Behavioral Economics Standard economic theory assumes that buyers are rational creatures who observe supply-and-demand laws. For centuries, this model worked pretty well to explain most economic activity. Two hundred years ago, agrarian Americans decided whether to buy a hoe mainly on the basis of whether it was available and affordable. But in the past 20 years, a school of behavioral economists has emerged to point out the obvious: consumers with higher living standards often make stupid, irrational decisions. We don't simply look at price and quality; we decide how we feel about a refrigerator or even a pair of socks before we buy.
行为经济学
标准的经济理论假设消费者是理性的生物，他们遵守供给和需求的规律。数个世纪以来，这个模型在解释大部分经济活动时从未出错。200年前，美国的耕地者在决定买一只锄头时主要考虑供给和购买力俩个因素。但是在刚刚过去的20年中，学校里的行为经济学家们跑出来指出了显然的事实：生活水平越高的消费者越倾向于作出愚蠢和非理性的决定。我们不仅仅考虑价格和质量；在购买之前，我们自己决定自己对一只冰箱甚至一双破袜子的感受。
Authenticity is a way of understanding this concept. Some see the iPhone as a silly pose; others find Apple products genuine because of their unique design and "Think Different" posture. Gilmore and Pine give a name to this ephemeral dimension of consumer behavior: in addition to the established dimensions of availability, price and quality, we are buying according to authenticity. If Gilmore and Pine are right, the dominant business polarity of the past decade—online vs. off-line—is irrelevant. The crucial factor dividing success from failure in the next few years will be whether a business is perceived as real or fake, authentic or inauthentic.
真实性提供了理解此观念的一种方法。有的人认为iPhone 构造简单；而另一些人认为iPhone 是天才之作，因为它们独特的设计和“Think Different”的态度。Gilmore和Pine对这种朝生暮死的消费者行为的说法是：除了按既定的尺寸、供货价格＆质量，我们还依据可信赖度决定购买。如果Gilmore和Pine的观点是对的，过去支配性企业的吸引力—线上vs线下之间的比较—是不恰当的。决定接下来几年失败还是成功的关键因素将是一个企业是被认为可信赖的or冒牌的，真实的or不真实的。
So how can companies deliver authenticity? What businesses will survive our jaded new form of capitalism? Gilmore and Pine offer two approaches. First, companies can strive to be transparent and exactly what they say they are. Chipotle Mexican Grill—"Food with Integrity"—goes for this approach, as does Honest Tea, the clothier Anthropologie, and Ethos water. These companies use the holier-than-thou strategy. Chipotle, for instance, serves meat only from animals that have never received antibiotics. But striving for complete authenticity can be dangerous. If tainted meat is found in a Chipotle outlet, the reaction could be something like what happened when JetBlue—which claimed to be the passenger-friendly airline—stranded travelers on runways for hours during a February 2007 snowstorm. JetBlue's stock price has fallen from about $12 a share to about $5 a share. Gilmore and Pine note that "being perceived and branded as authentic puts a bull's-eye on your back."
企业是怎么传达真实性的呢？哪些企业将能在我们陈旧的新形式资本主义环境中存活下来。Gilmore和Pine提供了俩种方法。第一，公司努力达到透明，成为它们所承诺的自己。chipotle墨西哥烤肉—“诚实的提供食物”—实践的就是这一方法，Honest Tea，the clothier Anthropologie,和Ethos water都是如法炮制。以Chipotle为例，提供给消费者的肉食全部采集自从未注射过抗生素的动物。但是努力追求100%的诚实可信是危险的。如果在Chipotle的托盘中发现一块臭肉，它引起的反应可以想象，想想当时的情形：向来在消费者眼中一派友好形象的JetBlue被起诉在2007年12月的暴风雪中把客人撂在半路冰冻了几个小时。JetBlue的股票已经从每股$12降到了每股$5。Gilmore和Pine 写到“被理解和被认为有很高的品牌认可度将使你走牛运”。
The best strategy for many companies is to openly fake it, to poke fun at their marketing excesses and admit their inauthenticity. A good example: last fall Verizon (a Gilmore-Pine client) "advertised" on 30 Rock with a product placement in which Alec Baldwin and Tina Fey extolled the virtues of Verizon phones; Fey then looked at the camera and said, "Can we have our money now?" Another example is Dave & Buster's, the restaurant-arcade chain. Dave & Buster's doesn't pretend to be a real arcade; it's a place where adults can drink a martini and play with little toy basketballs. And it's thriving.
