who had emigrated from, I think Ukraine and Russia.

他们搬到纽约后，投身于家族冰淇淋生意，并决定推出一款高端、精致的冰淇淋。

And they had moved to New York, kind of gone into the family ice cream business, and they decided they wanted to launch this premium sophisticated ice cream.

他们想比竞争对手卖得贵得多。

They want to get a charger a lot more for it than the competitors.

他们想，那我们如何塑造这种精致的形象呢？

And they thought, well, how do we create this image of sophistication?

那为什么不干脆把这个品牌定位为丹麦的呢？

Well, why don't we essentially position this brand as being Danish?

实际上，哈根达斯与丹麦没有任何关系。

Now there's nothing at all Danish about Haagen Dazs.

它是在布朗克斯创造的。

It was created in the Bronx.

这对夫妇从未去过丹麦。

The couple had never ever been to Denmark.

我认为他们选择丹麦是因为当时丹麦在二战期间帮助犹太人逃离纳粹的声誉非常好。

I think they chose it because Denmark had a particularly strong reputation that it had, the populace during second world war had done an awful lot to help Jews escape from the Nazis.

因此，我认为人们对丹麦尤其充满敬意，但本质上他们只是想要一个显得有些精致的欧洲国家。

So there was a lot of admiration I think for Denmark in particular, but basically they wanted a kind of European country that felt a bit sophisticated.

尽管他们从未去过丹麦，但他们开始构思名字，最终想出了哈根达斯。

So even though they hadn't been to Denmark, they start generating names and they come up with Haagen Dazs.

如果你去问一个丹麦人，他们会说：这根本不是丹麦的。

And if you go to a Dane, they'd be like, this isn't Danish.

你知道，我们没有在A上加变音符号，我们的名字里也没有ZS。

This is, you know, we don't have, I think, umlauts over the A, we don't have ZS in our name.

这根本就不是什么丹麦风格的东西。

You know, it doesn't even make sense as a Danish thing.

但在1940年代的美国人的耳朵里，它听起来像是丹麦的。

But to American ear in the 1940s, it sounded Danish.

然后这对夫妇进一步强化了这一点，在桶上放了一张小小的丹麦地图。

And then the couple doubled down by putting a little map of Denmark on the tub.

这种做法的精妙之处在于——尽管在道德上存疑，我们或许可以稍后讨论——人们品尝的是他们预期中的味道。

And what's so clever about this, albeit morally dubious, we can maybe talk about that, is people taste what they expect to taste.

如果你把一个产品包装成具有高雅渊源的样子，人们就会觉得它味道更好，然后主动去寻找佐证。

And if you wrap up a product in this aura of sophisticated provenance, people assume it tastes better and then they go out and look for confirming evidence.

于是，同样的冰淇淋，因为被赋予了丹麦的联想，在美国人的味蕾上尝起来就稍微好了一点。

So exactly the same ice cream tasted that little better, a little bit better to an American palate because it had this set of associations of Danishness.

你觉得呢？说吧。

Where do you think, go ahead.

哦，不，我只想说，当这是一个父母品牌时，这种道德观还挺可爱的，但情况不同。

Oh, no, all I was gonna say is the moral from this that I'm aware of what is quite charming when it's a mom and dad brand is one thing.

当它是一个数百万美元的品牌时，就没那么可爱了。

When it's a multimillion dollar brand, it's a little bit less charming.

但我认为，我们所体验到的并不仅仅来自物理产品本身。

But I think the lesson is what we experience isn't just due to the physical product.

它不只是牛奶、脂肪和糖这些成分。

It's not due to the, you know, just the milk and the fats and the sugars.

它也来自我们预期中会尝到的味道。

It's also what we think we're gonna taste.

所以，包装的颜色、重量、背后的故事、原产地，这些因素都同样重要。

So the the color of the packaging, the weight of it, the story behind it, the provenance, you know, all these things are just as important.

作为营销人员，你需要营造这些积极的感知，以让你的产品获得最大的成功机会。

And and you as a marketer need to create those positive perceptions to give your product the best chance of success.

你觉得丹麦人为什么擅长做冰淇淋？

What do think it is about the Danes that suggest that they're good at ice cream?

我觉得这是因为丹麦是一个遥远的国家，欧洲无论对错，可能一直带着一种精致的光环。

I I think it's the fact that it was a faraway country that, you know, Europe rightly or wrongly probably had this aura of sophistication.

那里是奢侈品牌发源的地方。

It's where luxury brands came from.

那里是文艺复兴时期人物的故乡。

It's where, you know, renaissance figures came from.

我认为这是因为欧洲承载了一些这样的价值观，而丹麦又被特别强调，因为对于一对犹太夫妇来说，他们对抗反犹主义的历史具有很强的吸引力。

I think it was a sense of Europe having some of these values and then doubling down on Denmark because for a Jewish couple, their history of fighting against antisemitism was something that would have appealed.

我认为这就是为什么特别选择丹麦的原因。

I think that was the case of why Denmark in particular.

这对他们来说更像一个个人故事。

It's more a personal story to them.

那南瓜香料拿铁呢？

What about the pumpkin spice latte?

我知道现在已经是春天了，但星巴克的秋天。

I know that we're into spring now, but the Starbucks Autumn.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

秋天，我已经尝试过了。

Fall, I've risked.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

但我们已经进入，我们已经进入

But we're into we're into

哦，抱歉。

Oh, sorry.

对不起。

Sorry.

不。

No.

不。

No.

我们是的。

We are.

是的。

Yeah.

春天很快就要来了，所以南瓜香料拿铁早就没了。

Spring shortly, so the pumpkin spice latte is very long gone.

是的。

Yeah.

对。

Yeah.

