????施拉格介紹了幾家消費(fèi)者轉(zhuǎn)變企業(yè)的個(gè)案研究，并列出了它們策略中的共同元素。其一，它們投入時(shí)間和精力，培養(yǎng)消費(fèi)者了解、使用他們的產(chǎn)品。折扣時(shí)裝零售商Syms將這一策略變?yōu)闋I銷口號：“受過教化的消費(fèi)者是最好的消費(fèi)者?！笔├癖硎?，谷歌（Google）培養(yǎng)了一代的搜索用戶，讓他們接受每頁更少的搜索結(jié)果來獲取更快的搜索返回速度，即使他們聲稱自己想要的正好相反（每頁更多結(jié)果，而搜索速度更慢）。這種策略的立足點(diǎn)在于，這種培養(yǎng)最終能帶來回報(bào)，因?yàn)楦斆鞯南M(fèi)者最終也更有價(jià)值。

????以消費(fèi)者為中心的企業(yè)還會確保自己的用戶不必經(jīng)過重重關(guān)卡才能實(shí)現(xiàn)改變。施拉格寫道：“簡潔比復(fù)雜更好。快比慢更好。有回應(yīng)比抵制更好。簡單比困難要好（得多）?！?/p>

????說的不錯(cuò)。但這種看法的基礎(chǔ)是把購買者看作是粘土，只要產(chǎn)品足夠閃亮，他們就就會心甘情愿接受塑造。史蒂夫?喬布斯就是這種態(tài)度的縮影。在《財(cái)富》雜志的一次參訪中，喬布斯說：“蘋果的關(guān)鍵之一是，我們打造真正令我們自己興奮的產(chǎn)品?！苯裹c(diǎn)小組和市場調(diào)研都一邊去，我們想要的才算數(shù)！然而消費(fèi)者，至少美國消費(fèi)者，認(rèn)為自己是獨(dú)立行動(dòng)者?；蛟S是我們天真，又或許是企業(yè)想要讓我們保留這種自以為是智能體的幻想。然而，我們相信是自己選擇了那杯咖啡，那輛車，那部智能手機(jī)，因?yàn)樗鼈兎衔覀兊男枨?。我們改變是因?yàn)樽约合胍淖?，而不是因?yàn)槟撤N利潤中心讓我們進(jìn)入一種新的狀態(tài)。

????成功的消費(fèi)者-企業(yè)關(guān)系不僅僅在于企業(yè)想要自己的消費(fèi)者成為什么樣的人，也在于消費(fèi)者愿意成為什么樣的人，以及他們想要企業(yè)變成什么樣。如果你培養(yǎng)消費(fèi)者為郵寄DVD和流媒體電影支付固定費(fèi)率，然后又突然拆分這兩項(xiàng)業(yè)務(wù)，并要收更多錢，卻不給消費(fèi)者更多的好處，那你就會陷入麻煩。（沒錯(cuò)，說的就是你，Netflix。）

????創(chuàng)造自己喜愛的產(chǎn)品很好，但最好能確定其他人也會喜歡，否則就只是在用公司的錢追求自己的愛好。雖然極少企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者不狂妄自大，但更少人擁有喬布斯那樣的設(shè)計(jì)和營銷水平。施拉格承認(rèn)這點(diǎn)，警示道，并不是人人都能成為為自己而做（DIFY，即Do-It-For-Yourself）的創(chuàng)業(yè)家。他寫道：“如果你不能成為自己最好的消費(fèi)者……那么你就別無選擇，只能更加以消費(fèi)者為重，以消費(fèi)者為中心，更有消費(fèi)者意識。”

????值得贊揚(yáng)的是，施拉格用相當(dāng)多的篇幅論述了要求消費(fèi)者改變所涉及的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。麥當(dāng)勞（McDonald）可能想通過讓消費(fèi)者升級自己所點(diǎn)的餐食來賺錢，但他們并沒有完全準(zhǔn)備好迎接其結(jié)果：體型升級的消費(fèi)者。

