– 英语/中文 双语歌词

歌词与翻译

[中文]

你怎么解释 当事情不像我们想象的那样发展时？

或者更好的是，当其他人能够实现某些目标时，您如何解释

这似乎违背了所有的假设？

例如：

苹果为何如此创新？

年复一年，

他们更加创新 比他们所有的竞争对手。

然而，他们只是一家计算机公司。

他们和其他人一样。

他们具有相同的访问权限 同样的人才、

同样的机构、

同样的顾问、同样的媒体。

那为什么他们看起来 有不同的东西吗？

为什么是马丁·路德·金 领导民权运动？

他不是唯一的人 在民权运动之前的美国受苦受难的人，

，他当然不是 当今唯一伟大的演说家。

为什么是他？

为什么莱特兄弟

能够找出受控的、 动力人飞行

，当然还有其他团队

更有资格， 资金更好 -

但他们没有实现 动力载人飞行，

，莱特兄弟击败了他们。

这里还有其他事情在起作用。

大约三年半前， 我有了一个发现。

这一发现彻底改变了 我对世界如何运作的看法，

，它甚至深刻地改变了世界的运作方式 我在其中经营。

事实证明，这是有规律的。

事实证明，所有伟大的鼓舞人心的事情 世界各地的领导人和组织，

无论是苹果公司还是马丁路德金 或者莱特兄弟，

他们都思考、行动和交流 完全相同的方式。

情况完全相反 给其他人。

我所做的只是将其编入法典，

它可能是 世界上最简单的想法。

我称之为黄金圈。

为什么？如何？什么？

这个小想法解释了

为什么有些组织和一些领导者 能够激发别人无法激发的灵感。

让我快速定义一下这些术语。

每个人，每个人 地球上的组织

100% 知道自己在做什么。

有些人知道他们是如何做到的，

无论你怎么称呼它 您的差异化价值主张

或您的专有流程或您的 USP。

但是非常非常少的人或组织 知道他们为什么这样做。

我所说的“为什么”并不是指 “为了盈利。”

这就是结果。总有一个结果。

我所说的“为什么”是指：你的目的是什么？

你的原因是什么？你的信仰是什么？

您的组织为何存在？

你为什么早上起床？

为什么有人应该关心？

因此，我们的思考方式、行为方式、

沟通方式 从外到内，一目了然。

我们从最清晰的事情开始 到最模糊的事情。

但富有灵感的领导者 以及受到启发的组织 --

无论其规模如何， 无论从事什么行业 -

所有人都会思考、行动和沟通 从内到外。

让我举个例子。

我使用 Apple 因为它们很简单 去理解并且每个人都明白。

如果苹果像其他人一样，

来自他们的营销信息 听起来可能像这样：

“我们制造出色的计算机。

它们设计精美， 使用简单且用户友好。

想买一个吗？”

“嗯。”

这就是我们大多数人的沟通方式。

这就是大多数营销方式 销售就完成了，

这就是我们人际沟通的方式。

我们说我们做什么，

我们说我们如何与众不同或更好

我们期待某种行为，

购买、投票等。

这是我们的新律师事务所：

我们拥有最好的律师 对于最大的客户，

我们始终为客户服务。

这是我们的新车：

它的油耗很高， 它有真皮座椅。

买我们的车。

但这并不鼓舞人心。

Apple 的实际沟通方式如下。

“我们所做的一切， 我们相信挑战现状。

我们相信不同的思考方式。

我们挑战现状的方式

是制造我们的产品 设计精美，

使用简单且用户友好。

我们只是碰巧制造了很棒的计算机。

想买一个吗？”