你从星巴克学到了什么？

What did you learn about Starbucks?

我认为重点在于南瓜香料拿铁的时间限定特性。

I think the point there is the time specific nature of the pumpkin spice latte.

所以，我们之前已经讨论过这种稀缺性观念——我们想要得不到的东西。

So, you know, we've talked already about this idea of of scarcity that we want what we can't have.

南瓜香料拿铁的精妙之处在于，他们推出了这款产品，并取得了巨大成功。

The brilliant thing about pumpkin spice latte is they launched this product, they have huge success.

百分之九十九的企业会怎么做呢？他们会想：哇，我们有了一个印钞机般的品牌，干脆全年无休地销售，最大化利润。

What ninety nine percent of businesses would have done is think, wow, we've got this cash machine of a brand, let's just run it all year round and let's maximize our profits.

如果一家企业真的这么做了，或许一两年内会非常成功，但长期来看，他们很可能会失去这种产品核心的魔力。

And if a business had done that, it would have been super successful for a year or two, but probably over time they would have lost the very kind of magic at the heart of that variant.

所以有一个概念叫习惯化，意思是随着时间推移，我们会对愉悦感变得有些麻木。

So there's an idea called habituation, which is the idea that over time we become a bit desensitized to enjoyment.

纽约大学的莱夫·纳尔逊做了一项研究，非常有力地证明了这一点。

So there's a study from Leif Nelson at NYU, which demonstrates this quite powerfully.

他让参与者体验一种按摩椅，这是一台非常舒适的按摩椅。

He lets people experience a massage chair and it's a very pleasurable massage chair.

有些人连续坐三分钟，然后在九分制下评价他们的享受程度，平均得分是6.05分。

And some people just sit in the chair for three minutes, three minutes straight, and then they rate how much they enjoyed it out of nine and the average rate is 6.05.

另一组人则分两次体验，每次坐一分二十秒。

Other people, there's a one minute, twenty second session in the chair.

他们先关掉椅子二十秒，然后再开启一分二十秒的按摩。

They then turn the chair off for twenty seconds and then there's another one minute, twenty seconds with the chair going.

总时长同样是三分钟，但其中有二十秒是没有按摩的。

So last for three minutes, but there's no massaging going on for twenty of those seconds.

按常理推断，你可能会觉得，这组人应该会比前者享受得更少。

Now, logically you'd expect, well, surely this group will enjoy the experience less.

他们享受按摩的时间更少。

They had less time with the enjoyable aspect.

但事实上，你看到的是完全不同的结果。

But actually you see something quite different.

这一组的评分实际上升到了9分中的7.05分。

The rating actually goes amongst this group to 7.05 out of nine.

从6.05提升到7.05，提升了17%。

So from 6.05 to 7.05, get a 17% improvement.

纳尔逊认为，人类天性的一个诅咒是，当我们体验愉悦时，随着时间推移，愉悦感会减弱，因为我们不再拿它和没有体验时做比较。

What Nelson argues is a curse of human nature is that when we experience something pleasurable, over time the enjoyment level wanes because we stop comparing it to not having it.

我们只会拿它和上次使用这项服务时的感觉做比较。

We compare it to the last time using the service.

所以随着时间推移，我们会适应，对这些愉快的事物习以为常。

So over time we habituate, we get used to these pleasant things.

所以我觉得像南瓜香料拿铁这样味道非常强烈的东西，其实有点特别。

So I think with something that's very powerfully flavor like the pumpkin spice latte, something that's a little bit strange.

如果他们全年都卖，人们会腻烦这种南瓜香料拿铁，它只卖到十二月。

If they'd sold it all year, they'd buy the sick pumpkin spice latte, it's only up to December.

你会对这该死的东西感到厌倦。

You'd be sick of the bloody stuff.

是的。

Yeah.

但通过在那之前停止销售，移除它，你允许了这种欣赏、期待和渴望重新增长。

But by stopping it before that happens, removing it from sale, what you allow is this appreciation, anticipation, and desire to grow back again.

所以我认为，他们把本可能因为长期销售而只持续几年的产品，变成了已经持续了大约二十年的现象。

So I think they turned something that would have lasted for a couple of years if it'd been permanently on sale into something that's been going for about twenty years.

哇。

Wow.

对。

Yeah.

限时供应，也就是所谓的饥饿营销模式，正是服装品牌Supreme的做法。

The LTO, the limited time offer, the sort of drop model as it's known, it's how Supreme, the clothing company, do their things.

很多服装公司，无论是独立品牌还是大公司，都是这样逐步积累人气的。

It's how a lot of clothing companies, independent and big, they build up, build up, build up.

它就在那里，然后就消失了。

It's there, and then it's gone.

是的。

Yeah.

而且实际上，如果你仔细观察，你能在一些并不明显的产品中发现这种模式。

And and and actually, you you can you can actually spot this if you look hard enough in in in products where it's not immediately apparent.

一个绝佳的例子是，你还记得Wordle吗？

So one brilliant example is, do you remember Wordle?

那个游戏，我记得是六次机会猜一个五字母单词吧？

So that game, I think you had, was it six goes to guess a five letter word?

这款由乔什·沃德尔设计的游戏非常火爆，他后来以大约一千万美元的价格卖给了《纽约时报》。现在，有数亿人，或者至少几千万人在玩这个游戏。

Hugely popular Josh Wardle, the designer sold it for New York Times, I think for about $10,000,000 Now at The Heights, you had hundreds of millions of people playing this game or tens of millions of people playing it.

但有趣的是，尽管使用量在新冠疫情期间激增，但这个产品其实已经存在很久了。

But what's interesting is even though usage spiked during COVID, this product had been around for ages.

