Tylenol is just acetaminophen.

泰諾只是止痛藥。

And Levi's are just jeans.

而 Levi's 也只是牛仔褲而已。

Yet consumers go out of their way to select these specific brands over others.

然而，消費者卻不顧一切，選擇這些特定品牌而非其他品牌。

An economist would say,

經濟學家會說：

"How is this possible that a rational consumer would be willing to pay more for exactly the same thing?"

「這怎麼可能？理性消費者怎麼可能會願意付更多錢買完全相同的東西？」

We love to think about ourselves as rational.

我們喜歡把自己想成是理性的。

That's not how it works.

但事實並非如此。

A very famous study done by colleagues at Duke University flashed either the Apple logo or the IBM logo to two randomized groups of participants.

杜克大學有一項非常著名的研究，他們隨機給兩組受試者看蘋果和 IBM 的標誌。

The study found that after being subliminally exposed to the Apple logo,

研究發現，在潛移默化地接觸蘋果標誌後，

compared to when you'd been exposed to the IBM logo, participants performed better on creative tasks.

比起接觸 IBM 標誌，受試者在創造性任務上表現得更好。

And the argument is that Apple has been telling you this story over and over again, that Apple is the brand for hip, cool, fun, creative people.

而論點是，蘋果一直不斷在告訴你蘋果是時尚、酷、有趣、有創意的人使用的品牌。

This is the true power of brands.

這就是品牌真正的力量。

They can influence our behavior in ways that extend way beyond the point of sale.

品牌會影響我們的行為，遠不止於銷售量。

So, to what degree can the influence of brands wreak havoc on our ability to make rational spending decisions?

那麼，品牌的影響力能達到什麼程度？會怎麼阻礙人們理性消費呢？

This is your brain on money.

你收看的是金錢腦科學。

This is Americus Reed.

這是 Americus Reed。

He studies identity and marketing at the University of Pennsylvania.

他在賓州大學研究身份認同與營銷。

When I make choices about different brands, I'm choosing to create an identity.

當我選擇不同品牌時，我是在創造一個身份。

When I put that shirt on, when I put those shoes on, those jeans, that hat,

當我穿上那件襯衫，那雙鞋，那條牛仔褲，那頂帽子，

someone is going to form an impression about what I'm about.

這會塑造我在人們心中的形象。

So if I'm choosing Nike over Under Armour,

所以，如果我選擇 Nike 而不是Under Armour，

I'm choosing a kind of different way to express affiliation with sport.

我正在選擇用什麼方式來表達自己與體育的聯繫。

The Nike thing is about performance.

Nike 主打性能。

The Under Armour thing is about the underdog.

而 Under Armour 則代表「不被看好」的人。

I have to choose which of these different conceptual pathways is most consistent with where I am in my life.

我必須選擇這些不同的概念中，哪一個最符合我目前的狀態。

And once a consumer makes that choice,

一旦消費者做出選擇，

their relationship with a brand can deepen to the point where they identify with that brand like family.

他們與品牌的聯繫可以深化到他們視該品牌如家人的地步。

And once you identify with a brand, it can shape the way you behave.

而一旦你認同了某個品牌，它可以塑造你的行為模式。

And it's really interesting because they will also,

這很有趣，

because they will also, if someone talks bad about that product, brand, or service,

因為如果有人說該產品、品牌或服務的壞話，

they will be the first to go out and defend.

他們會第一個站出來捍衛。

Why?

為什麼？

Because an attack on the brand is an attack on themselves.

因為對該品牌的攻擊就是對他們的攻擊。

Michael Platt is a professor of neuroscience, marketing, and psychology

Michael Platt 是神經科學、市場營銷和心理學教授。

whose research demonstrates how our perception of brands influences our decisions.

他的研究顯示出了人們對品牌的看法如何影響他們的決定。

There's an idea in marketing, which is that we relate to brands in the same way we relate to people.

市場營銷中有一個概念，那就是我們與品牌的關係就像與人的關係一樣。

It's like, "I love this brand," or, "I hate this brand."