完全不同，对吧？

您已准备好向我购买计算机。

我刚刚逆转了 信息的顺序。

它向我们证明的是 人们不会购买你所做的事情；

人们会购买您这样做的理由。

这解释了原因 这个房间里的每个人

都非常放心地购买 苹果电脑。

但我们也非常乐意

从 Apple 购买 MP3 播放器， 或 Apple 的手机，

或 Apple 的 DVR。

正如我之前所说， 苹果只是一家电脑公司。

它们在结构上没有什么区别 来自任何竞争对手。

他们的竞争对手同样有资格 制造所有这些产品。

事实上，他们尝试过。

几年前，网关 平板电视问世了。

他们非常有资格 制造平面电视。

他们一直在制作 平面显示器已有多年。

没有人买。

戴尔推出了 MP3 播放器和 PDA，

他们生产优质的产品，

他们可以完美地制造 设计精良的产品 --

但没有人买。

事实上，现在谈论它， 我们甚至无法想象

从戴尔购买 MP3 播放器。

你为什么要买一个 来自计算机公司？

但我们每天都这样做。

人们不会购买你所做的事情；而是会购买你所做的事情。 他们购买你这样做的理由。

目标不是做生意 与所有需要你所拥有的东西的人一起。

目标是与人做生意 谁相信你所相信的。

这是最好的部分：

我没有告诉你什么 这是我的意见。

一切都接地气 在生物学的原理中。

不是心理学，是生物学。

如果您查看横截面 人类大脑，

从上到下， 人脑实际上被

分成三个主要部分

，这三个部分完美关联 与黄金圈。

我们最新的大脑，我们的智人大脑，

我们的新皮质，

对应于“什么”级别。

新皮质负责

我们所有的理性 以及分析思维和语言。

中间两部分组成 我们的边缘大脑

和我们的边缘大脑负责 对于我们所有的感受，

比如信任和忠诚。

也有责任 对于所有人类行为，

所有决策，

并且它没有语言能力。

换句话说，当我们沟通时 从外到内，

是的，人们可以理解巨大的 大量复杂的信息

，例如功能和优点 以及事实和数据。

它只是不会驱动行为。

当我们可以沟通时 从内到外，

我们直接交谈 控制行为的大脑部分

，

，然后我们让人们合理化它 用我们所说和所做的有形的事情。

这就是直觉决策的来源。

有时你可以给某人 所有的事实和数据，

他们说，“我知道 所有事实和细节都说明了这一点，

，但就是感觉不对。”

为什么我们要使用这个动词， 它“感觉”不对吗？

因为大脑的一部分 控制决策

并不控制语言。

我们最多只能说，

“我不知道。 就是感觉不太对劲。”

或者有时你说你在领先 用你的心或灵魂。

我不想打扰你， 这些不是控制您行为的其他身体部位

。

一切都发生在这里 在你的边缘大脑中，

控制大脑的部分 决策而不是语言。

但如果你不知道 你为什么做你所做的事情，

以及人们的回应 为什么你要做你所做的事

那么你如何让人们

投票给你， 或者从你那里买东西，

，或者更重要的是，忠诚

并想成为其中的一员 你所做的事情。

目标不仅仅是销售 给那些需要你所拥有的东西的人；

目标是向人们推销 谁相信你所相信的。

目标不仅仅是 雇用需要工作的人；

是为了雇人 谁相信你所相信的。

我总是说，你知道，

如果你雇佣员工只是因为他们有能力 做一份工作，他们会为你的钱工作，

但如果他们相信你所相信的，

他们会为你付出鲜血 以及汗水和泪水。

没有比这更好的例子了 与莱特兄弟相比。

大多数人不知道 关于塞缪尔·皮尔庞特·兰利。

早在 20 世纪初，

人类动力飞行的追求 就像当时的互联网公司一样。

每个人都在尝试。

还有塞缪尔·皮尔庞特·兰利 我们认为，

是成功的秘诀。

即使是现在，您也会问人们，

“为什么您的产品 或者说你的公司为什么失败了？”