但当乔什·沃德尔最初创建它时，不同之处在于你可以玩一局Wordle，玩完后马上又能玩下一局，然后接着再玩一局，再玩一局。

But when Josh Wardle first created it, the difference was you could do your Wordle game and as soon as you finished, you could do another and then you could do another and then you could do another.

当它被设计成这样时，几乎没人玩。

And when it was set up like that, barely anyone played it yet.

每天只有几十个人在玩。

It was like dozens of people playing it a day.

但在新冠疫情期间，沃德尔开始对《纽约时报》的填字游戏产生了一点痴迷。

But then during COVID, Wardle becomes slightly obsessed with the New York Times crossword.

他开始问自己：我真的是喜欢填字游戏吗？

And he wonders to himself, do I love the crossword?

因为一旦我完成了那个谜题填字，就必须等到明天才能玩下一个。

Because once I've finished the cryptic crossword, I have to wait till tomorrow to get the next one.

这营造出一种期待感。

And it builds this sense of anticipation.

于是他修改了Wordle的程序，现在你玩完一局后，就不能再玩下一局了。

So he changes the programming of Wordle so that now you do one, you finish it, you can't do another.

再也没有了。

There are no more around.

你必须等到下一个，在二十四小时后才会发布。

You have to wait till the next one's released in twenty four hours time.

他将成功归因于将这种稀缺性、这种限时供应深深融入产品的核心。

And he attributes the success to kind of baking in this scarcity, baking into this limited time offer into the very very heart of the product.

我们稍后继续聊，但首先，如果你最近感觉有些疲倦，你的睾酮水平可能是问题所在。

We'll get back to talking in just one second, but first, if you have been feeling a bit sluggish, your testosterone levels might be the problem.

它们在你的能量、专注力和表现中起着至关重要的作用，但大多数人根本不知道自己的水平是多少，或者出了问题该怎么做。

They play a huge role in your energy, focus, and performance, but most people have no idea what theirs are, or what to do that something's off.

这就是我与Function合作的原因——我想找到一种更智能、更全面的方式来真正了解自己身体内部发生了什么。

Which is why I partnered with Function because I wanted a smarter and more comprehensive way to actually understand what's happening inside of my body.

他们每年两次进行实验室检测，监测超过一百种生物标志物，并有一支专家医生团队分析数据，为你提供切实可行的健康建议，以提升健康和寿命。

Twice a year, they run lab tests that monitor over 100 biomarkers, they've got a team of expert physicians that analyze the data and give you actionable advice to improve your health and lifespan.

看到你的睾酮水平以及其他数十种生物标志物在一年中的变化趋势，并获得切实可行的改善建议，能为你提供一条清晰的路径，让你的生活变得更好。

Seeing your testosterone levels and dozens of other biomarkers charted across the course of a year with actionable insights to genuinely improve them gives you a clear path to making your life better.

通常情况下，做这样的血液检测和分析需要花费数千美元，而且非常麻烦。

Getting your blood work drawn and analyzed like this would usually cost thousands and be a nightmare.

但通过Function，只需499美元，现在还可以再减100美元，降至399美元。

But with function, it's just $499, and now you can get an additional $100 off, bringing it down to $399.

通过下方描述中的链接或访问functionhealth.com/modernwisdom，获取我和我使用的相同血液检测套餐，立省100美元。

Get the exact same blood panels that I get and save a $100 by going to the link in the description below or heading to functionhealth.com/modernwisdom.

那就是functionhealth.com/modernwisdom。

That's functionhealth.com/modernwisdom.

当我思考现代营销对网红营销领域的影响时，有一件事我一直很在意。

One thing that I think about when it comes to modern marketing influences the the the world of influencer marketing.

你认为人们在这件事上有什么误解吗？

What do you think people are getting wrong with that?

从行为科学的角度来看，哪些方面做得好，哪些方面又失败了？

What what are the areas that that goes well, and what are the areas that that fails from a behavioral science standpoint?

我认为当它成功时，背后有一个叫做‘信使效应’的概念。

I think when it goes well, there is an idea called the messenger effect.

这项原始研究是由霍兰德和魏斯于1953年进行的。

So the original study was done back in 1953 by Holland and Weiss.

当时他们都在耶鲁大学。

They were at Yale at the time.

这是一项非常不错的研究。

It's quite a nice study.

他们会在街上拦住路人，询问他们当天的一个热点话题，比如：美国能在未来十二个月内建造核动力潜艇吗？

They stop people in the street and they ask them a topical matter of the day like, can The US build a nuclear power submarine in the next twelve months?

人们回答是或否。

People say yes or no.

一旦心理学家得到了答案，他们就会在四天后邀请这些人回到实验室。

And then once the psychologists have got the answer, they invite those people back to their lab in four days time.

当参与者到达实验室时，桌上会放着一张四页纸，上面有非常严密的论证，说明参与者的想法完全错误。

And when the participants arrive at the lab on a table, there is a A four sheet of paper and there is a very tightly argued bit of pros about why the participant is completely wrong.

比如，如果我说是的，潜艇可以建造，他们会给出一个强有力的论据，说明这根本不可行。

So if I said, yes, a submarine can be built, very powerful argument about why it's just not practical.

人们读完这个论点后，必须说明自己是否改变了观点。

Once people have read this argument, they have to say whether they've changed their opinion.

大多数人没有改变，但这个实验的巧妙之处在于，有时这个论点会被归因于一个可信的来源。

Most people don't, but the twist in the experiment is sometimes the argument is attributed to a credible source.

所以在潜艇的例子中，它被归因于物理学家奥本海默。

So in the case of the submarine, it was Oppenheimer the physicist.

有时这个论点会被归因于一个可信度较低的来源。

Sometimes the argue was attributed to a low credibility source.

