個性化時代還沒有到來大綱

As 2014 drew to a close, I became one of the last baby boomers to turn 50. Or possibly, I became one of the first Generation Xers to reach that milestone. Depending where you draw the line, either I am about to enjoy the fruits of half a century of increasing affluence and entitlement, having climbed to the top of the hierarchy I help sustain; or I am entering a period of resentment about my smug elders’ lockhold on the best jobs and homes and the damage they have inflicted on the environment and humankind.
到2014年年底，我成爲了嬰兒潮一代中最後一批步入50歲的人。或者說，我成爲了X一代(Generation X)中首批到達50歲的人。根據不同的分界線，我或者是作爲維持社會階層結構並爬上了頂端的人，即將享受半個世紀以來日益增長的財富和福利的果實；或者是，對自命不凡的長者牢牢佔據了最好的工作和房子、並對環境和人類造成損害，我開始步入一段憤怒的時期。

I am part of Generation Cusp. Businesses that treat me as a boomer will vex me with advertisements for products intended for grumpy pensioners (the oldest members of the postwar birth bulge are now in their late 60s), while those that market to me as a Gen Xer will annoy me by assuming I have something in common with overambitious 30-somethings.
我是處於交叉點的一代。把我視爲嬰兒潮一代的企業，會用針對脾氣暴躁的退休老人的產品廣告來煩我（戰後出生率暴漲時期出生的人中年紀最大的一些人，現在將近70歲），同樣讓我惱火的是，那些把我當作X一代的企業則假設我和那些過於雄心勃勃的30來歲的人有一些共同之處。

Such generational generalisations are only the crudest way companies decide what to sell and how to sell it. But much as I hate the stereotyping, there are good reasons why this will not be the year the personalised product and the personalised pitch come of age.
這種對一代人的泛化不過是企業決定銷售什麼產品、以及用何種方式銷售產品的最粗略的方式。儘管我很討厭這種模式化，但仍有一些很強的原因，解釋我們爲何今年還不會迎來個性化產品和個性化銷售策略的時代。

Experts have long heralded the ability of manufacturers to use “mass customisation” to pimp my training shoes or your car. Insurers are eager to tailor their products to my personal driving habits. Personalised diagnostic tools and drug therapies —linked to patients’ DNA sequences — are on the horizon. With scant regard for our own privacy, we are already volunteering enough information to companies to allow them to launch more precise attacks on our wallets.
專家們早就預言製造商將有能力用“大規模定製”向我推銷訓練鞋，或者向你推銷汽車。保險公司迫切地希望根據我的駕駛習慣量身打造產品。與病人的DNA序列相關聯的個性化診斷工具和藥物療法在未來也可能出現。我們對自身隱私考慮甚少，已經自願把足夠的信息提供給企業，讓他們對我們的錢包發起更精準的攻擊。

But the promise of personalisation has faded a bit since Chris Anderson got marketers all excited nine years ago with The Long Tail . In the book, he outlined the potential profit lurking in low-volume items at the end of the demand curve and warned that the 80/20 rule — the crude assumption that 20 per cent of products account for 80 per cent of sales — would “lose its bite”. Inspired, I spent some time in the late 2000s deliberately tweaking Amazon’s “recommended for you” lists, rating books I owned in the hope Jeff Bezos would find me the perfect novel — until I realised he did not care. Amazon, then as now, would rather sell me more of what I have just bought, or the latest bestsellers, than algorithmically analyse my taste in media and identify a handful of items at the underpopulated intersection of “Bill Murray movies” and “fiction by Richard Ford”.
但自從9年前克里斯•安德森(Chris Anderson)用一部《長尾理論》(The Long Tail)讓所有的營銷人員興奮起來以後，個性化的前景就有些黯然失色。在書中，安德森概述了需求曲線末端銷量較低的產品潛藏的利潤，並警告“二八定律”(80/20 rule)，也就是粗略假設20%的產品產生80%的銷售額的定律將“部分失效”。受到啓發後，我在2000年代晚期特意對我已在亞馬遜(Amazon)上購買的書進行評分，好讓它更換“相關推薦”清單，期望傑夫•貝索斯(Jeff Bezos)能幫我找到最好的小說，直到我意識到，他根本不在乎這事。和現在一樣，亞馬遜更想向我兜售更多我剛剛買到的書，或者最新的暢銷書，而不是利用算法分析我對媒體的品味，找出幾本同時與“比爾•默裏(Bill Murray)的電影”和“理查德•福特(Richard Ford)的小說”相關的小衆書推薦給我。

