翻译天堂 2016-08-14
王宝强离婚，一堆营销狗或谩骂或扒皮，或伤口撒式盐科普英语知识，耿直如我就没有转，贵圈太乱，不好评价。娱乐女我只服山口百惠和叶一茜。
· 山口百惠1979拿下日本唱片及歌谣连个大赏走上巅峰。同年和三浦恋爱，第二年隐退。
· 田因私接广告，于06调离国队并遭各路官媒讨伐，叶07年嫁给田。
---
---
---
Schumpeter
Beware the angry birds
In the social-media age, bosses’ careers are more vulnerable than ever
熊彼特
提防愤怒的小鸟
社交媒体时代，老板们的职业生命前所未有的脆弱
THE New Yorker magazine ran a cartoon last year of three monkeys in a row: one with a microphone (labelled “hear all evil”), one with a television camera (“see all evil”) and one with a laptop (“post all evil”). Today’s bosses still need to worry about the unwise monkeys of the press. But as big a threat to their careers these days is the risk of being pecked by Twitter’s swarm of angry birds. Thanks to the digital revolution, chief executives now live in glass houses. An ill-judged remark can be broadcast to the world in an instant. An unwise “reply all” can provide sensitive information to a competitor. An exasperated complaint in the midst of a crisis can seal your doom. Tony Hayward, who was boss of BP during the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, never recovered from his plea that “I want my life back”.
《纽约客》杂志（The New Yorker）去年刊登过一则漫画：三只猴子坐一排，一只举着话筒（下方标注“听见所有邪恶”），一只扛着摄像机（“看见所有邪恶”），一只坐在电脑前（“发布所有邪恶”）。今天的老板们仍然需要担心媒体上轻率的猴子。不过，现在有一种风险给他们的事业带来了同样大的威胁：被Twitter上一大群愤怒的小鸟袭击。感谢数字革命，主管们如今住在玻璃屋中。一句失当的话会即刻传遍世界各地。一次草率的“回复所有人”会把敏感资讯提供给竞争对手。危机当中一句恼火的抱怨可能让你万劫不复。英国石油公司发生墨西哥湾漏油事故后，时任老板的托尼•海沃德（Tony Hayward）再也没能从他那句“我想过回正常日子”中翻身。
山口百惠1979拿下日本唱片及歌谣连个大赏走上巅峰。同年和三浦恋爱，第二年隐退
The digital revolution has dramatically shifted the balance of power from companies to their critics. Although big firms deploy armies of PR flacks, anyone with a smartphone and a socialmedia account now has the same power to reach a global audience. Whistleblowers once had to photocopy documents and smuggle them out in their underpants. Now they can be shared with the world in a trice, by e-mail or instant messaging.
数字革命已经使得企业和他们的批评者之间的力量平衡显著向后者倾斜。尽管大公司部署了公关专家军团，如今任何有智能手机和社交媒体帐号的人有同样的能力覆盖全球受众。告密者们曾经不得不复印文件并把它们藏在内裤里偷出来。现在，这些资料可以通过电子邮件或即时通讯瞬间分享给全世界。
Anti-corporate campaigners have taken to the digital world like ducks to water. NGOs are good at finding bad news about companies and telling the world about it on social media. Opportunists have also joined the ducks in the water: there is money to be made by “shorting” a stock (that is, betting that its price will go down) and then unleashing a value-destroying digital storm.
By contrast, companies have failed to adapt. The biggest of businesses with the slickest of publicity operations, from McDonald’s to JPMorgan Chase, British Gas to Qantas, have found that when they tried engaging with tweeters on their home turf, they were drowned in a sea of sarcasm. British Gas’s attempt at an online discussion about its price rises was met with a barrage of tweets mentioning “death” and “greed”. Presumably they will get better eventually. But in “Glass Jaw: A Manifesto for Defending Fragile Reputations in an Age of Instant Scandal”, Eric Dezenhall, an American crisis-management consultant, points to two big reasons why companies are condemned to play catch-up.