比如《普拉弗特》这家俄罗斯报纸。

So Prafter, the Russian newspaper.

心理学家发现，如果论点来自可信度低的来源，只有7%的人改变了主意；而来自可信度高的来源时，有23%的人改变了主意。

And what the psychologist found is that if the argument was attributed to a low credibility source, 7% changed their mind, high credibility source, 23% changed their mind.

所以，尽管每个人都收到了完全相同的逻辑论点、相同的事实、相同的数字和相同的说服力，但根据信息来源的不同，影响力却相差了三倍半。

So even though everyone gets exactly the same logical argument, the same facts, the same figures, the same persuasive power of argument, you get this three and a half fold difference in influence dependent on who it came from.

因此他们的结论是：谁说的，可能和说了什么一样重要。

So their argument was who says something can be as important as what said.

这项研究是在大约七十三年前进行的。

Now that study was done, what, seventy three years ago.

但之后它被一再重复验证。

But it's been repeated again and again.

我只想回到最初的实验，因为我觉得它最清晰、最简单。

I'm just going back to the original one because I think it's the clearest, it's the simplest.

但自从那项研究之后，人们开始关注：什么样的传播者才更有效？

But since they've done that, what people have started to look at is, well, what makes for an effective messenger?

许多不同的变量中，有三个关键因素，其中之一是传播者要中立。

And many different variables, three of the big ones are the messenger is neutral.

如果我告诉你：我的书太棒了，你可能会持怀疑态度。

So if I tell you amazing, my book's amazing, you might be skeptical.

即使让我哥哥或妻子告诉你，这种微小的中立性也能稍微提升可信度。

Even if I got my brother or my wife to tell you that, it's still even that tiny extra bit of neutrality will boost believability a bit.

所以中立性很重要。

So neutrality is important.

可信度很重要，这就是奥本海默如此有影响力的原因。

Credibility is important and that's why Oppenheimer is so powerful.

但第三个非常有趣的是相关性。

But then the third bit that's really interesting is relatability.

即使我的邻居对运动饮料或补品并没有特别专业的了解，我仍可能受到他推荐的影响。

Now I might be influenced by what my neighbor tells me about, you know, the best sports drink or the best supplements, even though my neighbor doesn't know anything particularly in that area.

但因为我与他们有共鸣，他们和我相似，这使得他们的影响力更强。

But the fact that I relate to them, they're similar to me, it makes them more powerful.

所以我认为，关于影响力的观点是：你或许可以做到中立，但如果还能兼具可信度和相关性，那你就能找到真正能改变他人行为的人。

So I think the argument with influence would be you could get the neutrality, but ideally, if you get credibility and relatability as well, you know, then you're onto someone that can can change the the behavior of others.

我看到一些关于专家期待与深度创作者合作的报道，这些所谓的顶级创作者。

I was seeing some stories about experts expecting deeper creator partnerships, sort of these mega creators, they're called.

这意味着更少的长期品牌合作，而转向共同品牌产品线或内部领导头衔等形式。

So it's fewer long term brand deals, and they extend into roles like co branded product lines or internal leadership titles.

所以我不确定你有没有看到这个。

So I'm not sure if you saw this.

维珍邮轮任命詹妮弗·洛佩兹为首席娱乐官。

Virgin Voyages named J Lo as its chief entertainment officer.

好的。

Okay.

他们将她定位为船上体验的联合架构师，而不仅仅是广告中的面孔。

So they framed her as the co architect of the sort of onboard experience rather than just a face in ads.

Ridge 钱包聘用了科技YouTuber马尔克·布朗利（MKBHD）。

Ridge Wallet just got Marques Brownlee, MKBHD.

他是一位知名的科技类YouTube博主。

He's a big tech YouTuber.

他是首席创意合作伙伴。

He's the chief creative partner.

然后SoFi任命了‘你的有钱闺蜜’Vivian Too担任财务赋能负责人。

And then SoFi just appointed the your rich BFF person, Vivian Too, as the chief of financial empowerment.

他们试图赋予她一个听起来像内部职位的头衔，以确立她作为公司内部财务教育者的权威性。

So they're trying to give us sort of an internal sounding role that legitimizes her as a a a financial educator inside of the company.

我觉得我们之前也见过这种情况，比如莱恩·雷诺兹与Mint Mobile的合作，虽然程度较轻，但他在足球队的参与就非常明显了。

I think we saw this with, maybe to a lesser extent, Ryan Reynolds with Mint Mobile, but certainly Ryan Reynolds with the football team.

一些规模较小的角色，但都与价值更高的个体关联，并赋予他们听起来更可信的头衔。

Somebody smaller numbers of roles that are with higher value individuals with a more legitimate sounding position.

是的。

Yeah.

一旦你开始谈论像詹妮弗·洛佩兹这样的名人，我认为你就开始涉及其他行为偏差了。

So once you start talking about the order of a JLo, I think you start moving into kind of other behavioral biases.

有一种概念叫做‘成本信号’。

There's an idea called costly signaling.

关于这一概念的原始研究是由生物学家而非行为科学家完成的，但其核心观点是：沟通的可信度与沟通的成本成正比。

So the original work on this was done by biologists rather than behavioral scientists, but it's essentially the believability of communications is in proportion to the expense of that communications.

如果一个品牌请到了像詹妮弗·洛佩兹这样的名人，普通大众可能并不清楚她具体收费多少，我不知道她是收了一亿还是五千万，但我知道她绝对非常非常贵。

So if there is a brand that gets a celebrity like J Lo, you know, general person on the street won't know whether J Lo costs, and I don't know whether she costs a 100,000,000 or 50,000,000, but I know she's very, very expensive.

这向外界传递了一个可信的信号，表明品牌对自己的产品有多么坚定的信念。

And that sends a credible signal about how much the brand believes in their offering.