Amazon’s attitude makes sense. Most companies stick with mass production and common product configurations, for technical or commercial reasons. Even Google— which commands even more data with which to personalise its services — touts its Android mobile phone operating system under the slogan “Be together. Not the same”. Tilting gently at Apple, the advertising plays to the idea that each Android user is an individual, but also part of a like-minded crowd. In reality, Google has to ensure its software works across the greatest number and range of devices, safe from malfunctions, abuses and piracy. The paradox is neatly summed up in one poster showing a crowd of Android robots, each differently dressed and equipped. Underneath, however, they are all still the same robot.
亞馬遜的態度有其道理。許多企業出於技術或者商業的原因，堅持按照一般性產品配置進行大規模生產。即使是掌握了更多數據、因此可以據此對產品進行個性化的谷歌(Google)，對其Android手機操作系統的宣傳語也是“和而不同”(Be together. Not the same)。這條廣告溫和地對蘋果(Apple)進行了抨擊，展現的理念是每個Android用戶不僅是個體，也是思想相似的羣體的一部分。然而事實上，谷歌必須確保它的軟件能在數量和款型最多的設備上正常運行，不會出現失靈、濫用和盜版問題。這其中的矛盾在一幅海報上得到了精妙的總結，海報上有一羣Android機器人，每一個的穿着和裝備都不同。然而，在外表之下，它們依舊是相同的機器人。

Anita Elberse underlined in her recent book Blockbusters — which takes issue with the “long tail” thesis — that companies still mine a great deal of money from a few products that everybody wants to buy. “Because people are inherently social,” she wrote, “they generally find value in reading the same books and watching the same television shows and movies that others do.”
阿妮塔•埃爾貝斯(Anita Elberse)最近的著作《大片效應》(Blockbusters)對長尾理論提出了異議，認爲企業依然能依靠人人都想購買的少數商品賺得盆滿鉢滿。“因爲人天生是社會性的，”她寫道，“他們通常會從閱讀其他人讀過的書，觀看其他人看過的電視劇和電影中尋找價值。”

In fact, research suggests an over-tailored pitch turns customers off. Either they find it too spookily precise, or — as Stanford marketing professor Itamar Simonson has written — they sense that, because it is so bespoke, it will not be a good deal.
事實上，研究表明過度定製的銷售策略會讓消費者望而卻步。要麼是他們覺得定位過於精確，所以心生畏懼，要麼就像斯坦福大學(Stanford)營銷學教授伊塔馬爾•西蒙森(Itamar Simonson)所寫的那樣，因爲定製度太高，消費者感覺不划算。

Generalisation will continue to be a useful business tool. More precise data will allow companies to generalise better. But the capacity for confusion will remain — in part because nobody fits neatly into just one category.
泛化以後仍將是一個有用的商業工具。更精確的數據能讓企業更好地泛化。但困惑還將繼續存在，部分原因是沒人能嚴絲合縫地被歸入一種類別。

One of my favourite stand-up comedy lines comes from a joke in which God toys with the human race he is creating: “I know! I’ll make seven sexes and tell them there are only two!” Lacking His omniscience, companies, generally speaking, would be wise to continue to rely on humans to do their own personalisation.
我最喜歡的單人脫口秀臺詞來自一個笑話，上帝戲耍他創造的人類：“我知道啦！我會創造7種性別，然後告訴他們只有兩種！”沒有上帝的全知，通常來說，繼續讓人們自己進行個性化纔是企業的明智之舉。