????企業(yè)不能決定自己的消費(fèi)者最終會變成什么樣。但這一點(diǎn)從來沒有阻止企業(yè)進(jìn)行這種嘗試。企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者喜歡想象自己擁有重大的責(zé)任，去指導(dǎo)自己消費(fèi)者的生活道路。但這并不是說起來這么簡單。谷歌、微軟（Microsoft）和星巴克這樣的巨頭企業(yè)，改變了我們的行為，并進(jìn)而改變了我們的生活方式。但無數(shù)其他的力量也讓我們發(fā)生了改變，從宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)，到社交、政治，和藝術(shù)。最終，消費(fèi)產(chǎn)品只是一大碗湯中漂著的幾片菜葉。

????譯者：余倩

????Schrage presents case studies of several customer-transforming companies and lays out common elements in their strategies. For one, they invest time and energy in training their customers to know and use their products. Discount fashion retailer Syms turned this strategy into a marketing slogan: "An Educated Consumer is Our Best Customer." And Google (GOOG), Schrage argues, trained a generation of searchers to accept fewer search results on each page in exchange for faster delivery, even if they claimed they wanted the opposite (more result on each page, albeit at a slower pace). The idea is that this training eventually pays off because smarter customers are ultimately more valuable customers.

????Customer-focused companies also make sure that their users don't have to jump through too many hoops in order to change. "Simpler is better than complicated," Schrage writes. "Faster is better than slower. Responsive is better than resistant. Easier is (much) better than harder."

????Fair enough. This sort of thinking assumes, however, that buyers are like clay, ready and willing to be molded if the product is shiny enough. Steve Jobs epitomized this attitude. In an interview with Fortune, Jobs said: "One of the keys to Apple is that we build products that really turn us on." Focus groups and market research be damned, it's about what we want! Yet customers, American ones anyway, like to think of themselves as independent actors. Maybe we're na?ve, or maybe we retain the illusion of agency because the companies want us to. Still, we believe that we chose that cup of coffee, that car, that smartphone because they fit our needs. We change because we want to change, not because some profit center has engineered us into a new state.

????Successful customer-company relationships are not just about who companies want their customers to become, but also who customers are willing to become, and what they want companies to become. If you train us to pay one flat fee for DVDs-by-mail and streaming movies, then suddenly separate those two businesses and ask for more money with no additional benefits, you'll run into problems. (Here's looking at you, Netflix (NFLX)).

????It's great to create products that you love, but you'd better make sure that others will love them too, otherwise you're just pursuing a hobby on the company dime. (See under: Apple TV). And while few corporate leaders lack hubris, even fewer have Jobs-level design and marketing chops. Schrage admits this, warning that not everyone can be a DIFY (Do-It-For-Yourself) entrepreneur. He writes: "If you cannot be your own best customer … you have no choice but to become even more customer-focused, customer-centric, and customer-aware."

????To his credit, Schrage devotes considerable space to the risks involved in asking customers to change. McDonald's (MCD) may have wanted to make an easy buck by urging its customers to supersize their meals, but they didn't exactly prepare for the result: supersized customers.

????Companies can't determine what their customers ultimately become. That never stopped any company from trying, though. Business leaders like to imagine that they have the awesome responsibility of guiding their customers' life paths. (Coming soon: Holy Church of Apple?). It's not that simple, though. Behemoths like Google, Microsoft (MSFT), and Starbucks (SBUX) have changed our behavior and, in turn, the way we live. But so have myriad other forces, from the macroeconomic to the social, the political, and the artistic. In the end, consumer products are just stray vegetables in a very large bowl of soup.

????It's great to create products that you love, but you'd better make sure that others will love them too, otherwise you're just pursuing a hobby on the company dime. (See under: Apple TV). And while few corporate leaders lack hubris, even fewer have Jobs-level design and marketing chops. Schrage admits this, warning that not everyone can be a DIFY (Do-It-For-Yourself) entrepreneur. He writes: "If you cannot be your own best customer … you have no choice but to become even more customer-focused, customer-centric, and customer-aware."