最佳策略，对于很多公司来讲，就是公然造假，在过激的营销行为中不断消灭乐趣和默认自己的不诚实。一个很好的例子：上个秋天Verizon公司在（Gilmore和Pine的一家顾客）30Rock放置好自己的产品，然后由Baldwin和Tina Fey在那儿吹捧Verizon的手机如何之好；最后Fey对着镜头嚷嚷“我们该收钱了吧”。另一个例子的主角是Dave & Buster's，餐厅连锁商场。Dave & Buster's没有假称自己的公司是一家长廊商场；事实上它是一个供成年人畅饮马提尼酒并且可以打迷你篮球的休闲交际场所。它成长的很带劲儿。
For the average U.S. company, Gilmore and Pine have simple advice: think less about where to put ads—ubiquity is killing advertising's power—and more about how to shape the places customers interact with their products. Example: REI, the outdoor-gear company. In 1996 REI opened a flagship location in Seattle with a climbing wall and a walking trail. The climbing wall isn't some little display—in fact you have to pay to use it. The location also features a meeting space for local nonprofits. The store was more ambitious than any other the company had built, but it has become the city's No. 2 tourist attraction after Pike Place Market. Consumers bond with REI's goods in a way they never will with an ad. True, only 1.6 million people a year visit the REI store, but Gilmore and Pine reason that creating 1.6 million knowledgeable customers will be more lucrative than reaching 5 million with an ad campaign: "Stop saying what your offerings are through advertising and start creating places—permanent or temporary, physical or virtual—where people can experience what those offerings, as well as your enterprise, actually are."
Gilmore和Pine对一般美资公司有几条简单的建议：对于在哪儿放广告别考虑太多，无处不在会削弱广告的力量—把更多的精力投入到塑造消费者接触自己产品的空间中来。来看一例：REI，一家户外齿轮公司。1996年REI在西雅图开设了一家旗舰店，配有一面攀登墙和一个散步步道。那面攀登墙不是什么小陈列品—你必须付费来使用它。这家旗舰店为本地人免费提供的会议空间也别具特色。这家店比所有已经成立的公司都野心勃勃，但是它在吸引游客方面却排在Pike Place Market之后屈居老二。消费者与REI之间似乎形成了一种契约关系，消费者购买REI的产品，而REI从来不打广告。诚然，每年只有160万人访问REI旗舰店，但是Gilmore和Pine指出创造160万有见识的顾客远比用广告海招来500万顾客更有合算。“停止通过广告策略来告诉顾客你能提供什么，开始创造空间—永久的or暂时的，实体的or虚拟的—人们可以在这儿体验到你所提供的东西，包括你的公司到底是怎样的一家公司”。
Fake-Real
But what if you sell screwdrivers or bug spray? It may not be possible to create a "place" that offers an "authentic experience" that anyone would want. ("Tighten screws all day!" "Tour the mosquito museum!") Actually, once I began to think like Gilmore and Pine, I found myself coming up with seemingly authentic experiences for even the most insipid products. Sell tools? Cover a huge wall with construction materials so customers can try the tools in the store. Bug spray? Try it on a roach. Little boys would love it. Gilmore and Pine understand that in an era when even Wal-Mart is selling organic mesclun and gourmet coffee, people want their purchases to elevate them, to transform them. They want products to connect them to history or to a cause (how many products are "green," "raw" or "eco"-something?). They don't want to cook, but they do want the package on the manufactured food product to say USDA ORGANIC. Does all this striving for authenticity make us more fake or more real? Gilmore and Pine offer a third option: "fake-real." Economic offerings don't have to be exactly what they say they are (Canyon Ranch isn't really a ranch; The Daily Show isn't really a news show), but they must be true to themselves (you actually can transform yourself at a spa; you actually can learn something from The Daily Show). Today you are authentic when you acknowledge just how fake you really are.
冒牌—真实
但是如果你卖的是螺丝起子或者臭虫喷雾器，情况又会如何呢？也许这就不可能通过创造一个空间来提供真实体验给需求者。（“整天都在紧螺丝”“来蚊子博物馆旅行！”）事实上，当我像Gilmore和Pine一样思考的时候，我发现自己在经历一种表面上的真实体验，即使面对的是一种最没味的产品。卖工具？让顾客通过用建筑涂料在一面巨墙之上作画来试验工具。臭虫喷雾器？在蟑螂身上做实验，小男孩子们会喜欢。Gilmore和Pine明白在一个连Wal-Mart都在卖有机mesclun和美食咖啡的时代，人们希望通过购买来抬高自己，改变自己。他们想通过所购物品把自己与历史相连，想要和某个理由挂钩（有多少产品是绿色的、原生态的，或者是生态友好的—还由哪些提法）。他们不想自己煮食，却又极想看到食品包装上印有“有机食品.美国农业部”这几个字。这一切寻求真实的心理和行为使得我们变得更真实了呢or更虚假了？Gilmore和Pine提出了第三种选择：“真假参半”。经济产品不必完全像提供者所描述的那样（Canyon Ranch不是一个大牧场；每日秀也不是新闻联播），但是他们一定得真实面对自己（事实上，你完全可以在温泉中使自己改变一下；你也确实能在每日秀中学到一些东西）。如果你能够承认自身的虚构性，那么你自然明白自己是多么真实。