人们总是给予 你对相同的三件事进行相同的排列

：

资本不足，错误的人， 市场状况不佳。

总是一样的三件事， 那么让我们来探讨一下。

Samuel Pierpont Langley

获得 50,000 美元 由陆军部

设计出这种飞行器。

钱不是问题。

他在哈佛占有一席之地

并在史密森学会工作 并且人脉非常广；

他了解当今所有的大人物。

他聘请了金钱能找到的最优秀人才

，而且市场条件非常好。

纽约时报 到处跟着他，

，每个人都支持兰利。

那我们怎么没听说过 塞缪尔·皮尔庞特·兰利？

在几百英里外的俄亥俄州代顿，

奥维尔·赖特 (Orville Wright) 和威尔伯·赖特 (Wilbur Wright)，

他们没有我们认为的任何东西 成为成功的秘诀。

他们没有钱；

他们为梦想付出了代价 用他们自行车店的收益。

不是一个人 莱特兄弟团队的

受过大学教育，

甚至奥维尔或威尔伯都没有。

以及《纽约时报》 到处跟着他们。

不同之处在于，

奥维尔和威尔伯都有一个共同的目标， 通过一个目的，通过一个信念。

他们相信如果可以的话 弄清楚这台飞行器，

它将改变世界的进程。

塞缪尔·皮尔庞特·兰利与众不同。

他想变得富有， 他想出名。

他追求的是结果。

他在追求财富。

你瞧，看看发生了什么。

相信的人 在莱特兄弟的梦想中

与他们一起流血工作 以及汗水和泪水。

其他人只是为了薪水而工作。

他们每次都会讲述故事 莱特兄弟出去了，

他们必须采取 五套零件，

因为这是多少次 他们会在晚饭前崩溃。

最终，1903 年 12 月 17 日，

莱特兄弟起飞，

但无人在场 甚至去体验它。

几天后我们发现了这一点。

进一步证明兰利 被错误的事情所激励：

莱特兄弟起飞的那天，

他退出了。

他本可以说，

“这是一个了不起的发现，伙计们，

我会改进 依靠你的技术，”但他没有。

他不是第一，他没有致富， 他没有成名，所以他退出了。

人们不会购买你所做的事情；而是会购买你所做的事情。 他们购买你这样做的理由。

如果你谈论你的信念，

你会吸引那些人 谁相信你所相信的。

但为什么吸引人很重要 那些相信你所相信的人？

一种叫做法律的东西 创新的扩散，

如果您不了解法律， 你知道这些术语。

我们人口中的前 2.5% 是我们的创新者。

接下来的 13.5% 人口 是我们的早期采用者。

接下来的 34% 是早期大众，

后期大众和落后者。

这些人的唯一原因 买按键式电话

是因为你买不到 旋转电话不再。

（笑声）

我们都坐在不同的地方 在这个规模的不同时间，

但扩散定律是什么 创新告诉我们

，如果您想在大众市场取得成功 或大众市场接受一个想法，

你无法拥有它 直到达到 15% 到 18% 之间的临界点

市场渗透率，

然后是系统提示。

我喜欢询问企业， “新业务的转化率是多少？”

他们喜欢告诉你， “大约是百分之十，”自豪地说道。

好吧，你可能会绊倒 超过10%的客户。

我们都有大约 10% 的人只是“明白了”。

我们就是这样描述它们的，对吧？

这就像直觉， “哦，他们刚刚明白了。”