论点是，奢华的广告在长期来看是有效的。

The argument being extravagant advertising works in the long term.

你知道，如果我请JLo为我糟糕的苏打水做广告，也许能让人试一次，但他们不会推荐给朋友，也不会回头购买，我最终会破产。

You know, if I hire JLo to advertise my terrible soft drink, you know, I might get people to try it once, but they're not gonna recommend it to their friends, they're not gonna come back, I'm gonna go bust.

但如果我有一款出色的苏打水，并请JLo作为代言人，那就会对我有利，因为我知道人们会去尝试、会推荐，然后这种势头会持续下去。

But if I have a brilliant soft drink and I get J Lo to be the face of it, well, then it works out for me because I know that people will try it, recommend it, and it will go on and on and on like that.

所以，巨额支出是一种有效的筛选机制——只有真正相信自己品牌的人才会这么做，因为如果你觉得自己的品牌很糟糕，采用这种大手笔的营销只会让你破产。

So the fact that extravagant spend is an effective screening mechanism, only people who genuinely believe in their brand would do it because if you thought your brand was awful, adopting that largesse would would make you bust.

我认为，这正是它成为一种可信、有力且有说服力信号的原因。

That's I think what makes it a credible and powerful and persuasive signal.

那肯德基呢？

What about KFC?

我们之前谈到了Five Guys。

We talked about Five Guys.

你从肯德基学到了什么？

What what what have you learned from KFC?

所以关于肯德基，那里有几件不同的事情。

So so KFC, there's there's a few different things there.

我认为秘密的力量非常有趣。

There's I think the power of a a secret is quite interesting.

但他们做的另一件事我特别喜欢，更偏向策略性，但这也是我们反复提到的一个主题，那就是稀缺性的力量。

But the other one that they did that I really loved was a bit more tactical, but it's kind of one of the themes that we've come back to again and again, which is this power of scarcity.

所以他们采取了一种与我们之前讨论的例子略有不同的方法。

So they did a slightly different approach to the examples we've discussed so far.

还有一个很棒的澳大利亚广告活动。

And there was a wonderful Australian campaign.

我想那是2016年初，他们推出了1美元的薯条。

I think it was back in first in 2016 where they would promote $1 chips.

所以你可以买到一大份只要1美元的薯条。

So you get these big large fries of $1.

非常非常划算。

A very, very good deal.

在他们最初几年推出这个活动时，广告底部微小的条款和条件中隐藏着一个事实：每人只能购买四袋薯条。

And when they did it for the first few years, hidden in the tiny little Ts and Cs at the bottom of the ads was the fact that you could only get four bags of chips per person.

营销团队将这一点作为宣传的核心内容。

What the marketing team did was put that front and center of the messaging.

因此，他们测试了大量不同的行为科学偏见，以提升销量。

So they tested loads of different behavioral science biases that could boost sales.

效果最好的方法是在海报上用大字写着：每人最多可购买四袋薯条。

The one that works best was saying in big letters on the posters, maximum number of these bags of chips you could buy bags of fries, four per person.

这传递了一个非常可信的信号：要么这些薯条太受欢迎，他们担心会售罄；要么这个优惠实在太划算，以至于他们实际上在亏本销售。

And what it did was provide a very credible signal that either these chips are gonna be so enticing they're worried about selling out, or that it's such a powerful and good value deal that they're actually losing money on

每个人。

each other.

这并不是猜测。

Now that's not speculation.

迈克尔·艾伦和我做了一个非常简单的测试。

Michael Ehren and I did a very simple test.

我们告诉人们，西区内华达啤酒节在美国售价为18.99美元12瓶。

We told people about Sierra Nevada powwow being sold in America, 12 bottles of beer for 18.99.

我试着回忆一下，大约有14%的人觉得这很划算。

I'm trying to remember, think 14% of people thought it was good value.

在其他场合，我们告诉人们，西区内华达淡色艾尔啤酒在超市售价18.99美元一箱12瓶，每人最多限购六箱。

And then other occasions we told people Sierra Nevada pale ale, 12 pack of beer being sold for 18.99 in the supermarket, maximum number of cases you can buy is six.

认为这很划算的人的比例上升到了22%。

And the proportion of people who thought it was good value went up to 22%.

所以你获得了57%到59%的提升。

So you're getting something 57, 59% improvement.

人们遵循一个经验法则：如果一家企业不让你随意购买大量产品，那一定是个好deal。

People work to a rule of thumb that if a business is not letting you take as much of a product as you want, it must be a good deal.

这要么是因为太受欢迎会卖光，要么是因为太划算以至于公司亏本。

It's either so good it's gonna sell out or so good it's actually hurting the bottom line.

对我来说，这是一个非常简单却高效的策略，更多人其实都可以运用。

So that to me was like, a wonderfully simple tactic that far more people could apply.

很有趣，因为肯德基的薯条实际上是最差的，这是大家都知道的。

So funny because KFC's fries are actually the worst, as everybody knows.

它们是所有薯条中最差的。

They're they're the worst of all

说说这个。

say this.

我

I

是的。

Yeah.

它们是所有薯条中最差的，所以我不会把重点放在薯条上。

They're the worst of all of the fries, so I I would not have leaned on the fries.

是的。

Yeah.

我认为用薯条来做这件事有趣的地方在于，汉堡王和麦当劳也都卖薯条。

I suppose what's interesting about doing it with the fries as well is that that is something which you are Burger King has fries and McDonald's has fries as well.

你选的不是只有你才能做的东西。

You didn't pick something that only you make.

如果你选了招牌的Zinger汉堡，那别人可就做不了了。

If you'd picked the signature Zinger burger, well, no one else no one else can make that.

