企业那些自欺欺人的天价谎言

    怎么研究？

    通过观察。

    是吗？

    咨询业这个市值5000亿美元的行业爱问人们需要什么，但它最大的错误就在于人们自己也不知道。

    但是我很清楚我喜欢什么。不是有一个研究嘛，虽然很可能是杜撰出来的，说是等到你30岁的时候，尤其是男性，就基本上已经做出了人生所有重大的品牌选择？

    当然。但是你也在不停地打破旧的习惯，所以你会变成什么样？比如我们曾经做过一个研究，探索人们对养老保险的态度的重大变化。人们对养老保险的需求应该是像斜线一样逐年递增的，因为你一年一年的变老，对吧？我今年39岁了。但是你变老的感觉其实是突然的。还是以我为例，我走在富兰克林大街上，看见一个非常漂亮的20多岁的美女，但她一眼也没看我。但我用余光发现她妈妈在打量我。于是我坐下来想，原来我已经是另一代人了。然后我的下一个想法就是：我该买养老保险了。

    但是你怎样研究这个课题？你怎样找到处于突然发生重大变化的这些人？

    自然科学与经验研究是有区别的。有些边缘活动和部分案例可能能够反映貌似是突然发生的重大变化，我们就会研究这些活动和案例。比如以电视为例，在10年时间里，关于电视的很多变化也发生在大学宿舍。然后我们相信一些现在是边缘的行为以后可能会变成司空见惯的日常行为。

    所以你们可以说还是在押宝。

    是的，但是和硅谷押宝的方法很不一样。我们要通过大量细致的研究、观察和等待，而且还要密切观察那些宿舍的情况。我们押的是什么东西与人们的日常生活最契合，而硅谷不明白为什么我觉得眼下存在严重的泡沫。我是一个非常爱挑刺的人。他们看人的方式有很大问题，他们甚至不关心一个产品在某人的生活中扮演什么样的角色，只关心人们愿意为它花多少钱。这也是我为什么觉得Twitter、Snapchat和Facebook的规模虽然庞大，却没有多少价值。那些数据能干什么？进行智能化的广告决策？谷歌（Google）已经花了很长时间改进算法，但为什么推送给我的广告大多数还是跟我没关系？更糟糕的情况是那些东西我已经买过了。

    我认为，谷歌最让人激动的是实体的东西……

    但是你发布产品的时候，你想要的平均成果是什么？以各种标准衡量，谷歌都会失败。他们是以软件工程的角度发布产品的，比如谷歌眼镜。

    你怎么看谷歌眼镜？

    我讨厌那个产品。如果我现在戴着它，那我现在就在互联网上，那多让人不舒服？不能再干蠢事了。

    但是要说谷歌没有带来任何有意义的东西也不对。不过我认为MOOCs（大规模网络开放课程）就是证明硅谷傲慢自大的一个好例子，他们认为只要你能坐在卧室里上课，就会大大提高教育水平，但他们没有深入理解教育最重要的是什么。

    除了硅谷之外，还有谁让你感到生气？

    所谓的“设计思考者”，也就是那种认为只要让一群设计师坐在一个屋子里就会创意如泉涌的想法。这种想法很可怕，而且是错误的。它不仅是个痛苦而缓慢的过程，而且换句话说就是一句谎言——那种认为创意是容易的、很快的、大众化的想法。

    最危险的想法，就是有人说只要把五个亿万富翁放在一个房间里就能解决全球饥饿问题，这实在太不接地气了。（财富中文网）

    译者：朴成奎

    How?

    Through observation.

    Yes?

    The big mistake of the $50 billion dollar industry that is asking people what they want is that we don't know.

    I have a pretty good sense of what I like, though. Isn't there some study, very possibly made up, about how by the time you turn 30 -- men especially -- you have made basically all the major brand choices in your life?

    Sure, but you also break habits all the time, so where does that leave you? We've done studies about big changes for life insurance. There are equal sized increments on a ramp, you just get older and older and older, right? I am 39 years old. But the way you experience age happens in these jumps. The example I use, I was walking down Franklin Street in SoHo and there was this gorgeous twentysomething, and she was not looking at me. And out of the corner of my eye, I saw her mother was checking me out, and I sat down and thought, I was a whole generation wrong. And my next thought was: I need a pension plan.

    But how do you study this? How do you find people in these moments of sudden great change?

    It's a difference between a natural science and the study of experience. We look at fringe activities or minority practices that might represent a great, seemingly sudden change. So with TV, for instance, a lot of things that have happened to the TV have been happening in dorm rooms for a decade. Then we bet on behaviors that are fringe now but might ... become average everyday.

    You're still placing a bet.

    Yes, but not at all in the way Silicon Valley places bets. It's through a lot of careful study, observation, waiting, and watching in those dorm rooms. We bet on what fits best with average everydayness, and the Valley doesn't understand why I think it's a terrible bubble. I'm a big critic. The way they think about people is deeply problematic. They aren't even interested in what role a product plays in someone's life, it just has everything to do with how much they're willing to pay for it, which is why I think Twitter (TWTR) and Snapchat and Facebook (FB) is just a big volume of activity without much value. All that data is going to do what? Make informed decisions around advertising? Google (GOOG) has had a long time to make the algorithms better, but how come the ads I get are still largely irrelevant, or [for] something I just bought, which is even worse?

    The most exciting things at Google, I'd argue, are physical things …

    But what is the average outcome you want to have when you launch products? Google by any metric would fail. They come to it from a software engineering standpoint. Look at Google Glass.

    What do you make of Google Glass?

    I hate that product. If I wore it now, [I] would be on the Internet, and how uncomfortable is that? You can't do stupid things anymore.

    Saying Google didn't deliver anything meaningful is wrong. But I think MOOCs are a good example of the arrogance in Silicon Valley; that education could be vastly better because you're going to do it in the living room, without the deep understanding of what goes into an education.

    What, or who, besides Silicon Valley, makes you angry?

    Design thinkers. Or this idea that all you need are a bunch of designers in a room and the creative juices will just ... flow. That's terrible. And wrong. It's a painful, slow process and to say otherwise is a lie. The idea that creativity is easy, fast, democratic.

    The most dangerous idea of all is when you say you can put five billionaires in a room and solve world hunger like that, boom. It's just so, so arrogant.