问题是：你如何 在开展业务之前找到那些获得它

的人 与那些没有得到它的人相比？

所以就是这个，这个小间隙 你必须关闭，

正如 Jeffrey Moore 所说， “跨越鸿沟”——

因为，你看，早期的大多数人 在其他人先尝试过之前，不会尝试

。

而这些人，创新者 以及早期采用者，

他们感到很舒服 做出那些直觉决定。

他们更舒服 做出那些直观的决定

，这些决定是由什么驱动的 他们相信世界

，而不仅仅是可用的产品。

这些是站着的人 排队六个小时

在 iPhone 刚上市时购买，

当你本可以购买时 下周下架。

这些人 谁在平板电视上花费了 40,000 美元

当他们刚出来的时候

即使技术 不合格。

而且，顺便说一下，他们并没有这样做 因为技术太伟大了；

他们是为自己做的。

这是因为他们想成为第一。

人们不会购买你所做的事情；而是会购买你所做的事情。 他们相信你这样做的原因

，而你所做的只是证明 你相信什么。

事实上，人们会做这些事情 证明他们所相信的。

该人购买 iPhone 的原因 前六个小时，

排了六个小时的队，

是因为他们的信念 关于世界，

以及他们希望每个人如何看待他们：

他们是第一。

人们不会购买你所做的事情；而是会购买你所做的事情。 他们购买你这样做的理由。

所以让我给你举一个著名的例子，

一个著名的失败和一个著名的成功 创新扩散法则。

首先，著名的失败。

这是一个商业示例。

正如我们之前所说，成功的秘诀

是金钱和合适的人 以及合适的市场条件。

那么你应该会成功。

看看 TiVo。

从TiVo问世起 大约八九年前

至今，

它们是最高质量的 市场上的产品，

毫无疑问，没有争议。

他们的资金非常充足。

市场状况非常好。

我的意思是，我们使用 TiVo 作为动词。

我把 TiVo 东西放在我的垃圾上 时代华纳 DVR 始终如此。

（笑声）

但 TiVo 在商业上失败了。

他们从来没有赚过钱。

当他们进行 IPO 时，

他们的股票价格约为 30 或 40 美元

然后暴跌， 而且其交易价格从未超过 10。

事实上，我不认为 它的交易价格甚至超过了六，

，除了几个小峰值。

因为你看，当 TiVo 推出了他们的产品，

他们告诉我们他们拥有什么。

他们说，“我们有一个产品 暂停直播电视、

跳过广告、倒带直播电视 并记住您的观看习惯

你甚至没有问。”

而愤世嫉俗的大多数人说，

“我们不相信你。

我们不需要它。我们不喜欢它。

你吓到我们了。”

如果他们说，

“如果你是那种人 谁喜欢完全控制

生活的各个方面，

男孩，我们有适合您的产品吗？

它会暂停电视直播、跳过广告、

记住您的观看习惯等等。"

人们不会购买您所做的事情；而是会记住您的观看习惯。 他们购买你这样做的原因，

而你所做的只是为了服务 作为你所相信的证据。

现在让我给你一个成功的例子 创新扩散法则。

1963 年夏天，

250,000 人出现 在华盛顿

的购物中心听金博士讲话。

他们没有发出邀请，

也没有网站 检查日期。

你是怎么做到的？

好吧，金博士 并不是美国

唯一一位伟大的演说家。

他不是唯一的人 在美国，在民权运动之前的美国遭受

。

事实上，他的一些想法很糟糕。

但他有天赋。

他没有到处告诉别人 美国需要改变什么。

他四处走动 并告诉人们他的信仰。

“我相信，我相信，我相信，” 他告诉人们。

那些相信他所相信的人

接受了他的事业，他们成功了 他们自己的，他们告诉人们。

其中一些人 创建了结构

来向更多人传播信息。

你瞧， 250,000 人在正确的日期、正确的时间出现了

听他说话。

有多少人为他出现？

零。

他们自己出现了。

正是他们对美国的信念

促使他们去旅行 坐公交车八小时

，站在华盛顿的阳光下 八月中旬。

这就是他们所相信的， 这与黑人与白人无关：

25% 的观众是白人。

King 博士相信有 这个世界上有两种法律：

由更高权力机构制定的法律 以及那些由人类制造的。

直到所有法律都出台 由人

制造的产品符合法律 由更高的权威

制定，我们将生活在一个公正的世界中。

事情就这么发生了 民权运动

是帮助他的最佳选择 将他的事业变为现实。

我们跟随，不是为了他， 但为了我们自己。

顺便说一下，他给了 “我有一个梦想”演讲，

不是“我有一个计划”演讲。

（笑声）

现在听听政客们的意见吧， 并制定了全面的 12 点计划。

它们没有激励任何人。

因为有领导者 还有那些领导者。

领导者占据一席之地 权力或权威，

但那些领导者激励着我们。

无论他们是个人 或组织，

我们追随那些领导者， 不是因为我们必须这样做，

而是因为我们想要这样做。

我们追随那些领导者，而不是为了他们， 但为了我们自己。

那些以“为什么”开头的人

有能力 激励周围的人

或找到激励他们的其他人。

非常感谢。

（掌声）

[英语]

How do you explain when things don't go as we assume?