所以，把稀缺性用在并非独一无二的商品上，可能会改变它的定位，毕竟这些其他地方也能买到，只是没这么特别。

So doing the scarcity on something which isn't a noncomputable good would probably change the framing of it versus these you can get elsewhere, but not like this.

是的。

Yeah.

我觉得这算是一个还不错的优惠。

I I I think I think it was a reasonably good deal.

但只要有什么东西在促销，总会让人有点怀疑，你知道的，他们是不是偷工减料了？

But there's whenever something's on offer, there's always a bit of suspicion as well, you know, have they cut corners?

是不是有什么隐藏的妥协或代价？

Is there some kind of trade off this list?

他们是在反向暗示这个折扣。

They're trying to counter signal the discount.

是的。

Yes.

是的。

Yes.

是的。

Yes.

我认为，它与仅仅说‘限时优惠’或‘独家’的不同之处在于，它不仅仅停留在陈述和宣称的层面。

I think and what differentiates it from just saying, you know, limited time offer or exclusive, is it not just staying in this realm of statement and claim.

它不只是停留在空谈无物的层面。

It's not just in this realm of talk being cheap.

这是一种实际的限制。

It's actually a physical restriction.

你去柜台，他们不会卖给你超过四个。

You you go to the counter, they will not serve you more than four.

你知道的？

You know?

我认为正是这种行动，而非宣称，使其区别于更常见的稀缺性运用方式。

And I think it's this action rather than claim that distinguishes it from the kind of more common use of scarcity.

我无法相信Klarna和这些公司，我心想它们叫什么来着？

I can't believe that Klarna and these companies I I thought what what are they called?

小额支付后付款公司？

Micropay later companies?

购买

Buy

先买后付。

buy now pay later.

先买后付的东西。

Buy now pay later things.

是的。

Yeah.

曾经有个笑话，说你可以用Klarna来点Chipotle的餐。

And there was this joke that you could get your Chipotle order on Klarna.

所以你可以今天下单买个卷饼，明天再付款。

So you could get your burrito, buy it today, and pay for it tomorrow.

但这些和预测市场一样，这些东西似乎会一直存在下去。

But the these just the same as the prediction markets, these things seem to be here to stay.

那你对先买后付行业有什么看法？

So what's your perspective on the buy now, pay later industry?

有一个长期存在的概念叫做‘笔即日效应’。

So there there's a long standing idea called the the pen is a day effect.

最初的研究是由哈佛大学的约翰·高维尔做的，他针对慈善机构进行了一项实验，基本上就是，你知道的，他发现当人们被要求向慈善机构捐款时，有时会要求每年捐365美元。

So the original study was John Gauvel at Harvard, and he did it with charities on a tight so essentially, you know, he found out were people willing to donate to a charity and sometimes the request was $365 a year.

有时则是每天捐一美元，持续一年。

Other times it was a dollar a day for a year.

他发现，尽管总额相同，但如果表述为每天一美元，人们更愿意捐款。

And what he found is even though the sums worked out to be the same, people were much like more likely to donate if you phrased it as a dollar a day.

现在看来，人们在权衡这个等式两边时，赋予了不同的权重。

Now what seems to be happening is people give different weights to two sides of the equation.

你知道，人们讨论的这些美元金额在比尔心中显得格外突出。

You know, the dollars that are being discussed looms larger Bill's mind.

时间单位似乎没有得到它应有的重视。

The unit of time doesn't seem to be given the weight it should be.

这有点像人们认为三乘七和七乘三不一样。

That's a bit like people think three times seven is different from seven times three.

所以，如果你有一个按时间计费的产品，你能越频繁地将其拆解，或越多地用最小时间单位来讨论它，对你就越有利。

So if you've got a time based product, the more you can break or the more that you can discuss that product in the smallest unit of time, the better it works out for you.

同样的情况也发生在实物上。

Now exactly the same thing happens with physical items.

我之前提到过我和迈克尔·奥诺做的塞拉内华达平行研究，我们又做了另一个版本。

So I mentioned that Sierra Nevada parallel study Michael Ono and I did, and we did another version of it.

关键在于，如果你告诉人们一箱12瓶的塞拉内华达售价18.99美元，有14%的人会觉得物有所值。

So key factor, if you say to people a 12 pack of Sierra Nevada costs 18.99, you get 14% thinking it's good value.

如果你对另一组人说，这个12瓶装售价18.99美元，相当于每瓶1.58美元。

If you say to people, this is a different group, costs 18.99 for a 12 pack, that's the same as $1.58 a bottle.

这个比例跃升至29%或30%的人认为这是划算的交易。

The proportion jumps, think to 29 or 30% thinking it's a good deal.

所以，当你把一件实物拆分成更小的子单位时，就会让人觉得物超所值。

So you break down a physical item into smaller sub units and you create a perception it's better value.

所以Klarner提供的一项服务是：现在我上网站想买一件60美元的毛衣，我不一次性付60美元，而是分三次每次付20美元。

So one of the things Klarner offers is, now I go to a website, I want to buy a jumper for $60 I don't pay $60 in one go, I pay three lots of 20.

人们对待三次20美元和一次性60美元完全不一样，因为他们太关注20美元这个数字了。

People treat three lots of 20 completely different from one hit of 60 because they're focusing too much on the 20.

他们没有像应该做的那样进行乘法运算。

They're not doing the multiplying as much as they should.

所以，品牌会在网站上展示这种模式，零售商也会在网站上使用Klarner或其竞争对手的方案，最终销量就上去了。

So, you know, brands put that on their website, retailers put Klarner or competitor on the website, they end up selling more.

因此，企业有充分的理由向Klarner支付一部分佣金。

So there is a strong reason for businesses to start handing over a bit of commission to Klarner.