反企业运动家们拥抱数字世界就像鸭子爱水。非政府组织擅长发现有关企业的坏消息并在社交媒体上传得人尽皆知。机会主义者也加入了戏水的鸭群：通过“做空”一只股票（押它的价格将下跌）而后发动一场破坏价值的数字风暴来大发其财。
相比之下，企业还没能调适过来。从麦当劳到摩根大通，从英国天然气集团到澳洲航空（Qantas），这些宣传运作最为娴熟的大企业中的最大户发现，当他们试图就本公司业务和Twitter用户交流时，他们的声音被淹没在冷嘲热讽的海洋中。英国天然气曾试图在网上讨论公司涨价事宜，结果遭遇一堆充斥着“死”和“贪婪”字眼的推文狂轰滥炸。想来这些企业最终会有长进。但是，在《不堪一击：一份在即时丑闻年代保卫脆弱声誉的声明》（Glass Jaw: A Manifesto for Defending Fragile Reputations in an Age of Instant Scandal）一书中，美国危机管理顾问埃里克•丹仁赫（Eric Dezenhall）指出企业注定被牵着鼻子走的两大原因。
The first is the nature of the internet. It is a beast that feeds on scandal and particularly delights in the flesh of the powerful and privileged. The media world used to be policed by editors who demanded proof in the form of two sources. Now amateurs can post anything they want online (though they may eventually face prosecution) and editors are subject to the tyranny of the click: the more the stories they publish are clicked on by readers, the longer they are likely to survive in their jobs. Jonah Berger and Katherine Milkman of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton business school conducted a systematic study of 7,000 articles published in the New York Times over three months. They discovered that “highly arousing” content—such as stories that evoke anger or anxiety—was more likely to make the “most e-mailed” list. Stories about evil CEOs make perfect click-bait.
首先是互联网的特性。这是一个以丑闻为食的洪水猛兽，尤嗜有权有势者的血肉。媒体世界过去有编辑维持秩序，他们要求证据至少来自两个独立消息源。而如今业余人士可以在网上随心所欲地发布任何内容（虽然他们可能最终遭到检控），而编辑们屈服于点击率的暴政：读者点击他们刊登的文章越多，他们越可能长久保住职位。宾州大学沃顿商学院的乔纳•伯杰（Jonah Berger）和凯瑟琳•米尔克曼（Katherine Milkman）系统性地研究了《纽约时报》在三个月内刊登的7000篇文章。他们发现，那些“高度激发”的内容，比如唤起愤怒或焦虑情绪的文章，更容易登上“被电子邮件转发最多”的榜单。邪恶CEO的故事是吸引点击的完美诱饵。
The second is the nature of companies. They are designed to stay in business rather than to be good at defending their bosses from scandal. No matter what PR resources they throw at killing a story, NGOs and prosecutors will always have more stamina. In America no sensible firm will risk gambling on a jury trial when a negative verdict could bar them from doing business with the government. (Eliot Spitzer, a former New York attorney-general, exploited this logic to extract billions from corporate giants such as Samsung, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan before being consumed by scandal himself.) No sensible company will go to the mat to protect an embattled boss when there are plenty of replacements waiting in the wings. Look at how BP let go of an earlier boss, John Browne, in 2007, and Hewlett-Packard said goodbye to Mark Hurd in 2010. Both were seen as competent managers of their firms, but they were cast adrift essentially because of fears about the dirty linen of their private lives being aired in public.