Or better, how do you explain

when others are able to achieve things that seem to defy all of the assumptions?

For example:

Why is Apple so innovative?

Year after year, after year,

they're more innovative than all their competition.

And yet, they're just a computer company.

They're just like everyone else.

They have the same access to the same talent,

the same agencies,

the same consultants, the same media.

Then why is it that they seem to have something different?

Why is it that Martin Luther King led the Civil Rights Movement?

He wasn't the only man who suffered in pre-civil rights America,

and he certainly wasn't the only great orator of the day.

Why him?

And why is it that the Wright brothers

were able to figure out controlled, powered man flight

when there were certainly other teams

who were better qualified, better funded --

and they didn't achieve powered man flight,

and the Wright brothers beat them to it.

There's something else at play here.

About three and a half years ago, I made a discovery.

And this discovery profoundly changed my view on how I thought the world worked,

and it even profoundly changed the way in which I operate in it.

As it turns out, there's a pattern.

As it turns out, all the great inspiring leaders and organizations in the world,

whether it's Apple or Martin Luther King or the Wright brothers,

they all think, act and communicate the exact same way.

And it's the complete opposite to everyone else.

All I did was codify it,

and it's probably the world's simplest idea.

I call it the golden circle.

Why? How? What?

This little idea explains

why some organizations and some leaders are able to inspire where others aren't.

Let me define the terms really quickly.

Every single person, every single organization on the planet

knows what they do, 100 percent.

Some know how they do it,

whether you call it your differentiated value proposition

or your proprietary process or your USP.

But very, very few people or organizations know why they do what they do.

And by "why" I don't mean "to make a profit."

That's a result. It's always a result.

By "why," I mean: What's your purpose?

What's your cause? What's your belief?

Why does your organization exist?

Why do you get out of bed in the morning?

And why should anyone care?

As a result, the way we think, we act,

the way we communicate is from the outside in, it's obvious.

We go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest thing.

But the inspired leaders and the inspired organizations --

regardless of their size, regardless of their industry --

all think, act and communicate from the inside out.

Let me give you an example.

I use Apple because they're easy to understand and everybody gets it.

If Apple were like everyone else,

a marketing message from them might sound like this:

"We make great computers.

They're beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly.

Want to buy one?"

"Meh."

That's how most of us communicate.

That's how most marketing and sales are done,

that's how we communicate interpersonally.

We say what we do,

we say how we're different or better

and we expect some sort of a behavior,

a purchase, a vote, something like that.

Here's our new law firm:

We have the best lawyers with the biggest clients,

we always perform for our clients.

Here's our new car:

It gets great gas mileage, it has leather seats.

Buy our car.

But it's uninspiring.

Here's how Apple actually communicates.

"Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo.

We believe in thinking differently.

The way we challenge the status quo

is by making our products beautifully designed,

simple to use and user friendly.

We just happen to make great computers.

Want to buy one?"

Totally different, right?

You're ready to buy a computer from me.

I just reversed the order of the information.

What it proves to us is that people don't buy what you do;

people buy why you do it.

This explains why every single person in this room

is perfectly comfortable buying a computer from Apple.

But we're also perfectly comfortable

buying an MP3 player from Apple, or a phone from Apple,

or a DVR from Apple.

As I said before, Apple's just a computer company.

Nothing distinguishes them structurally from any of their competitors.

Their competitors are equally qualified to make all of these products.

In fact, they tried.

A few years ago, Gateway came out with flat-screen TVs.

They're eminently qualified to make flat-screen TVs.