我对将事物以负面或正面方式呈现的差异很感兴趣，似乎你切入这个问题的角度非常重要。

I'm interested in the difference between framing things as negatives versus positives, and it it it seems like the the direction that you come into this from can be pretty important.

是的

Yeah.

所以有一个概念叫做损失厌恶。

So so there's an idea called loss aversion.

最初的研究是由卡尼曼和特沃斯基在七十年代进行的，但那些研究有点奇怪，而且有点令人困惑。

The original studies were done by Kahneman Tversk in the seventies, but they're a little bit bizarre and just got a bit confusing.

我认为更好的研究是1988年埃利奥特·阿伦森在哈佛做的。

I think the much better study was done in 1988 by Elliot Aronson at Harvard.

他找来了四百户家庭，样本量很大，上门推销阁楼隔热材料。

So what he does is go to homeowners, four zero four homeowners, nice big sample, knocks on the door, tries to sell them loft insulation.

有时候他会说：购买我的阁楼隔热材料，每天能省75美分。

Sometimes he says, buy my loft insulation and you'll save 75¢ a day.

心理学家会说，这是一种收益框架。

So psychologists would say this is the gain frame.

你强调的是消费者通过安装阁楼隔热材料所获得的好处。

You're emphasizing what you benefit as a consumer by taking out loft insulation.

但其他房主，他给了他们相同的数学金额。

But other homeowners, he gives them the same mathematical sum.

他说：看，安装阁楼隔热材料，因为如果你不装，每天就会浪费75美分。

He says, look, take out the loft insulation because if you don't, you'll be wasting 75¢ a day.

现在，尽管这是相同数额的钱，但通过强调人们可能会错失这笔钱，

Now, even though it's the same amount of money by emphasizing people could be losing out on that.

他们可能会浪费这笔钱。

They could be wasting that money.

他的回应率提高了50%到60%。

He got a 50 or 60% higher response rate.

所以毫无疑问，有一个论点认为，数学上等价的损失对我们产生的影响，大于获得同等收益。

So absolutely there is an argument that the mathematically equivalent loss affects us more than someone getting that gain.

我的说法是，如果你我今天各走各的路，你意识到你丢了5美元，而我找到了这5美元，你的不开心程度会超过我的开心程度。

The way I'd put it is if you and I go our separate ways today, you realize you have lost $5 I find that $5 your unhappiness will be larger than my happiness.

所以这意味着，如果我知道你找到了我的

So it would be if I knew that you'd found my

5美元。

$5.

是的。

Yeah.

别担心。

Don't worry.

我不会告诉你的。

I I wouldn't be telling you.

我会把这个秘密保密。

I'd be keeping that secret.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

下次我们聊天时，你就看到我穿着稍微更精致一点的T恤了。

You just see me in a slightly fancier T shirt next time we talk.

这让我想到禁烟广告，因为它并没有说戒烟会让你多活四年。

It makes me think about the anti smoking ads because it's not saying if you stop smoking, you will live four years longer.

而是说，如果你继续吸烟，你会提前四年死亡。

It's if you keep smoking, you will die four years sooner.

是的。

Yes.

这里唯一的例外是，当涉及到行为科学和心理学时，它不像数学那样有确定的粒子和完全相同的重复现象。

The only caveat there is when it comes you know, the great thing, like behavioral science and psychology, it's not like maths where there are people of particles and, you know, exactly the same occurrences happen.

在涉及人类时，情况要复杂一些，而情境至关重要。

Think there's a bit of a complexity when it comes to humans and, you know, context is hugely important.

当涉及到从损失转向激发恐惧时，我认为你必须非常谨慎。

When it comes to going from a loss to engendering fear, then I think you've gotta be quite careful.

为什么？

Why?

像乔治·洛温斯坦这样的人提出了一个观点，他称之为鸵鸟效应。

There's an argument from people like George Lowenstein, he calls it the ostrich effect.

这本质上是说，如果让人感到羞愧、恐惧或过于担忧，而不是去解决根本问题，他们往往会像比喻中的鸵鸟一样行事。

And it's essentially the argument that if you make people feel ashamed or scared or too worried rather than resolve the underlying issue, what they tend to do is behave like the metaphorical ostrich.

他们只是开始忽视这些广告。

They just start ignoring the ads.

他们把头埋进沙子里。

They stick their head in the sands.

他的这项研究可能是在大约二十年前，他在卡内基梅隆大学时进行的，他使用了美国先锋公司提供的匿名数据，这是一家规模庞大的基金提供商。

Now his study was probably done about twenty years ago when he was at Carnegie Mellon, and he's given anonymized data from Vanguard in America, so this massive fund provider.

他可以观察到用户查看股票投资组合的频率。

And he can see how often users are checking their stock portfolios.

然后他将这一数据与美国股市的走势进行对比，发现当股市上涨时，人们会相对规律地查看自己的财富状况。

He then plots that against the movement in the American stock market and what he finds is as the stock market goes up, people check their wealth reasonably regularly.

当股市下跌时，人们就停止查看了。

When the stock market declines, people stop checking.

这不是一个微小的影响。

It's not a small effect.

我认为，股市每下跌1%，人们查看投资组合的频率就会降低5%到6%。

I think it's for every 1% drop in the stock market, people check their portfolios five to 6% less regularly.

他的观点从狭隘的逻辑角度来看是不理性的。

And his argument is from a narrow minded logical perspective, that's irrational.

你知道，无论信息是好消息还是坏消息，关于我们财富的信息都是同样有效的，但他认为人们有一个经验法则：如果某件事带来快乐，他们就会更频繁地去做。

You know, the information about our wealth is equally valid, whether it's good news or bad news, but he says people have a rule of thumb is if something causes them pleasure, they do it more.