其次是企业的特性。企业的设计是为维持生存而不是善于为老板的丑闻辩护。无论他们派出什么公关资源来撤掉一篇稿子，非政府组织和检察官永远有更多耐性。在美国，没有哪家明智的企业会和陪审团的审理赌一把，因为一次败诉可能让它们再也不能和政府做生意。纽约州前总检查长埃利奥特•斯皮策（Eliot Spitzer）在自己被丑闻毁掉之前，就利用这一逻辑从三星、高盛、摩根大通等巨头企业榨取了数十亿美元的庭外和解金。没有哪家明智的企业会为一个遭围攻的老板激战到底，因为有不少人排着队伺机替代他。看看英石油如何在2007年放弃了前任老板约翰•布朗（John Browne），以及惠普如何在2010年和马克•赫德（Mark Hurd）说拜拜。这两人在各自的公司里都是公认有能力的主管，但都被抛弃，主要就是因为公司害怕他们的私生活丑事被公诸于众。
田因私接广告，于06调离国队并遭各路官媒讨伐，叶07年嫁给田
Business leaders are waking up to the threat. A 2013 survey of 300 executives about the risks facing their companies by Deloitte, a consulting firm, put reputational ones at the top. “Reputations built up over decades can be challenged in an instant,” said Jennifer Evans of ANZ bank, a participant. The stockmarket is more sensitive to reputational disasters than ever before. In the two weeks after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, in Alaska, Exxon’s shares dropped 3.9% but quickly rebounded. In the two months after the Gulf of Mexico spill in 2010 BP’s shares fell by half (and have still to recover fully). But business leaders are much less sure about what to do about it.
企业领袖们开始意识到这种威胁。咨询公司德勤在2013年问卷调查了300名企业主管有关公司面对的风险，结果发现他们把声誉风险放在第一位。“几十年建立起的声誉可能瞬间岌岌可危。”受访者之一、澳新银行（ANZ）的詹妮弗•埃文斯（Jennifer Evans）说。股市对于商誉灾难的敏感度前所未有。1989年埃克森公司（Exxon）的瓦尔迪兹号在阿拉斯加州威廉王子湾发生漏油事件，两周后埃克森的股价下跌了3.9%，但很快反弹。2010年墨西哥湾漏油事故发生两个月后，英石油的股价下跌了一半 （至今尚未完全恢复）。但企业领袖们远不清楚该如何应对。
Walls have ears, smartphones have eyes
Mr Dezenhall has lots of practical advice. He tells CEOs to restrict the view into their glass houses: to cover the cameras on their phones and computers with masking tape; avoid the “reply all” function on their e-mail; think twice before sending any strongly worded message. He dismisses the idea that corporate social responsibility (CSR) bestows on firms the PR equivalent of a stock of political capital: digital vigilantes will always assume businesses are guilty and can add the charge of hypocrisy to CSR-obsessed ones, as they did to BP after its spill. He warns against one-size-fits-all approaches to crises: the common prescription to come clean quickly and fully sometimes stokes the fire, he notes.
隔墙有耳，智能手机长眼
丹仁赫有很多实用的忠告。他告诉CEO们，要限制外界窥视他们的玻璃屋：把手机和电脑的摄像头用胶带纸封上；在电子邮件中避开“回复所有人”的功能；在发送任何措辞强硬的消息前要三思。他不认为企业社会责任给了公司用于公关的政治资本：数字民兵们永远都会假设企业有罪，并且可以给那些就社会责任喋喋不休的企业再加上一条“虚伪”的指控，就像他们对漏油事故后的英石油所做的那样。他提醒没有一刀切的方法对付危机。他说，用常见的方法来迅速、完全地撇清干系，有时反而会火上浇油。
Mr Dezenhall argues that the best defence in this age of instant global scandal is to be brilliant at your job. He notes that, a couple of years after the crisis that almost destroyed his career, Tiger Woods was chosen for a Nike advertising campaign with the slogan, “Winning takes care of everything”. Unfortunately, for CEOs it may not: if you are an ace golfer mired in personal scandal you can redeem yourself on the greens. But a boss brought down by a baying social-media mob does not always get a second chance.
丹仁赫认为，在这个即时全球丑闻的年代，最佳防御是把份内工作干漂亮。他指出，丑闻危机几乎毁掉了泰格•伍兹（Tiger Woods）的职业生涯，但两三年后他被耐克选来做一个广告系列，广告语是“赢家摆平一切”。不幸的是，对CEO们来说可能不是如此。如果你是一个深陷私生活丑闻的一流高尔夫球手，你可以在绿茵场上完成自我救赎。但是，一个老板若被社交媒体上穷追不舍的乌合之众打趴下，他不是总能得到第二次机会。