They've been making flat-screen monitors for years.

Nobody bought one.

Dell came out with MP3 players and PDAs,

and they make great quality products,

and they can make perfectly well-designed products --

and nobody bought one.

In fact, talking about it now, we can't even imagine

buying an MP3 player from Dell.

Why would you buy one from a computer company?

But we do it every day.

People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.

The goal is not to do business with everybody who needs what you have.

The goal is to do business with people who believe what you believe.

Here's the best part:

None of what I'm telling you is my opinion.

It's all grounded in the tenets of biology.

Not psychology, biology.

If you look at a cross-section of the human brain,

from the top down, the human brain is actually broken

into three major components

that correlate perfectly with the golden circle.

Our newest brain, our Homo sapien brain,

our neocortex,

corresponds with the "what" level.

The neocortex is responsible

for all of our rational and analytical thought and language.

The middle two sections make up our limbic brains,

and our limbic brains are responsible for all of our feelings,

like trust and loyalty.

It's also responsible for all human behavior,

all decision-making,

and it has no capacity for language.

In other words, when we communicate from the outside in,

yes, people can understand vast amounts of complicated information

like features and benefits and facts and figures.

It just doesn't drive behavior.

When we can communicate from the inside out,

we're talking directly to the part of the brain

that controls behavior,

and then we allow people to rationalize it with the tangible things we say and do.

This is where gut decisions come from.

Sometimes you can give somebody all the facts and figures,

and they say, "I know what all the facts and details say,

but it just doesn't feel right."

Why would we use that verb, it doesn't "feel" right?

Because the part of the brain that controls decision-making

doesn't control language.

The best we can muster up is,

"I don't know. It just doesn't feel right."

Or sometimes you say you're leading with your heart or soul.

I hate to break it to you, those aren't other body parts

controlling your behavior.

It's all happening here in your limbic brain,

the part of the brain that controls decision-making and not language.

But if you don't know why you do what you do,

and people respond to why you do what you do,

then how will you ever get people

to vote for you, or buy something from you,

or, more importantly, be loyal

and want to be a part of what it is that you do.

The goal is not just to sell to people who need what you have;

the goal is to sell to people who believe what you believe.

The goal is not just to hire people who need a job;

it's to hire people who believe what you believe.

I always say that, you know,

if you hire people just because they can do a job, they'll work for your money,

but if they believe what you believe,

they'll work for you with blood and sweat and tears.

Nowhere else is there a better example than with the Wright brothers.

Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont Langley.

And back in the early 20th century,

the pursuit of powered man flight was like the dot com of the day.

Everybody was trying it.

And Samuel Pierpont Langley had, what we assume,

to be the recipe for success.

Even now, you ask people,

"Why did your product or why did your company fail?"

and people always give you the same permutation

of the same three things:

under-capitalized, the wrong people, bad market conditions.

It's always the same three things, so let's explore that.

Samuel Pierpont Langley

was given 50,000 dollars by the War Department

to figure out this flying machine.

Money was no problem.

He held a seat at Harvard

and worked at the Smithsonian and was extremely well-connected;

he knew all the big minds of the day.

He hired the best minds money could find

and the market conditions were fantastic.

The New York Times followed him around everywhere,

and everyone was rooting for Langley.

Then how come we've never heard of Samuel Pierpont Langley?

A few hundred miles away in Dayton, Ohio,

Orville and Wilbur Wright,

they had none of what we consider to be the recipe for success.

They had no money;

they paid for their dream with the proceeds from their bicycle shop.

Not a single person on the Wright brothers' team

had a college education,

not even Orville or Wilbur.

And The New York Times followed them around nowhere.

The difference was,

Orville and Wilbur were driven by a cause, by a purpose, by a belief.

They believed that if they could figure out this flying machine,

it'll change the course of the world.

Samuel Pierpont Langley was different.

He wanted to be rich, and he wanted to be famous.

He was in pursuit of the result.

He was in pursuit of the riches.