如果某件事带来即时的痛苦，他们就会回避它。

If something causes them immediate pain, they turn away from it.

因此，那些吓唬人的吸烟广告或反吸烟广告的危险在于，除非你要求的改变非常简单，否则往往会让人要么完全忽视这些信息，要么进行各种心理自我辩解，来证明这些信息并不影响他们。

So the danger with smoking ads or anti smoking ads that scare people is that often unless the change you're asking is really easy, now you can cause people either to avoid paying any attention to the messaging or going through these kind of mental gymnastics to explain to themselves why that messaging doesn't affect them.

是的。

Yeah.

我的意思是，人们不愿意听那些他们根本不想听的消息，这完全说得通。

I mean, makes complete sense that people wouldn't want to hear something that they really wouldn't want to hear.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

我认为这正是长期与短期思维之间的矛盾所在。

And it's this, I think problem with long versus short term thinking.

从长远来看，倾听那些能让我们活得更久的信息绝对符合我们的利益。

It's absolutely in our long term interest to listen to things that are gonna keep us living longer.

但在当下，它会让我们感到不适。

But in the immediate moment, it makes us feel unpleasant.

我们太常把即时感受放在首位，而不是考虑中长期对我们真正有益的事情。

Too often we prioritize our immediate feelings rather than what works for us over the medium or long term.

另外，本集由 RP Strength 赞助播出。

In other news, this episode is brought to you by RP Strength.

在过去两年里，这款训练应用极大地提升了我的训练成果和健身体验。

This training app has made a huge impact on my gains and enjoyment in the gym over the last two years now.

它由迈克·以色列医生设计，包含超过45个预设训练计划、250个动作教学视频，通过逐步骤的详细计划，彻底消除了制定理想举重方案时的猜测。

It's It's designed by doctor Mike Israel and comes with over 45 premade training programs, 250 technique videos, takes all of the guesswork out of crafting the ideal lifting routine by literally spoon feeding you a step by step plan for every workout.

它会指导你确切的组数、次数和使用的重量，更重要的是，如何完善你的动作姿势，让每一次重复都最大化地提升训练效果。

It guides you on the exact sets, reps, and weight to use, most importantly, how to perfect your form so every rep is optimized for maximum gains.

它会根据你的进展每周调整你的重量，并且提供三十天无条件退款保证。

It adjusts your weights each week based on your progress, and there's a thirty day money back guarantee.

所以你可以购买它，使用二十九天进行训练。

So you can buy it, train with it for twenty nine days.

如果你不喜欢，他们会全额退款给你。

And if you do not like it, they will give you your money back.

现在，通过访问下方描述中的链接，或前往 rpstrength.com/modernwisdom 并在结账时使用代码 Modern Wisdom，你可以享受 RP 增肌应用最高 50 美元的折扣。

Right now, you can get up to $50 off the RP hypertrophy app by going to the link in the description below or heading to rpstrength.com/modernwisdom using the code Modern Wisdom at checkout.

那就是 rpstrength.com/modernwisdom，结账时使用 Modern Wisdom。

That's rpstrength.com/modernwisdomand Modern wisdom at checkout.

我记得我不太记得是你还是罗里告诉我，当人们需要增加养老金供款时，不应该从当前收入中扣除这笔钱。

I remember I can't remember if it was you or Rory that taught me about when people needed to increase their contributions to their pension rather than the money being taken out of their current pay

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

当他们加薪时，一部分新增收入会被用于养老金，如果以这种方式操作，人们会更愿意进行投资吗？

When they got a pay increase, a portion of the new pay was put toward that and people were more prepared to do the investing if it worked in that sort of a way?

对。

Yes.

这是一种美国的方案。

So this was an American scheme.

我想是谢洛莫·博纳奇提出了这个想法，叫做‘明天多给’。

I think it was Shlomo Bonacci that came up with the idea, and it was called give more tomorrow.

正如你所说，如果你要求人们今天多存一些钱到养老金里，他们会只关注这笔钱的损失，从而非常抗拒这样做。

And it's exactly as you say, if you ask someone to put more money into their pension today, what they focus on is the loss of that money and they're remarkably resistant to doing it.

他们会想，那我就不能去度假了，或者买不了车了。

They think, well, I can't afford to go on that extra holiday or buy a car.

所以他们开始改用另一种方式告诉人们：别今天多存钱到养老金里，但当你九个月后加薪时，你是否同意我们自动设置一个系统，把加薪部分的10%或20%直接转入你的养老金？

So what they started to do instead was say to people, look, don't put any more money in your pensions day, but when you get your pay rise in nine months time, are you okay if we automatically set up a system where we'll just take 10% of that, 20% of that and put it into your pension?

因为这种对话涉及的是很久以后才会被扣除的钱，所以人们对它感觉很遥远。

And because the conversation was about money being taken away long in the future, it felt attenuated to people.

有一种叫做现时偏见的概念，本质上是指人们过于重视即将在近期内发生的事情。

There's an idea called present bias, which is essentially people give too much weight to what's gonna happen now in the near future.

而我们对遥远未来的快乐或痛苦则严重低估。

And we massively underweight pleasure or pain in the distant future.

因此，这常常成为养老金、保险或储蓄的重大问题。

So often that's a big problem for pensions or insurance or savings.

但伯纳齐的巧妙设计利用了人性，来促进这种非常理想的行为。

But Bernazi's clever design meant that he used human nature to encourage this very desirable behavior.

快餐公司有没有可能反过来利用这一点？

Is there a way that fast food companies would use this on the inverse?

他们似乎不考虑明天，只关注今天，对吧？

They sort of don't think about the tomorrow, do think about the today?

是的。

Yes.