就像，「我喜歡這個品牌」或者「我討厭這個品牌」。

Of course, what people say, right, can often be different from what's really going on in their heads.

當然，人們所說的，往往與腦中真正的想法不同。

So we thought, "Well, why don't we just ask the brain directly?"

所以我們想，「為何不直接問大腦呢？」

Michael and his team observed the brains of iPhone users and Samsung Galaxy users with an MRI machine

Michael 和他的團隊用 MRI 機器觀察了 iPhone 用戶和三星 Galaxy 用戶的大腦。

while they heard good, bad, and neutral news about Apple and Samsung.

看他們聽到有關蘋果和三星正面、負面和中立新聞時的反應。

Apple customers showed a brain empathy response toward Apple

結過顯示，蘋果用戶大腦對蘋果公司有移情反應，

that was exactly what you'd see in the way you would respond to somebody in your own family.

與我們對家人的反應相同。

Strangely, Samsung users didn't have any positive or negative responses when good or bad news was released about their brand.

奇怪的是，三星用戶在聽到有關其品牌正面或負面新聞時，並沒有任何積極或消極反應。

The only evidence that Samsung users showed was reverse empathy for Apple news.

三星用戶大腦顯示的唯一反應是對蘋果新聞的反向共鳴。

Meaning if the Apple headline was negative, their brain reflected a positive response.

也就是說，如果蘋果的頭條新聞是負面的，他們大腦會反映出積極反應。

You know, it really shows us that Apple has completely defined the market here.

這顯示出，蘋果完全定義了這塊市場。

Samsung customers, it seems, from their brain data, are only buying Samsung 'cause they hate Apple.

從三星用戶的大腦數據來看，他們購買三星似乎只是因為討厭蘋果。

The kicker?

驚人的是，

The Samsung users didn't report feeling the results their MRIs showed.

三星用戶表示，他們並沒有感受到項核磁共振結果那樣的感覺。

What was happening in their brains and what they reported feeling towards Apple and Samsung, were totally different.

他們腦中的情況與他所說對蘋果及三星的感受完全不同。

Most people just don't realize that they are subconsciously choosing brands

大多數人並不知道自己會下意識地選擇一些品牌，

because those brands have some kind of self-expressive value.

因為這些品牌表達了某種價值。

You can see there's a lot of power here in terms of shaping consumers' decisions.

由此可見，在塑造消費者決策方面，品牌有很大的影響力。

As we learn more and more about that,

隨著越來越瞭解這塊，

we have to think much more deeply about the ethical, legal, and societal implications of doing that.

我們得更深入思考相關倫理、法律和社會影響。

So, as consumers, what can we do to make informed choices?

那麼，作為消費者，我們可以做什麼以做出明智的選擇？

Well, the best thing we can do is to be aware of the influence that brands hold.

這個嘛，我們能做的就是了解品牌影響力。

I think it's important to always pause and think a little bit about,

我認為不管什麼時候，決定前停下來想一想很重要。

"Okay, why am I buying this product?"

「我為什麼要買這個產品？」

And like it or not, brands aren't going anywhere.

不管喜歡與否，品牌這個概念是不會消失的。

I've heard lots of people push back and say that, "I'm not into brands."

我聽過很多人反彈，並說：「我不喜歡品牌。」

I take a very different view.

對此，我持不同的觀點。

They're not doing anything any different than what someone who affiliates with a brand is doing.

這些「無牌商家」所做的與大品牌加盟商做的沒什麼不同。

They have a brand, it's just an anti-brand brand.

他們其實有品牌，打的就是反品牌的招牌。

And I think about, what is it that I've learned about identity over time?

我思考，隨著時間推移，我對身份的了解是什麼？

I think a lot of it has to do with the fundamental need that we as humans have to have support systems.

我認為很大程度上，這與人類必須擁有歸屬的支持系統這項基本需求有關。

Perhaps it was the church, it was the community,

也許是教會、社區

it was these other institutions that existed.

或是其他機構。

Now, brands have stepped in as pillars of our identity.

現在，品牌已加入其中，成為我們身份的一環。

So I'm very much motivated to see that in that positive light.

對此，我是抱積極看法看待這一切的。