And lo and behold, look what happened.

The people who believed in the Wright brothers' dream

worked with them with blood and sweat and tears.

The others just worked for the paycheck.

They tell stories of how every time the Wright brothers went out,

they would have to take five sets of parts,

because that's how many times they would crash before supper.

And, eventually, on December 17th, 1903,

the Wright brothers took flight,

and no one was there to even experience it.

We found out about it a few days later.

And further proof that Langley was motivated by the wrong thing:

the day the Wright brothers took flight,

he quit.

He could have said,

"That's an amazing discovery, guys,

and I will improve upon your technology," but he didn't.

He wasn't first, he didn't get rich, he didn't get famous, so he quit.

People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.

If you talk about what you believe,

you will attract those who believe what you believe.

But why is it important to attract those who believe what you believe?

Something called the law of diffusion of innovation,

if you don't know the law, you know the terminology.

The first 2.5% of our population are our innovators.

The next 13.5% of our population are our early adopters.

The next 34% are your early majority,

your late majority and your laggards.

The only reason these people buy touch-tone phones

is because you can't buy rotary phones anymore.

(Laughter)

We all sit at various places at various times on this scale,

but what the law of diffusion of innovation tells us

is that if you want mass-market success or mass-market acceptance of an idea,

you cannot have it until you achieve this tipping point

between 15 and 18 percent market penetration,

and then the system tips.

I love asking businesses, "What's your conversion on new business?"

They love to tell you, "It's about 10 percent," proudly.

Well, you can trip over 10% of the customers.

We all have about 10% who just "get it."

That's how we describe them, right?

That's like that gut feeling, "Oh, they just get it."

The problem is: How do you find the ones that get it

before doing business versus the ones who don't get it?

So it's this here, this little gap that you have to close,

as Jeffrey Moore calls it, "Crossing the Chasm" --

because, you see, the early majority will not try something

until someone else has tried it first.

And these guys, the innovators and the early adopters,

they're comfortable making those gut decisions.

They're more comfortable making those intuitive decisions

that are driven by what they believe about the world

and not just what product is available.

These are the people who stood in line for six hours

to buy an iPhone when they first came out,

when you could have bought one off the shelf the next week.

These are the people who spent 40,000 dollars

on flat-screen TVs when they first came out,

even though the technology was substandard.

And, by the way, they didn't do it because the technology was so great;

they did it for themselves.

It's because they wanted to be first.

People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it

and what you do simply proves what you believe.

In fact, people will do the things that prove what they believe.

The reason that person bought the iPhone in the first six hours,

stood in line for six hours,

was because of what they believed about the world,

and how they wanted everybody to see them:

they were first.

People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.

So let me give you a famous example,

a famous failure and a famous success of the law of diffusion of innovation.

First, the famous failure.

It's a commercial example.

As we said before, the recipe for success

is money and the right people and the right market conditions.

You should have success then.

Look at TiVo.

From the time TiVo came out about eight or nine years ago

to this current day,

they are the single highest-quality product on the market,

hands down, there is no dispute.

They were extremely well-funded.

Market conditions were fantastic.

I mean, we use TiVo as verb.

I TiVo stuff on my piece-of-junk Time Warner DVR all the time.

(Laughter)

But TiVo's a commercial failure.

They've never made money.

And when they went IPO,

their stock was at about 30 or 40 dollars

and then plummeted, and it's never traded above 10.

In fact, I don't think it's even traded above six,

except for a couple of little spikes.

Because you see, when TiVo launched their product,

they told us all what they had.

They said, "We have a product that pauses live TV,

skips commercials, rewinds live TV and memorizes your viewing habits

without you even asking."

And the cynical majority said,

"We don't believe you.

We don't need it. We don't like it.

You're scaring us."

What if they had said,

"If you're the kind of person who likes to have total control

over every aspect of your life,

boy, do we have a product for you.

It pauses live TV, skips commercials,

memorizes your viewing habits, etc., etc."

People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it,

and what you do simply serves as the proof of what you believe.

Now let me give you a successful example of the law of diffusion of innovation.

In the summer of 1963,

250,000 people showed up on the mall in Washington

to hear Dr. King speak.

They sent out no invitations,

and there was no website to check the date.

How do you do that?

Well, Dr. King wasn't the only man in America

who was a great orator.

He wasn't the only man in America who suffered

in a pre-civil rights America.

In fact, some of his ideas were bad.

But he had a gift.

He didn't go around telling people what needed to change in America.

He went around and told people what he believed.

"I believe, I believe, I believe," he told people.

And people who believed what he believed

took his cause, and they made it their own, and they told people.

And some of those people created structures

to get the word out to even more people.

And lo and behold, 250,000 people showed up

on the right day at the right time to hear him speak.

How many of them showed up for him?

Zero.

They showed up for themselves.

It's what they believed about America

that got them to travel in a bus for eight hours

to stand in the sun in Washington in the middle of August.

It's what they believed, and it wasn't about black versus white:

25% of the audience was white.

Dr. King believed that there are two types of laws in this world:

those that are made by a higher authority and those that are made by men.

And not until all the laws that are made by men

are consistent with the laws made by the higher authority

will we live in a just world.

It just so happened that the Civil Rights Movement

was the perfect thing to help him bring his cause to life.

We followed, not for him, but for ourselves.

By the way, he gave the "I have a dream" speech,

not the "I have a plan" speech.

(Laughter)

Listen to politicians now, with their comprehensive 12-point plans.

They're not inspiring anybody.

Because there are leaders and there are those who lead.

Leaders hold a position of power or authority,

but those who lead inspire us.

Whether they're individuals or organizations,

we follow those who lead, not because we have to,

but because we want to.

We follow those who lead, not for them, but for ourselves.

And it's those who start with "why"

that have the ability to inspire those around them

or find others who inspire them.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)

重点词汇

词汇	含义
defy /dɪˈfaɪ/ B2	verb - 违抗, 蔑视
innovative /ˈɪn.ə.veɪ.tɪv/ B2	adjective - 创新的, 革新的
orator /ˈɒr.ə.tər/ C2	noun - 演说家, 雄辩家
profoundly /prəˈfaʊnd.li/ C1	adverb - 深刻地, 极度地
codify /ˈkəʊ.dɪ.faɪ/ C2	verb - 编纂, 整理成系统
proprietary /prəˈpraɪə.tər.i/ C1	adjective - 专利的, 私有的, 所有的
fuzzy /ˈfʌz.i/ B2	adjective - 模糊的, 失真的
interpersonally /ˌɪn.təˈpɜː.sən.əl.i/ C1	adverb - 人际地, 个人与个人之间地
distinguish /dɪˈstɪŋ.ɡwɪʃ/ B2	verb - 区分, 辨别, 突出
eminently /ˈem.ɪ.nənt.li/ C1	adverb - 杰出地, 极其
tenet /ˈten.ɪt/ C2	noun - 宗旨, 原则, 信条
correlate /ˈkɒr.ə.leɪt/ C1	verb - 相互关联, 发生联系
rationalize /ˈræʃ.ən.əl.aɪz/ C1	verb - 合理化, 为...辯解
tangible /ˈtæn.dʒə.bəl/ C1	adjective - 有形的, 实际的, 明白的
muster /ˈmʌs.tər/ C2	verb - 召集, 聚集, 鼓起(勇气)
permutation /ˌpɜː.mjuːˈteɪ.ʃən/ C2	noun - 排列, 交换
laggard /ˈlæɡ.ɑːd/ C2	noun - 落后者, 迟缓者
chasm /ˈkæz.əm/ C2	noun - 深渊, 大峡谷, 巨大的分歧
substandard /ˌsʌbˈstæn.dəd/ C1	adjective - 低于标准或规定水平的, 不够好的
plummet /ˈplʌm.ɪt/ C1	verb - 垂直落下, 暴跌